Abortion

@DogbiteWilliams 

Age measures how long something has been in existence.

This is very rarely used as a sophisticated or nuanced argument for abortion.  Most reasonable folks understand the process and the advent of better incubators has made premature births more possible, thus ‘age’ is more arbitrary.

I want to force one of these tyrranical "pro-life" (LOL) bastards to take a polygraph test with a shotgun pointed at his head.  He should be totally aware that if the needle quivers more than minutely, the shotgun will automatically discharge.  The question he will be forced to answer is, "Did you claim your child (or you yourself) was one year old three months after birth?"

Of course the correct answer is "No," because fetal life is not human life.  Humans (like all mammals) breathe in air.  Fetuses are incapable of breathing because their lungs are filled with fluid.

Why would you shoot someone because they used the accepted norm of aging someone that has gone through the birthing process?  If you choose to include the entire process, for whatever reason, okay.  But the doctor simply has always noted ‘exactly’ when he delivered the baby. He cannot always know when the ‘consummation’ was.

Then, especially in old times, more were stillborn, etc.  So, really a now-fully healthy baby is when the aging has been considered successful started — but not that it was not an early stage person already — it simply was successfully delivered now.

If you use what we refer to as the SLED method the ‘L’ — Level of development —and the ‘E’ — Environment — address these issues adequately enough.

Level of Development is almost seen as a copout by scientists and philosophers alike.  

Everyone acknowledges that there is a development process.  Not having developed the ability to breath on its own does not change what it is and what is happening.

For example, an 8-year old girl cannot have a baby because her reproductive system is not developed.  An 18-year old can have a baby because her reproductive system is fully developed.  An 80-year old woman cannot have a baby because her reproductive system is now ‘undeveloped’.

We do not say that the 8 or 80-year olds have less qualifications for personhood.  All three are just in different development stages or personhood.

The other part, the Environment part, people use to include location.  Just because the fetus is not out on its own, they say it is not a human baby — or not yet.

The question is still how does your location affect your value as a human?  

Scuba diver, spelunker, astronaut — how does location change your status?

So, simply being in the womb — another location — should not change a person’s value.

How would the journey through a 7-inch birth canal magically change your status from a value-less human into a valuable person?  Nothing changed except the location.

@DogbiteWilliams 

I have never met one person who added nine months to what is typed on their birth certificate because fetuses are not living, breathing human beings.

So, why should they?  They are not actually ‘birthed’ until they are ‘born’.  This does not detract from the fact that they are still persons or would have become persons.  

No reasonable person thinks simply being able to breathe determines whether you are a person or not.  Many folks have been put on breathing machines because they cannot breathe on their own — no one claims that they are now not a person.  Or that they now ‘stop’ aging. 

Aging does not begin because one can now breathe, nor does it stop simply because you cannot breathe on your own.

Even a dead person is still seen as person —just dead.  A live fetus is simply a person that is not born yet.  All various times and places of the human process.

Aging has been decided to begin at birth but folks still know there was a time of conception and an incubation period of developing.

This does not take away from the fact that a 2-month premature baby can now breathe but moments before could not.

It's not up to family members, rapists or the government to make women's reproductive choices.  Women are not livestock.

This is much more of what people use as their argument now.

They simply do not want children or do not want to be ‘forced’ to have them.

This is always the bottom line argument and that is what they should stick to.  There is no need to be circumspect or try to justify it; simply make this argument and then it is very clear where you stand.

Dogbitewilliams is right. Fetus is not a person in any legal sense. Fertilized eggs represent potential and not actual humans.  Seed is not a tree. No country issues pre-birth certificates or death certificates for aborted fetuses. Dangerous for a woman's established rights to be overridden by theoretical rights of a cluster of cells. Over a lifetime, men release many sperms and women shed many eggs, but they shouldn't be criminalized. It would be ridiculous.

@thirdperson

 Nonsense.  Of course a fetus is a person in the legal sense.  It simply depends on who does the killing.  Kill one and see what they LEGALLY charge you with.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species person sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Due to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states, although 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.

@thirdperson

 Of course the rest of your statement is gibberish as well.  No need to justify it.  For sure, a 6-7-8-9 month fetus is more 'than a cluster of cells'.  No idea if you even thought through the part about sperms and eggs that were not fertilized.  No one is saying anything about that except you -- trying to cloud the issue.

Just say you want women to opt not to have the baby if they do not want to and at any stage along the way.  Simply say you feel the woman's rights are more important than the fetus's rights.

Don't be fooled. GOP new platform is not scaling back restrictions on reproductive freedom according to professor Seppen of University of Texas.  Platform commitment to fetal personhood threatens access to abortion and in vitro fertilization.  It dishonestly suggests GOP support for birth control when congress republicans have twice rejected legislative protection.

That law cannot be construed to imply person hood for fetus permitting prosecution for abortion authorized by pregnant woman. 

At democrat convention, women survivors describe the horrors from overturning of abortion rights.  They almost died from pregnancy complications because of the loss of access to vital medical care.  In contrast, no mention of abortion at republican convention.

No need to mention it because of this:

The Republican Party is abandoning its position explicitly advocating for federal abortion limits in favor of former President Donald Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states approach, under language adopted at a party platform committee meeting Monday.

@Raiders22

 You applaud this? I think that approach is worse much much worse. Federal intervention is what started Roe/Wade due to the extremist states inability to consider what is best for ALL women not just the ultra conservatives who are making guidelines and laws.

States have no ability to protect the rights of all and especially those who do not follow conservative Christian principals, the last thing you should applaud is giving states rights when states are screwing it up and women are suffering because of it.

The conservative states that are taking way and restricting the rights of women are forcing their religious beliefs onto society when the purpose for laws and guidelines is to protect society, not just those who follow and agree with ultra conservative pro-life views.

@wallstreetcappers

 Of course I do. 

It is the next best thing to simply letting the Federal Government ban it altogether.

Very, very rarely is it truly about 'what is best for the woman' -- it is about what the 'the woman wants for herself -- and her alone'.

It is never, never about what 'is best for the child' -- or rarely what the father wants.

BUT I was simply pointing out to the statement/question of why it was not mentioned, that their stance has changed.  So, there was no point to mention it.

Why would they?  What is there to change for them now.

It is a MAJOR DNC issue; it is not a RNC issue at this point.

@wallstreetcappers

 Federal intervention is what started Roe/Wade due to the extremist states inability to consider what is best...

For example, would you say this if the Federal Government had banned it outright, which I am sure in your opinion would be much more 'extremist'.  Then what if some states or folks wanted it but then it would not be an option.

You simply wanted it left that way because it agreed with your stance.

50 individual states united to form a Union, NOT a single State for a reason.

This is a very good example of this.  Never wanting 'to err on the side of caution/right' should NEVER be forced on the whole for simply 'an agenda'. Etc., etc.

@Raiders22

 Well you are not considering all of society with your narrow minded views or thinking that states who restrict the rights of women can properly legislate the needs of all in society not just narrow minded Christian politicians. 

Nothing at all to applaud when one group takes away the rights of another based on their own personal views and are not considering those who are different and who do not share the same restrictive moral views that those controlling laws and guidelines do.

No more proof is needed than to see what Arizona did recently.

@Raiders22

 Post 88 where you are wrong is that you think I agree personally with the federal abortion guidelines, that is YOUR position that YOU personally agree or disagree with something.

On the other hand I consider the needs and interests of society when I step outside of MY home and interact with society. The needs of a female are greater than the needs you feel you are protecting by restricting the rights of a woman and limiting or banning abortions. My personal views on abortion are to be kept inside MY house and especially as a MAN I have no right or reason to dictate what a WOMAN can or cannot do with regard to their body. 

As a man if you want to restrict abortion then either abstain or wear a condom or get a vasectomy, anything else is none of your business and none of mine. My position with regards to a social issue is what serves the RIGHTS of the female and the citizen, not what my personal abortion position is. I can have my personal abortion issue inside my home and STILL give all the rights that a woman as a US citizen deserves, ANYWHERE in the country, not just in certain places and in other places she has limited or no rights as to her decisions as a woman.

Many secularists have depended the position as well; it is not simply a Christian stance.

The 'rights' taken from the woman are far outweighed but the 'rights' absolutely denied the child.

It is not simply about a moral view; it is adequately backed up scientifically and philosophically as well.

So, yes it should be applauded.

@wallstreetcappers

Post 88 where you are wrong is that you think I agree personally with the federal abortion guidelines, that is YOUR position that YOU personally agree or disagree with something. 

Correct.  You agreed with the way it was and disagree with the way it is now.

The needs of a female are greater than the needs you feel you are protecting by restricting the rights of a woman and limiting or banning abortions.

This is a narrow-minded position to take that fails at every level unless you simply think the woman should get what she wants OVER what the child wants/deserves.  That is a selfish opinion-based stance.  Which is very understandable if you first make a few presuppositions.  

My personal views on abortion are to be kept inside MY house

But you do not do this.  You have made it very clear what you views are.

especially as a MAN I have no right or reason to dictate what a WOMAN can or cannot do with regard to their body. 

This is a classic sidestep of the root of the issue and does not work on more than even this issue.

My position with regards to a social issue is what serves the RIGHTS of the female and the citizen, not what my personal abortion position is. I can have my personal abortion issue inside my home and STILL give all the rights that a woman as a US citizen deserves, ANYWHERE in the country, not just in certain places and in other places she has limited or no rights as to her decisions as a woman.

Again, you really cannot.  Break it down to a very personal level and see how you would feel.  If you agree at that point then you are tacitly okaying something that you do not "view' is really right simply because you want to say another's 'rights' override someone else's rights when they feel like it.

You are then almost doing exactly what you accuse the Federal Government of doing.

@Raiders22

 Oh I have for sure stated what my views are...numerous times. My views for my decisions, my personal singular stance inside my home is DIFFERENT than my views for SOCIETY, very very very different.

As a man the only say you can have is to not have sex, use protection or get snipped. You are not carrying the child, you are not responsible for the impacts of being pregnant or the risks of carrying a child, or the responsibility for being pregnant. As a man your choice is to not contribute the necessary requirements to make conception happen. Unless you are carrying the child you have zero say as to what happens inside the body of a woman.

My social views are what is for the better good for a female in the USA, not in Christian town or in Catholic town or in any religious manner, society is not to be controlled or decided by religious or conservative secular positions because most of society might not agree and deserve to have CHOICE. If you dislike abortions and are pro-life then keep your zipper up and stop making women pregnant. Once the pregnancy starts it is 100% the right of the woman and ONLY the woman.

Funny how you think you understand my personal view on something because I have a different view for society than i do for myself...that is quite telling of you as an individual versus me.

@wallstreetcappers 

Oh I have for sure stated what my views are...numerous times. My views for my decisions, my personal singular stance inside my home is DIFFERENT than my views for SOCIETY, very very very different.

So, when you break it down to a very personal level -- how would you theoretically see it playing out?

@wallstreetcappers

 As a man the only say you can have is to not have sex

Really?  So, if the man wants an abortion and the woman refuses -- where does the man's obligation stop then?

@wallstreetcappers

 My social views are what is for the better good for a female in the USA

Okay -- exactly why is it better?  And why is it ONLY the female's good that you care about?

@wallstreetcappers

 Funny how you think you understand my personal view on something because I have a different view for society than i do for myself...that is quite telling of you as an individual versus me.

Correct.  Because you have stated it repeatedly.  

It is very easy to understand your views on it.

@Raiders22

 #94- My personal views have ZERO relevance on society, my personal views are for when I open and close my door and that alone. It means nothing outside of this.

@Raiders22

 #95- Yes 100% really...if you are against abortion then do not contribute to the process, as a man that is the only say you have in the matter. You are not carrying the child or responsible for the impacts, so our views are of zero value.

So again, when you break it down to a very personal level -- how would you theoretically see it playing out?