a question for democrats about abortion ..

[Blues Man]

ok, then why do you need abortion as a form of birth control? you just defeated your own argument.

I don't need abortion for anything since I am not a woman.

And now I get to ask you to quote me where I said abortion as a form of contraception is needed.

My position is that a woman's body is her own and anything that is encompassed by her body is 100% under her purview

 

[Blues Man]

When is the plug pulled? Let's start there.

When the family or the person with the medical proxy and/or power of attorney decide it's time to pull the plug.

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 641650

What did it look like at 6 weeks old in the womb?

Most abortions take place before the 6 week mark

 

[jknowgood]

What did it look like at 6 weeks old in the womb?

Most abortions take place before the 6 week mark

Then why are liberals fighting against the cutting the legality of them after 12 weeks?

 

[yidnar]

Children can not live or exist in a womb unless that’s what they name their fort or bedroom. An embryo or fetus can exist in a womb

many diabetics or someone on oxygen cant exist without medication or an oxygen tank .

 

[yidnar]

I told you when it is viable outside the womb.

so your views are based on location ?

 

[Slade3200]

many diabetics or someone on oxygen cant exist without medication or an oxygen tank .

True… so what?

 

[yidnar]

A child doesn’t live anywhere before they are born because it’s not a child until they are born and reach a certain stage of growth

has this innocent premature baby reached the required state of growth for you ? because many unborn have been killed by abortion at this stage of development ..

 

[yidnar]

In the case of abortion there is a roll reversal where the Right are acting like Big gov leftists pushing for the state to regulate womens bodies and choices.

the government didnt impregnate them .

 

[Coyote]

is abortion the killing of a human being ? many on the left claim that until the baby is delivered it isnt a baby and therefor it has no right to life [ an absolutely evil vile concept ] so dems answer this question is abortion the killing of a human being in the womb ?

Boy....is this like the hundreth or so thread on this stupid topic? Seems like it.

First - most on the left don't see abortion as black and white as you make it out to be.

Second - if "killing a human being" is vile, you ought to place as much emphasis on ending the death penalty, fighting for the rights of surplus IVF embryos as you do meddling around with women's bodies.

 

[task0778]

First - most on the left don't see abortion as black and white as you make it out to be.

Maybe they should, it is after all the ending of a yet to be born human baby. Granted the mother to be has rights, but shouldn't the yet to be born baby have rights too? I don't hear much from most people on the Left about that.

you ought to place as much emphasis on ending the death penalty, fighting for the rights of surplus IVF embryos

These are separate issues IMHO. It maybe hypocritical to support the death penalty and deny abortion, but one does not invalidate the other. Do you not think it's hypocritical for the Left to oppose the death penalty but have no problem with abortion?

Don't know enough about IVF embryos, didn't know there are political differences about it. Is anybody upset about what happens to surplus embryos once a viable one has successfully been implanted? Again, I do not believe lack of support for those surplus embryos invalidates an opposition to abortion.

 

[Slade3200]

has this innocent premature baby reached the required state of growth for you ? because many unborn have been killed by abortion at this stage of development ..

yes that premature baby has reached a required state of growth IMO

 

[Slade3200]

the government didnt impregnate them .

Correct. The government did not impregnant them. Not sure what that has to do with my comment though

 

[Harpy Eagle]

of course, but your liberal friends disagree on that.

some do, and some of my conservative friends disagree with it as well

 

[Harpy Eagle]

but a bill passed by congress would be unconstitutional, that is exactly what the leaked opinion said.

No, it did not.

 

[Orangecat]

is abortion the killing of a human being in the womb ?

I'm just starting this thread, but am willing to bet there will be a lot of semantic BS about what a "human being" is.

 

[Orangecat]

We do have the right to kill unwanted intruders don't we?

Like the colored kids who cut across your lawn?

 

[SavannahMann]

Ivermectin was developed as a dewormer, or anti parasitic. In other words. It killed parasites inside the body. Human and animals were treated for parasites this way.

These worms can not exist outside the body. Just as a three month old fetus can not exist. You would howl in outrage if I said the endangered species act required you to host a parasite.

But that isn’t the problem. It is a problem of perception and the human desire to make everyone miserable. Your argument is straight from Marx. All value is absolute. You believe the fetus is a person. So you like all totalitarians demand everyone agree with you.

Value is relative. What value anything has is dependent upon the point of view of the individual. For one woman the collection of cells growing within is a treasure without equal. For another woman, that same collection of cells is nothing but a parasite.

Just as for some men, the title of Husband and Father are without compare as to importance. For another, those words mean less than nothing. And there are varying opinions that cover the spectrum.

As it is your right to discipline your child. Including the use of corporal punishment. It is the right of a woman to say no. It is your right to demand your child attend some Worship service. You are free to teach your child anything you want.

But your authority should end where someone else’s begins. That is the mark of liberty. And here be the rub scooter. You want to enforce totalitarian beliefs on others. Hardly the principles behind the founding of the nation.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe they should, it is after all the ending of a yet to be born human baby. Granted the mother to be has rights, but shouldn't the yet to be born baby have rights too? I don't hear much from most people on the Left about that.

When something involves multiple individual’s fundamental rights, how can it be “black and white”? Why don’t I hear much from the right about the mother’s rights?

What you see as “black and white” I see as a series of difficult questions involving our most fundamental rights: life and self. There is no black and white to it, there is no easy right or wrong to it.

Two sets of rights: a woman’s right to her own body and one potential life’s right to develop to birth, or right to life.

It is easy to say “right to life” trumps all, but that means you are choosing to remove one person’s rights against her will, even up to the point of “eminent danger to her life” as in some of these trigger laws.

My questions….

1. Who’s rights are paramount?
2. At what point does one have rights and at what point does one’s “rights” overrule anothers?

Why does a fertilized egg have a greater right to a woman’s body than that woman?

Pregnancy and childbirth are not without risks including mortality. In fact we have been seeing an alarming increase in maternal complications and mortality. I constantly here pregnancy referred as an “inconvenience” for a woman. Pregnancy is not “an inconvenience”, far from it. Having it reduced to that makes it easier to remove rights however (and to be fair, reducing a fetus to a blob of tissue is similar), with the implication that in nine months everything will be back to normal and the woman will happily gave the baby up or keep it.

There is nothing more life affirming or life disrupting than a pregnancy. It should be wanted and the risks and hardships undertaken voluntarily with a woman’s rights to her own body intact.

Rights are typically conferred with birth: citizenship, taxes, property rights, etc. Prior to that they conflict with the mother’s. I find it ironic that many who are libertarian on here are all for rights and freedoms until it comes to a pregnant woman.

I think I’ve said this already but I will say it again. All rights have limits and responsibilities that come with them. We, as women have a responsibility to do several things: do our best to ensure we don’t get pregnant in consentual sex, do our best to fight for access to accurate, evidence based sexual education and to contraception. Routinely, poor women do not have such access and disproportionately suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. To that end I absolutely support free contraception. Countries that offer that have lower levels of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. But not fulfilling those responsibilities doesn’t automatically abolish rights.

If we, as a country, made abortion completely legal, with no barriers, then I see it as a woman’s responsibility, once she knows she is pregnant to make decision, and if it is elective abortion, to have it prior to 20 weeks. That is prior to viability. IMO…viability marks the beginning of individual rights because the individual does not need to exist within another’s body to live. I think that is a reasonable accommodation of competing rights. To that end I wouldn’t object to a cut off for legal elective abortion at 20 weeks or even 16 weeks. But there should be no obstacles then, no extreme laws forcing a woman to make multiple trips to a clinic, forcing invasive procedures or waiting periods, or closing most clinics in a state so she has to travel several hundred miles. It should be completely legal and un infringed upon prior to 20 (or maybe 16) weeks. After that restrict it, but there should always be exceptions for the woman’s life, health or severe fetal defects.

These are separate issues IMHO. It maybe hypocritical to support the death penalty and deny abortion, but one does not invalidate the other. Do you not think it's hypocritical for the Left to oppose the death penalty but have no problem with abortion?

I don’t see it as separate IF the arguement is innocent life. Innocent life is innocent life, right?

And yes, the left can be just as hypocritical if they claim to value human life but support abortion.

I don’t support human life simply because it is human life. If someone stood on the edge of a cliff, holding a baby in one hand, and an embryo int other, threatening to toss them over, I know which one I would save.

If choice was between a man on death row, wrongly convicted, facing being unjustly killed with full knowledge of what will happen to him and an embryo, I know what I would choose.

If I had to choose between an embryo and a dog, it still would not be the embryo, which is at point only a potential.

Don't know enough about IVF embryos, didn't know there are political differences about it. Is anybody upset about what happens to surplus embryos once a viable one has successfully been implanted? Again, I do not believe lack of support for those surplus embryos invalidates an opposition to abortion.

For me, I find it ironic that there is so little attention put on those embryos outside of a woman’s body.

 

[Curried Goats]

Like the colored kids who cut across your lawn?

Those children are most likely to belong to my family, so probably not. I'd certainly remove your kids from my lawn. That's how rights work. I get to decide who's gets to play on my lawn.