Abortion Trade Off/Compromise

[Seymour Flops]

I'd support allowing abortion up to the 8th week - as a compromise. That's when brain activity starts.

Yes, scientifically, a newly fertilized egg has unique DNA, and therefore is a unique human being that is inside of the mother, and is not just one of the mother's parts. But never will everyone agree on that, so X number of weeks is a good compromise.

So is allowing states to decide.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry.
Until the fetus is viable it should. no make that MUST, be the woman's choice.

Using government to enforce one's personal religious convictions is not Conservative but is certainly a sign of a Theocracy.

I find that argument interesting for two reasons:

1) Any fetus is viable, even right after conception. Leave it alone and it will thrive and live to an average age of seventy-plus in most cases, with no effort from the mother or doctors until it is born. Some overweight women have been surpised to go into labor, never having realized they were pregnant.

I get that you mean something like "viable if it hypothetically came out of the womb at this stage of gestation. But that implies that the mother has to make some extrordinary effort to nurture it. Truth is, that if the mother keeps feeding herself, the fetus will be fed sufficiently, and if she keeps breathing, the fetus will get oxygen. Her body is designed to prioritize nutrition for the developing baby.

It is getting rid of the baby that requires effort and decision making by the mother.

2) I never see people who oppose abortion after viability offer an alternative. Is it "suck it up buttercup, and have that kid?" Or is it "you can have a c-section or induced labor, but we will not kill the baby?"

If it is the former, what is your justification for enforcing your religious or non-religions convictions on that woman?

 

[Independent thinker]

Obviously you're too stupid to understand the definition of "viable"

Maybe take a few minutes from your poop throwing to look it up.

So, I ask yet again, for the one hundredth time, how many weeks into a pregnancy do women no longer have the right to choose?

 

[Dadoalex]

I find that argument interesting for two reasons:

1) Any fetus is viable, even right after conception. Leave it alone and it will thrive and live to an average age of seventy-plus in most cases, with no effort from the mother or doctors until it is born. Some overweight women have been surpised to go into labor, never having realized they were pregnant.

I get that you mean something like "viable if it hypothetically came out of the womb at this stage of gestation. But that implies that the mother has to make some extrordinary effort to nurture it. Truth is, that if the mother keeps feeding herself, the fetus will be fed sufficiently, and if she keeps breathing, the fetus will get oxygen. Her body is designed to prioritize nutrition for the developing baby.

It is getting rid of the baby that requires effort and decision making by the mother.

2) I never see people who oppose abortion after viability offer an alternative. Is it "suck it up buttercup, and have that kid?" Or is it "you can have a c-section or induced labor, but we will not kill the baby?"

If it is the former, what is your justification for enforcing your religious or non-religions convictions on that woman?

1. Obviously you do not know, or choose to ignore, the meaning of "viability" in this context.

2. Once the fetus is viable then aborting is, in my mind, the moral equivalent of murder.

Up to the point of viability the woman and her doctor should be the only ones involved in the decision. After that, I think some process that accounts for the woman's health and fetus viability should be put in place. Say, a panel consisting of the woman's doctor, 2 neonatal specialists would be needed in unanimous agreement based solely on medical information to allow the procedure.

 

[initforme]

What about rape? Incest?

 

[Anathema]

how many weeks into a pregnancy do women no longer have the right to choose?

Zero (0). The moment of CHOICE occurred when she willingly and knowingly engaged in the sexual act.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

1. Not all pharmaceutical abortions or spontaneous miscarriages are “complete”.

Even if the fetus has been discharged, the woman may continue to haemorrhage. Infection and even sterility is likely if this dead tissue isn’t removed or becomes infected.

2. European abortions are available upon request up to 18 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. No European nation set a time limit abortion below 12 weeks. This is yet another example of Republicans lying to you because I know you don’t fact check.

All of them allow abortion after the time limit expired when the health of the mother or the fetus is endangered.

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf

3. Abortion should always be a matter between a woman and her doctor. It’s a medical decision that the state has no right in interfering in. Go with the Canadian option. We have no abortion laws it’s treated like any other medical procedure as it should be.

 

[progressive hunter]

1. Not all pharmaceutical abortions or spontaneous miscarriages are “complete”.

Even if the fetus has been discharged, the woman may continue to haemorrhage. Infection and even sterility is likely if this dead tissue isn’t removed or becomes infected.

2. European abortions are available upon request up to 18 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. No European nation set a time limit bill for abortion below 18 weeks. All of them allow abortion after 24 weeks when the health of the mother or the foetus is endangered.

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf

3. Abortion should always be a matter between a woman and her doctor. It’s a medical decision that the state has no right in interfering in. Go with the Canadian option. We have no abortion laws it’s treated like any other medical procedure as it should be.

its would only be right if the women dies aborting her baby,,

 

[Dragonlady]

Zero (0). The moment of CHOICE occurred when she willingly and knowingly engaged in the sexual act.

You’re using children as a punishment for women daring to engage in the sex act. Children aren’t a punishment. Children should be wanted and welcomed when a family is ready, not inflicted on poor families who can barely afford to raise the children they already have.

With you, the cruelty is always there. The hate shines through. Your life is a misery, and you want everyone else to be one too.


And if she has never willingly and knowingly, engaged in the sexual act, and her pregnancy is the result of violence, does she lose her right to determine her own life?

 

[progressive hunter]

You’re using children as a punishment for women daring to engage in the sex act. Children aren’t a punishment. Children should be wanted and welcomed when a family is ready, not inflicted on poor families who can barely afford to raise the children they already have.

With you, the cruelty is always there. The hate shines through. Your life is a misery, and you want everyone else to be one too.


And if she has never willingly and knowingly, engaged in the sexual act, and her pregnancy is the result of violence, does she lose her right to determine her own life?

youre the one that considers children a punishment,,, and why youre a no good baby killer,,

 

[Dragonlady]

its would only be right if the women dies aborting her baby,,

There’s the heat and massage misogyny that is at the root of all these anti-abortion laws. You hate women, and you want to see them dead.

 

[progressive hunter]

There’s the heat and massage misogyny that is at the root of all these anti-abortion laws. You hate women, and you want to see them dead.

I only hate women that murder their own children,, and skanks like you that promote it,,

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

12 weeks, 12 minutes or 12 seconds after the egg is implanted it's still killing a child.

Soon as the egg is fertilized and implants then it's a child because if you just leave it alone (barring any unforeseen circumstances) a baby will come out of the woman in 9 months.

Just because it's a very tiny blob doesn't mean it isn't a child. It's just the very beginning of a 17 to 19 year growing period to becoming an adult.

So if you abort a child even 1 day after the egg implants you're still ending the life of what will grow into a fetus that will be born and be a baby.

I don't say that out because of any religion or political stance, it's just a fact. Whether you abort it at 3 minutes or 3 months you're still ending a child's life and that's all there is to it. A baby is no less a baby at 3 days than it is at 3 months or 3 years, it's all just a process of growing more and more.

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing, murdering a child. But people seem to think just because it doesn't say googoo then it is somehow not a life.

nope. nothing more than tissue.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

nope. nothing more than tissue.

You’re less than tissue.

 

[Independent thinker]

1. Not all pharmaceutical abortions or spontaneous miscarriages are “complete”.

Even if the fetus has been discharged, the woman may continue to haemorrhage. Infection and even sterility is likely if this dead tissue isn’t removed or becomes infected.

2. European abortions are available upon request up to 18 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. No European nation set a time limit abortion below 12 weeks. This is yet another example of Republicans lying to you because I know you don’t fact check.

All of them allow abortion after the time limit expired when the health of the mother or the fetus is endangered.

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf

3. Abortion should always be a matter between a woman and her doctor. It’s a medical decision that the state has no right in interfering in. Go with the Canadian option. We have no abortion laws it’s treated like any other medical procedure as it should be.

Thanks for your info. Then I retract my compromise.

 

[g5000]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

Well, as I have said many times, the Republican party would gain a lot of ground if they just banned abortions after the first trimester.

2/3 of Americans are opposed to abortion after the first trimester.

But the GOP is all about hate and brutality these days. There is no compassion to be found anywhere.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

There’s the heat and massage misogyny that is at the root of all these anti-abortion laws. You hate women, and you want to see them dead.

Only the scum who kill their own kids.

You’re fucked in the head if you don’t hate those scum.

 

[Dragonlady]

I only hate women that murder their own children,, and skanks like you that promote it,,

You hate all women.

I don’t promote abortion. I promote reproductive healthcare for women. Just the fact that you would refer to any woman as a “skank” displays your hatred and ignorance of women.

And then you wish death on them. Some pro lifer you are.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Go with the Canadian option. We have no abortion laws

Barbaric filth. Just an awful human rights abusing tyranny. The fact that Canuckistanis don’t revolt and wipe out their wicked government demonstrates there’s basically nothing worth saving of your uncivilized populace.

it’s treated like any other medical procedure as it should be.

Why treat contract killing like a “medical procedure,” retard?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You hate all women.

Liar.

I don’t promote abortion.

WHALESHIT, pro-abort filth. You objectively promote contract killing, you promote violence against the innocent - you are a bigot beyond all reason or redemption.