Judge Halts Wyoming Abortion Ban Days After It Took Effect

Quality of life always matters.
Now you are changing the scope of your argument

Before you only mentioned self awareness.

As long as there is self awareness , quality of life can be altered.

It could be argued that my quality of life as a child was terrible. I was raised by a drug addicted single mother who overdosed when I was 14 and then thrown into a foster home with an abusive asshole. I left that foster home and lived on the streets for almost 3 years.

Pretty bad quality of life wouldn't you agree?
 
Now you are changing the scope of your argument

Before you only mentioned self awareness.

As long as there is self awareness , quality of life can be altered.

It could be argued that my quality of life as a child was terrible. I was raised by a drug addicted single mother who overdosed when I was 14 and then thrown into a foster home with an abusive asshole. I left that foster home and lived on the streets for almost 3 years.

Pretty bad quality of life wouldn't you agree?
Even in the born, doctors make life and death decisions dependent on the quality of life. It's called palliative care. Or bluntly allowing one to die. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You're allowing your personal emotions to get involved in what needs to be a practical and logical solution fori millions of women. We are used to seeing and caring for many of these individuals but life would be made more difficult and costly for everyone if that number would increase greatly. There are many reasons why not to bring more of these afflicted people into the world. Only one reason to allow it to happen
Logic must rule in the end. Other practical concerns, women over 35 should strongly consider not having children. The odds are against them having a normal child.
 
Last edited:
Even in the born, doctors make life and death decisions dependent on the quality of life. It's called palliative care. Or bluntly allowing one to die. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You're allowing your personal emotions to get involved in what needs to be a practical and logical solution fori millions of women. We are used to seeing and caring for many of these individuals but life would be made more difficult and costly for everyone if that number would increase greatly. There are many reasons why not to bring more of these afflicted people into the world. Only one reason to allow it to happen
Logic must rule in the end.

Allowing a person to die is not the same thing as killing them because some subjective quality of life decision is made by a third party.

Taking a person off of a ventilator or removing a feeding tube is usually a decision made by family members. Recommending that a person stops medical treatments for a terminal illness is a decision between doctor and patient.

If a person is in any state of health where they are capable of living without any medical assistance none of the above applies no matter how you rate that person's quality of life.

And FYI I happen to be pro choice but I believe that when a fetus is viable outside the womb that abortion is not necessary because the fetus can be removed by caesarian section or labor can be induced and it can be delivered and still live at that point the mother can sign away her rights and relinquish the child to the father or give it for adoption.

To me this is the best compromise to keep the vast majority of abortions legal
 
Allowing a person to die is not the same thing as killing them because some subjective quality of life decision is made by a third party.

Taking a person off of a ventilator or removing a feeding tube is usually a decision made by family members. Recommending that a person stops medical treatments for a terminal illness is a decision between doctor and patient.

If a person is in any state of health where they are capable of living without any medical assistance none of the above applies no matter how you rate that person's quality of life.

And FYI I happen to be pro choice but I believe that when a fetus is viable outside the womb that abortion is not necessary because the fetus can be removed by caesarian section or labor can be induced and it can be delivered and still live at that point the mother can sign away her rights and relinquish the child to the father or give it for adoption.

To me this is the best compromise to keep the vast majority of abortions legal
Killing a person never occurs. It is a fetus at best
Is there such a thing as feticide ? I tried to look it up and it said abortion. Abortion is not murder.
 
Killing a person never occurs. It is a fetus at best
Is there such a thing as feticide ? I tried to look it up and it said abortion. Abortion is not murder.

When a fetus is legally a person is the only issue that matters.

I never said abortion was murder did I?

I said I was pro choice didn't I?

I do not see why saying that the less than 1% of abortions that take place after fetal viability outside the womb is a compromise you won't make so that 99% of abortions remain legal.

When the fetus can survive outside the womb because it's organs and nervous system are developed enough for it to do so why not call it a person at that point?
 
We are used to seeing and caring for many of these individuals but life would be made more difficult and costly for everyone if that number would increase greatly. There are many reasons why not to bring more of these afflicted people into the world. Only one reason to allow it to happen
Logic must rule in the end.
Sure, the mother should make the call. Not Christofascists. However, times have changed pretty dramatically for those with Down Syndrome:
 
When a fetus is legally a person is the only issue that matters.

I never said abortion was murder did I?

I said I was pro choice didn't I?

I do not see why saying that the less than 1% of abortions that take place after fetal viability outside the womb is a compromise you won't make so that 99% of abortions remain legal.

When the fetus can survive outside the womb because it's organs and nervous system are developed enough for it to do so why not call it a person at that point?
That's just it. Abortions occur throughout pregnancy and unfortunately most of the most vital ones occur late in pregnancy. So the idea of time limits on abortions is ridiculous. It should always be up to the woman and her doctor. At least we don't abort fetuses just on the basis of sex of the child like they do in China and India. But I have heard " So-called Christians " willing to abort. Their fetus if the gay gene was ever found. Those type of abortions are definitely out altogether.
 
That's just it. Abortions occur throughout pregnancy and unfortunately most of the most vital ones occur late in pregnancy. So the idea of time limits on abortions is ridiculous. It should always be up to the woman and her doctor. At least we don't abort children just on the basis of sex of the child like they do in China and India. But I have heard " So-called Christians " willing to abort. Their fetus of the gay gene was ever found. Those type of abortions are definitely out altogether.

Most vital?

Most fetal abnormalities can be detected well before viability. If the mother's life is ever in jeopardy after the point of fetal viability delivering the fetus is no riskier than removing it via abortion.

I still don't see why you think the less than 1% of abortions that occur after fetal viability are the "most vital".
 
So the idea of time limits on abortions is ridiculous.
No. The idea of allowing abortion at any time is ridiculous.

It should always be up to the woman and her doctor. At least we don't abort children just on the basis of sex of the child like they do in China and India.

But I have heard " So-called Christians " willing to abort. Their fetus of the gay gene was ever found. Those type of abortions are definitely out altogether.
Oh fuck you. (And please don't take that the wrong way; it's a full Texan "Bless your heart.")

Really? REALLY?

In your hellish dystopia nightmare world, it's mandatory to kill kids if they have a disability, and it should ALWAYS be up to a mother if she wants to kill her kid, but if the kid is likely to suck dick, we can't possibly allow the precious little angel to get hurt?

Your bias is palpable here. It almost leads one to speculate as to why you'd want a steady stream of young boys who share your proclivities.
 
Most vital?

Most fetal abnormalities can be detected well before viability. If the mother's life is ever in jeopardy after the point of fetal viability delivering the fetus is no riskier than removing it via abortion.

I still don't see why you think the less than 1% of abortions that occur after fetal viability are the "most vital".
The ones that no one could dispute. Severe chromosomal abnormalities that make it impossible for the fetus to survive and / or situations that threaten the life of the mother.
 

Forum List

Back
Top