Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
She's doing both. At what point does the fetus have any rights, in your mind (again, not talking legally).
Break that down. What is actually happening during an abortion?
At every point at least post-(even minimal) viability the fetus has moral rights, in my opinion. They change and expand over time, particularly with respect to increased viability. They just don't make it morally necessary (though I find it morally preferable in some instances) that the mother give up autonomy over her body.
Pretty sure they're illegal without three doctors signing off that it's medically necessary. Don't know why it would be hard to believe there aren't any.
So in the entire state there hasn't been one instance of medical necessity in the past few years to have a third trimester abortion? Not a single one?
A scheduled C-section isn't really a viable option until 37 weeks or so. I can see 35 as a scheduled thing... but when you're talking about 21-30 weeks, I don't think you'll ever find a doctor who would be willing to do that on a consistent basis, vs. willing to perform an abortion. I think I'd certainly prefer post-viability the chance at a life, but being born prior to that week 30 development point, realistically I'm not sure that's exactly a gift in most cases.
Not where they'd have the ability to convene a panel of doctors.
Which would be a third trimester abortion, and thus would be counted. Or am I missing something? That would still be counted somewhere.
Sometimes it actually does. Some times ot does not. This is a complicated issue, but at all times there should be a distinction between those with a deliberate purpose and those without one.
But that wouldn't have been a viable child, if I'm following. I'm ok with that not counting on the abortion line.
Having a deliberate purpose but not agreeing on the right word to describe it isn't the same thing as not having a deliberate purpose.
But not as an abortion. It's still an aborted pregnancy. I'm just finding it hard to believe that in the last 15 years here in Virginia there hasn't been a single abortion performed in the third trimester.
I don’t believe that the vast majority of those who wish abortion was illegal have any intent to make women slaves. They regard the fetus as a human life and don’t want to see it killed, that’s all.
Which is why I asked, "when" is it ok. You are very exact on this point, saying, "It's removal of access to the prospective mother's circulatory system. That's it". But that's not it. It means death to the fetus. When I say, "Pro-lifers simply want to make sure babies are borne. That's it" you come back with slavery as the direct impact of that decision. Surely you can see that death is the direct result of this decision, right?
I occasionally see people in my little libertarian corner of the world try to equate taxation with slavery, on the ground that you're laying claim to the fruits of somebody else's labor. I agree with you 100% that this is a cringey variant of a reductio ad Hitlerium, and I always roll my eyes when I see this gambit trotted out for battle.
I can absolutely see that. Which is why I say I can see the point the other side has on this.
What’s more important...getting the evangelicals that are already in board with his hypocrisy...or the amount of women he alienates by pushing this?
I agree with you. Which is why I asked the question. If you are against controlling a woman's body-which I am in full agreement with-than you must also be against controlling (in this case ending) a baby's body, right?
I think there are a lot of evangelicals that would rather sit the next one out. But not if this is on the line. And he will not alienate nearly as many women as you make it sound. There are plenty of pro-life women in this country. ETA: Ivan beat me to it.
Women are 20% more likely to believe abortion should be 100% legal in all circumstances.
If the baby's wellness matters, yes.
Well, it doesn't just require a fetus being treated as needing protection. It requires needing protection at the expense of the prospective mother's rights. Which is an astronomical amount of status in my opinion
A little bit less but yes it’s close. The point is women will be big in the next election. I’d also bet women consider this issue more important in voting than men. So this issue would motivate women to vote at a higher clip.
It puts the rights of the unborn fetus/baby on a level playing field with the rights of the mother, as significant numbers of pro-life folks make exceptions for abortions to save the mother's life. But only in certain areas, and consciously only until birth at which point the little baby is on its own, government get out of the way!
Sure and I addressed that in my reply to him. The issue isn’t just what percentage support, it’s where they view it as impotvs men.
No, it doesn't. It elevates the fetus's rights significantly over the rights of the prospective mother.
I somewhat see what you're saying, but from my perspective it's a relatively equal position in terms of rights in that if the baby shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the mother, and likewise the mother shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the baby in the case of pro-life folks.
Again, if you wake up with your circulatory system tied into a famous violinist and he will die if you disconnect yourself but will live if you stay hooked into him for nine months, are you obligated to lay there for nine months?
So you're describing medical malpractice, and potentially insurance fraud. Just want to be sure we're on the same page here.
From a legal standpoint:
In this hypothetical, how did the person with the circulatory system tied into the famous violinist get there in the first place? Were they kidnapped and hooked in against their will?
No.
If we take rape out of the equation, (likely an extremely small number of the overall abortions), your analogy fails becused no one just “wakes up” to a baby. They knowingly engage in activities that cause pregnancy.
I posted it earlier that they were kidnapped. If it makes a difference, give multiple answers. If they got drunk and woke up that way and can't remember, or if they got drunk and said "I'll lay down next to him as long as you promise you won't take the caps off of the needles to those tubes", or if they were kidnapped, or if they said "as long as you promise to take precautions so that I won't have to be tied in for nine months." Whatever.
That can cause pregnancy. That's not the same thing as will cause pregnancy. Also, the number of times men say they'll use a condom and don't or birth control fails, or lots of other things happen are relevant.
That is kind of what I was wondering. In Henry's example, the "kidnapping victim" is in cahoots with the kidnapper, isn't she? I mean, with the obvious exception of women who are forced, every woman who willingly engages in sex knows (or damn well should) that pregnancy is a possible outcome. I get the point of what he's saying but I guess I struggle with her being labeled a victim taken against her will. To me, that absolves her of her accountability.
