Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

Nope. I dont really know Tims positions.

If it were up until birth, I'd be willing to make that concession also. Though I may argue against it as the best course.

Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Okay...let's ignore Tim for a moment. Yay!

Your position is that it is okay for a woman to have an abortion at any time up until the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, correct?

My position that it should remain legal for a woman to have an abortion.

As to limitations on time-frame, I am very okay with the current laws having a reasonable time based restriction.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Ok I got it now, BST follows the Little Piggie Rule - if it cries let it go.

At that point it's not a waxy, parasitic growth with sellable arms, legs, liver, cranium, it's a real live person!

No I don't.

But I do understand the argument and understand why society has implementations as such.

Nuanced.

 

[MaxThreshold]

How much do murdered babies go for nowadays, anyways?

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

Nope. I dont really know Tims positions.

If it were up until birth, I'd be willing to make that concession also. Though I may argue against it as the best course.

Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Okay...let's ignore Tim for a moment. Yay!

Your position is that it is okay for a woman to have an abortion at any time up until the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, correct?

I thought that was pretty much the standard for the pro-baby killing crowd?

 

[tommyboy]

Our Babies are Extra Crunchy!

 

[SIDA!]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

Nope. I dont really know Tims positions.

If it were up until birth, I'd be willing to make that concession also. Though I may argue against it as the best course.

Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Okay...let's ignore Tim for a moment. Yay!

Your position is that it is okay for a woman to have an abortion at any time up until the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, correct?

As to limitations on time-frame, I am very okay with the current laws having a reasonable time based restriction.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you are okay if a state passes a law that places some sort of time restriction on when a woman can elect to have an abortion. Correct?

If that is what you are saying, that is not the question I am asking you.

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remind me again, under the ACA the Feds can approve what tests and procedures a facility or hospital can offer and what they can charge for them, right? Or is medical treatment outside the purview of government oversight? Can't remember. TIA.

 

[SIDA!]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

Ok. Then to summarize.

1. You answered "no" when you should have answered "yes".

2. I did not put words into your mouth

3. As long as the law allows something, you are cool with it

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[Hang 10]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

The minute it itches.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

The minute it itches.

Well fetuses (er "growths") start moving at 7-8 weeks so you just moved your timetable back a smidge.

 

[MaxThreshold]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

The minute it itches.

Well fetuses (er "growths") start moving at 7-8 weeks so you just moved your timetable back a smidge.

And every minute afterwards.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a sec - do growths move? I know some dudes have this problem, but women?

You probably won't feel your baby kick until sometime between 16 and 22 weeks, even though he started moving at 7 or 8 weeks, and you may have already witnessed his acrobatics if you've had an ultrasound.

Veteran moms tend to notice those first subtle kicks – also known as "quickening" – earlier than first-time moms. (A woman who's been pregnant before can more easily distinguish her baby's kicks from other belly rumblings, such as gas.)

Your build may also have something to do with when you'll be able to tell a left jab from a hunger pang. Thinner women tend to feel movement earlier and more often than women who carry more weight.

What does it feel like?Women have described the sensation as being like popcorn popping, a goldfish swimming around, or butterflies fluttering. You'll probably chalk up those first gentle taps or swishes in your belly to gas or hunger pains, but once you start feeling them more regularly, you'll recognize the difference. You're more likely to feel these early movements when you're sitting or lying quietly.

How often should I feel movements?At first the kicks you notice will be few and far between. In fact, you may feel several movements one day and then none the next. Although your baby is moving and kicking regularly, many of his jerks and jolts aren't yet strong enough for you to feel. But later in the second trimester, those reassuring kicks will become stronger and more regular.

If you're tempted to compare notes with other pregnant women, don't worry if your experience differs from that of your friends. Every baby has his own pattern of activity. As long as there's no decrease in your baby's usual activity level, chances are he's doing just fine.

Sure, you make the call.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is it a "he" at 7-8 weeks? That can't be right?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

This is a good point. Doesn't the ACA do this? Are we for government regulation of medical procedures and costs, or against it?

 

[SIDA!]

Is it a "he" at 7-8 weeks? That can't be right?

How do you know "he" isn't a "she"...

EDIT: Sorry...wrong thread.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is it a "he" at 7-8 weeks? That can't be right?

How do you know "he" isn't a "she"...

EDIT: Sorry...wrong thread.

That's different If the baby fetus waxy growth has a gender identity crisis it is then entitled to government protection and a publicly funded correction surgery.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is it a "he" at 7-8 weeks? That can't be right?

How do you know "he" isn't a "she"...

EDIT: Sorry...wrong thread.

That's different If the baby fetus waxy growth has a gender identity crisis it is then entitled to government protection and a publicly funded correction surgery.

Ok, now I owe both you and Hulk some +Likes.

 

[tommyboy]

Troll level: novice

 

[raidergil]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

Interesting the libs are 'anything goes' with abortion, but don't want you putting Fritos and Big Gulps in your body.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

Interesting the libs are 'anything goes' with abortion, but don't want you putting Fritos and Big Gulps in your body.

Why you contradicting Max like that?

I like Fritos and Big Gulps. The more the merrier.

 

[Kal El]

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

And here we go. If you don't believe, that's fine. I do, however, so as both a Christian and a father, I'm strongly against the ill treatment of unborn lives, which if I recall my stats correctly, means that the number of aborted children in this nation is approaching 60 million, most of them minorities. That means over the past 50 years, the equivalent of Tokyo's population has been killed thrice over. That's just in this country.

I dont know what's more ethically contemptible, aborting those 60 million fetuses, or supporting an addition of 60 million orphans into the world. It's already incredibly (sometimes prohibitively) expensive and difficult for couples to adopt, I cant imagine having that magnitude more orphans out there.

So you're more comfortable with the knowledge that there are 60 million dead children that if their mothers had possibly been counseled prior to their abortion, they might be with either their parents or another family that would love them? Not to mention that they would all be contributing to the tax base either here or abroad. Pretty sure supporting the murder of 60 million babies is far more contemptible.

I don't necessarily share your belief that abortion is murder as an absolute so we're not going to agree. I agree, however, that if I did share that belief, that would be the more contemptible option.

Still, "contributing to the tax base" isn't enough of a reason to justify bringing a child into this world, IMO. If there weren't tons of unadopted orphans who weren't getting adopted because of all the red tape bureaucratic bull#### that is the adoption process, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. I shudder at the thought of up to 60 million more orphans cluttering up foster homes while perfectly reasonable couples have to wait years to adopt one of them.

My sister is one of those people waiting to adopt, and she just found out she's pregnant. As far as I know, she's still planning to adopt, but I quite frankly feel the process could be streamlined considerably.

We can agree to disagree on the abortion point, that is what used to happen in this country (agreeing to disagree, that is), but I feel if we made efforts in proper sex education, including abstinence as a viable option along side safe sex, we could help prevent more unwanted children. That being said, we can't go back and bring back the 60 million murdered babies, but we can change our future and hopefully eventually bring the number of abortions to zero.

 

[Hang 10]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

It has no rights. Its not a person.

As I stated earlier... if you stayed directly on point for pushing personhood (and all the laws and protections there-in) you would gain much more respect.

But you don't.

 

[Hang 10]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

It has no rights. Its not a person.

As I stated earlier... if you stayed directly on point for pushing personhood (and all the laws and protections there-in) you would gain much more respect.

But you don't.

Why do you pretend to know what I, or anyone else in this thread have "pushed" for? You have no idea and you keep saying this to deflect your lack of a decent argument.

You keep hiding behind laws even when you know many are completely arbitrary. It makes you look like a coward. You can't be intellectually honest enough to even say what you think is right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

It has no rights. Its not a person.

As I stated earlier... if you stayed directly on point for pushing personhood (and all the laws and protections there-in) you would gain much more respect.

But you don't.

I think you need to revisit your Roe:

These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. [n22] This was "mediate animation." Although [p134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

By Roe's own definition "personhood" comes into play at viability.

That decision was in 1973, 42 years ago. How early has modern science established viability, ie the point at which a moving human growth becomes a "person"?

That seems pretty googleable, no? - Eta - 21 weeks. So why not just say you think the growth is a person at 21 weeks if you're following the law of the land?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

@Hang10

Because we can see everything that happens on this subject and with the laws (politics) and organizations. And the forum posts.

Don't sit here and claim something about rights that isnt even true.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Again Saints...

potentiality of human life.... if it chooses

 

[Kal El]

This is getting nowhere. The pro-life people believe an unborn baby is a human and deserves rights, even in the womb of its mother, whereas many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence. Neither side seems willing to budge.

Here's a new quandary: if an unborn child has no rights, then if a pregnant woman is killed, why is the murderer charged with two counts of murder? Clearly the unborn child is a life of its own.

 

[(HULK)]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

I don't think the two are tied together very closely. But whatever, I'm a damn enigma anyways, typically libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, pro life, anti death penalty dude who loves watermelon.

 

[tommyboy]

Bst you have an extreme view of life. Do you have any children?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Again Saints...

potentiality of human life.... if it chooses

I think you were talking about personhood, Roe defines that as viability. It's up to the state whether it will protect, by your definition, ie Roe's, such persons. It seems absurd to say that someone is a person with protected rights in Massachusetts, but not in Texas, don't you agree?

 

[Steve Tasker]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.

This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

 

[Hang 10]

This is getting nowhere. The pro-life people believe an unborn baby is a human and deserves rights, even in the womb of its mother, whereas many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence. Neither side seems willing to budge.

Here's a new quandary: if an unborn child has no rights, then if a pregnant woman is killed, why is the murderer charged with two counts of murder? Clearly the unborn child is a life of its own.

They are like flat earthers when it comes to this subject. Their argument might have made a bit more sense before the invention of the ultrasound.

 

[(HULK)]

I don't believe in a soul. Still think human life begins at conception.

 

[biju]

This thread reminds me of why Christianity is dying in this country. You guys should really work on being more inclusive and understanding instead of polarizing.

 

[(HULK)]

This is getting nowhere. The pro-life people believe an unborn baby is a human and deserves rights, even in the womb of its mother, whereas many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence. Neither side seems willing to budge.

Here's a new quandary: if an unborn child has no rights, then if a pregnant woman is killed, why is the murderer charged with two counts of murder? Clearly the unborn child is a life of its own.

Id say yes

 

[Kal El]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Let's see, that percentage was part of Final Jeopardy last night...Actually, I don't know the percentage either. But even a small percentage is too high.

 

[(HULK)]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Isn't it illegal for a pregnant woman to get drunk and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Cause that's doing as she wishes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.

This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Can a pregnant woman engage in any sort of activity she wishes?

Do we restrict her diet? Alcohol? Aspirin? Dieting down to 5% body fat?

No, she makes her own choices.

The minute that child is born and alive... it has protections and rights.

 

[Kal El]

This thread reminds me of why Christianity is dying in this country. You guys should really work on being more inclusive and understanding instead of polarizing.

It's alive and well, actually. But the majority of us are far more understanding than people who claim to be "tolerant."

 

[(HULK)]

Thought exercise:

Does a fetus that has not yet developed its sex organs have a gender?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread reminds me of why Christianity is dying in this country. You guys should really work on being more inclusive and understanding instead of polarizing.

Ok, I will ask you a question from an equal rights perspective - does it make sense to you that a "person" is accorded certain basic human rights in one state, say Massachusetts, but in Texas that person human growth is not accorded those rights, in fact it's not even considered a person with rights?

22 week old fetus in MA - person, with the right to live; the same 22 week old fetus in TX, not a person which can be crushed with a legally approved set of pliers. Is this equal protection?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This thread reminds me of why Christianity is dying in this country. You guys should really work on being more inclusive and understanding instead of polarizing.

Ok, I will ask you a question from an equal rights perspective - does it make sense to you that a "person" is accorded certain basic human rights in one state, say Massachusetts, but in Texas that person human growth is not accorded those rights, in fact it's not even considered a person with rights?

22 week old fetus in MA - person, with the right to live; the same 22 week old fetus in TX, not a person which can be crushed with a legally approved set of pliers. Is this equal protection?

That is not the only instance of age being a determining factor that is different from state to state. I dont see why its so contentious for you on this facet.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Isn't it illegal for a pregnant woman to get drunk and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Cause that's doing as she wishes.

I dont think it is illegal.

*Our research identified no Federal statutes or regulations pertaining to a woman's alcohol consumption during pregnancy as a factor in child abuse/child neglect proceedings.

via the Alcohol Policy Information System

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread reminds me of why Christianity is dying in this country. You guys should really work on being more inclusive and understanding instead of polarizing.

Ok, I will ask you a question from an equal rights perspective - does it make sense to you that a "person" is accorded certain basic human rights in one state, say Massachusetts, but in Texas that person human growth is not accorded those rights, in fact it's not even considered a person with rights?

22 week old fetus in MA - person, with the right to live; the same 22 week old fetus in TX, not a person which can be crushed with a legally approved set of pliers. Is this equal protection?

That is not the only instance of age being a determining factor that is different from state to state. I dont see why its so contentious for you on this facet.

You mean age of majority rights? I don't think any state allows denial of basic human rights and all fundamental rights based on age.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok, so we've established that under the ACA medical procedures and surgeries and their costs and who can perform them can be regulated by the feds and the states. However states cannot regulate abortion procedures. The government can regulate a person's cancer surgery, but it can't regulate that person's abortion procedure. Sooo.. the right to control one's body is not exactly true.

And we've established that "persons" can be entitled to all rights, including basic, fundamental rights, in one state but can be denied them in others even to the extent that, a la Dred Scott, they are not even persons. Put this person/growth in MA, he or she is a person; fly the mother host out of state and put the person fetus in TX, it's a growth, which if proper procedure is followed can have its life ability to move and feed itself terminated and "it" can be disposed of or sold for research. Annnd the right to equal protection, hmmmm not really.