Alabama

[mooseontheloose]

One of the most disingenuous things I see from pro-choice activists is the notion that all women are pro-choice and that anti-abortion measures are the work of a small minority of evil white men.

Except, you know, the data doesn't bare that out at all. Men and women are equally likely to be pro-life, AND the pro-life and pro-choice positions share almost equal support across the US.

It's the same bullshit you saw when black people chose not to vote for Obama. 'You're not a real woman if you aren't pro-choice!'

Plus, of the portion of the population that is pro-choice, I would expect that a majority of them DO support drawing lines RE: when an abortion is OK/not OK. Laws like we see in NY are absolutely not what most people are looking for, even those who are pro-choice. The average person is far more sensible, but the pro-choice activists would have you believe that all women everywhere demand NO restrictions on abortion, period. Including the right to let a baby born during a failed abortion attempt die.

Regardless of my opinion of abortion itself, it's hard not to be disgusted with how people talk about it.

[patswin]

Originally Posted by mooseontheloose

One of the most disingenuous things I see from pro-choice activists is the notion that all women are pro-choice and that anti-abortion measures are the work of a small minority of evil white men.

Except, you know, the data doesn't bare that out at all. Men and women are equally likely to be pro-life, AND the pro-life and pro-choice positions share almost equal support across the US.

It's the same bullshit you saw when black people chose not to vote for Obama. 'You're not a real woman if you aren't pro-choice!'

Plus, of the portion of the population that is pro-choice, I would expect that a majority of them DO support drawing lines RE: when an abortion is OK/not OK. Laws like we see in NY are absolutely not what most people are looking for, even those who are pro-choice. The average person is far more sensible, but the pro-choice activists would have you believe that all women everywhere demand NO restrictions on abortion, period. Including the right to let a baby born during a failed abortion attempt die.

Regardless of my opinion of abortion itself, it's hard not to be disgusted with how people talk about it.

It’s just another permutation of the left mob philosophy “agree with us or else”.

[PatsFan09]

Originally Posted by mooseontheloose

One of the most disingenuous things I see from pro-choice activists is the notion that all women are pro-choice and that anti-abortion measures are the work of a small minority of evil white men.

Except, you know, the data doesn't bare that out at all. Men and women are equally likely to be pro-life, AND the pro-life and pro-choice positions share almost equal support across the US.

It's the same bullshit you saw when black people chose not to vote for Obama. 'You're not a real woman if you aren't pro-choice!'

Plus, of the portion of the population that is pro-choice, I would expect that a majority of them DO support drawing lines RE: when an abortion is OK/not OK. Laws like we see in NY are absolutely not what most people are looking for, even those who are pro-choice. The average person is far more sensible, but the pro-choice activists would have you believe that all women everywhere demand NO restrictions on abortion, period. Including the right to let a baby born during a failed abortion attempt die.

Regardless of my opinion of abortion itself, it's hard not to be disgusted with how people talk about it.

Great points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BostonTim]

Originally Posted by O.Z.O.

That's how the Commies are. Any law (which once again, Roe V Wade isn't) they support is unmovable.

What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.

Cheers

[AkPatsFan]

Originally Posted by BostonTim

What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.

Cheers

You must be single. hahaha

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by deec77

To me as a women it’s viability My view isn’t popular one amongst some women. So be it. Once again we as women shouldn’t in this day and age need an abortion unless the women or fetus or later in pregnancy mother/baby is at risk. We have so many birth control options, or the morning after, weeks after, and an in rare events abortions. I’m not against abortion in the early or under certain conditions. I will freely admit, I also find it insulting and ridiculous that the father has zero say unless its for child support. I have son’s, a daughter, granddaughter’s and grandson’s.... To me it should be a mutual decision Just my opinion, I honestly don’t expect most women to agree but I would hope that most would listen.

~Dee~

Dee,

Viability is certainly a definable, and practible, criteria, however it suffers from two fundamental issues.

The first is that by definition, it is a function of medical science.

What is "viable" today was not viable 50 years ago, and in the future, that point of "viability" will occur earlier in the pregnancy.

As such, it is not a definition that is based on a principle, but on technology.

So for example, a woman in Africa would not have a "person" at the same point in her pregnancy as one in a developed country.

Alternatively, 50 years from now a "person" could come into existence at a point in the pregnancy where they wouldn't today.

Personally, I prefer legal concepts to be based on principles and not something that can vary both temporally and spatially.

Also if it becomes possible to extract a fertilized egg, then by definition, conception would be the point at which it is "viable", since we have already demonstrated with in vitro fertilization that one can implant a fertilized egg in a woman and have it come full term.

If someone develops an artificial womb, that makes it even easier.

Second, as medical technology pushes the envelope to have premature births survive, what % success rate does one require before one says that "viability" is possible?

Or if we use the concept of "extreme" efforts,or any other similar phrase, to define that threshold, how does one define that?

After all, there are neonatal care practices done today that are "routine" that were considered "extreme" in the past.

Again, we have a moving target, based on technology, and not a definable principle.

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by AkPatsFan

The problem here isn't about when it becomes a person or not, it's about womens rights, at least that is how they (pro-choicers) tell it. So how does one start a conversation with them when they don't want one?

As I have said, and Moose followed up on, the real question is when it becomes a person.

The problem is that the two sides aren't talking about that question.

Each is assuming their own definition applies and the other side is a nattering nabob for clearly saying something that doesn't make sense based on their definition.

If one doesn't think another person is present, then the idea that it is up to the woman and her doctor is 100% correct.

If one thinks another person is present, then it is perfectly logical to ask about the rights of this other person.

Originally Posted by PatsFanLisa

Why should there be a conversation? It is established law.

The discussion should be why are there some people who feel it's THEIR right to take away a woman's right? And let's make no mistake...it IS a woman's right. The law has established that.

The conversation is quite simple. it is, when does that second person come into existence.

I agree with you 100% that prior to that happening, it is a woman's right.

After that point, it isn't simply a question of a woman's right because there are two people involved.

Do you agree that if there are two persons involved, that the rights of both parties should be considered?

If no, why not?

To be clear, I'm not saying that the rights of either party must be granted precedence, merely that the question be considered as any other case where the rights of two individuals are in conflict.

So I will repeat Moose's question.

When do you think that second person comes into existence?

I freely admit I don't know the answer to this question.

[DeflateThis]

Originally Posted by BostonTim

What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.

Originally Posted by AkPatsFan

You must be single. hahaha

Or a woman

[tehmackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Coltsfan2theend

I have two girls, lord help me in 13 years when one is 16 and the other 13.

I have four girls, three of whom are teenagers.

[patswin]

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

I have four girls, three of whom are teenagers.

Must be a scene getting time in the bathroom in the morning!

[PatsFanLisa]

Originally Posted by O.Z.O.

I've been thinking about something-

this thread is a microcosm of our present society. People who "think" like Lisa does are in the distinct minority, yet they are loud, obnoxious, and expect the rest of us to acquiesce to whatever whims cross their minds. It's driven by the media due to the fact that the media is poisoned with the Liberal mindset as well.

What was it King Barry the 0th once said...oh yeah, elections have consequences. If your side loses you don't get to dictate to the rest of us.

Unlike those who do not "think" like me, of course.

Amazing comments from all of the men in here. And by amazing I mean, pathetic.

[mooseontheloose]

Originally Posted by PatsFanLisa

Unlike those who do not "think" like me, of course.

Amazing comments from all of the men in here. And by amazing I mean, pathetic.

Well, I responded to your comments and was quite courteous IMO. I didn't attack your opinions and asked you questions to better understand your position. I freely admit that my opinion on abortion has been in a state of flux recently, so muddling through both sides of the debate is a worthwhile endeavor for me personally.

Perhaps you're not talking about me specifically, but I have no clue how anything I've said could be labeled as 'pathetic'. Nor many other posters.

Instead of slandering, it might be worth defending your position and explaining where you think others have gone wrong. There are direct questions posed to you (and/or other confidently pro-choice people) that have gone unanswered.

It's a bit disappointing that attempts to really debate or discuss a contentious issue so often lead nowhere, here and elsewhere.

[deec77]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

Dee,

Viability is certainly a definable, and practible, criteria, however it suffers from two fundamental issues.

The first is that by definition, it is a function of medical science.

What is "viable" today was not viable 50 years ago, and in the future, that point of "viability" will occur earlier in the pregnancy.

As such, it is not a definition that is based on a principle, but on technology.

So for example, a woman in Africa would not have a "person" at the same point in her pregnancy as one in a developed country.

Alternatively, 50 years from now a "person" could come into existence at a point in the pregnancy where they wouldn't today.

Personally, I prefer legal concepts to be based on principles and not something that can vary both temporally and spatially.

Also if it becomes possible to extract a fertilized egg, then by definition, conception would be the point at which it is "viable", since we have already demonstrated with in vitro fertilization that one can implant a fertilized egg in a woman and have it come full term.

If someone develops an artificial womb, that makes it even easier.

Second, as medical technology pushes the envelope to have premature births survive, what % success rate does one require before one says that "viability" is possible?

Or if we use the concept of "extreme" efforts,or any other similar phrase, to define that threshold, how does one define that?

After all, there are neonatal care practices done today that are "routine" that were considered "extreme" in the past.

Again, we have a moving target, based on technology, and not a definable principle.

IMHO viability and “personhood” occur at pretty much the same time you can’t have one without the other.. I think we both agree at some point in the pregnancy there should be a cut off. You call it personhood, I call it viability. What constitutes personhood, wouldn’t personhood be defined differently by different people as well? Who decides when personhood occurs and how does one know when it occurs without technology? I’m speaking of viability in general terms not based on technology but on the science of gestation.

So we know that 22 weeks is realistically the cut off, anything earlier ....is considered a miscarriage already. Most cases DRs won’t attempt to save any live births before the 22week mark. It’s consider it unethical to attempt as their lungs and brains just aren’t developed enough and the amount of pain isn’t worth it. Because of the lack of organ development they won’t survive anyway even with more technology it would be unethical to attempt. It’s just a drawn out painful death.

At 22 weeks a little over halfway through the baby is a fully formed and developed enough to obtain personhood, IMHO. Even at 22 weeks survival outside the womb is only at 21%.

Going by your 50 year mark medical science will have come up with a drug induced miscarriage and “abortions” in the clinical sense could be obsolete

38 states have fetal homicide laws supported by both sides of the equation.... prochoice still won’t consider the rights of the unborn fetus or unborn child only the mother rights. In their view, the debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women.

I think we both agree we’re just using a different terms ie reasons to establish what personhood means to us.

~Dee~

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by deec77

IMHO viability and “personhood” occur at pretty much the same time you can’t have one without the other.. I think we both agree at some point in the pregnancy there should be a cut off. You call it personhood, I call it viability. What constitutes personhood, wouldn’t personhood be defined differently by different people as well? Who decides when personhood occurs and how does one know when it occurs without technology? I’m speaking of viability in general terms not based on technology but on the science of gestation.

So we know that 22 weeks is realistically the cut off, anything earlier ....is considered a miscarriage already. Most cases DRs won’t attempt to save any live births before the 22week mark. It’s consider it unethical to attempt as their lungs and brains just aren’t developed enough and the amount of pain isn’t worth it. Because of the lack of organ development they won’t survive anyway even with more technology it would be unethical to attempt. It’s just a drawn out painful death.

At 22 weeks a little over halfway through the baby is a fully formed and developed enough to obtain personhood, IMHO. Even at 22 weeks survival outside the womb is only at 21%.

Going by your 50 year mark medical science will have come up with a drug induced miscarriage and “abortions” in the clinical sense could be obsolete

38 states have fetal homicide laws supported by both sides of the equation.... prochoice still won’t consider the rights of the unborn fetus or unborn child only the mother rights. In their view, the debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women.

I think we both agree we’re just using a different terms ie reasons to establish what personhood means to us.

~Dee~

OK, I guess I wasn't clear.

My issue with "viability" being the definition of "personhood" is that it is not based on a fundamental philosophical principle.

Yes, I understand your comments about the 22 week mark, but my point is that limit is a function of how advanced medial science is.

Yes, as of today, there isn't much that doctors can typically do for a premature birth that happens prior to 22 weeks, but that is really a function of the present state of medical science.

50 odd years ago, what was the likelihood of survival of a premature birth?

Much lower than today.

That isn't due to any change in the principle of "viability", but of the status of medical science.

Also, as I said before, in many underdeveloped countries, they don't have the same medical facilities as in the West, so for them the threshold of "viability" is well after 22 weeks.

Does that mean the developing fetus has not achieved "personhood" in those countries?

To be clear, I'm not saying your idea of figuring out at what point between conception and birth a "person" comes into existence, is invalid, simply it is a moving target, both temporally and spatially.

I personally don't like moving targets for questions like this.

I would prefer a definition based on a principle that won't change.

Maybe such a definition isn't possible.

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by PatsFanLisa

Unlike those who do not "think" like me, of course.

Amazing comments from all of the men in here. And by amazing I mean, pathetic.

Lisa,

I think we can resolve most of the issues if you were to tell us when you think the developing fetus becomes a "person".

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

IMHO, it happens at some point between conception and birth, and I don't have an easy answer as to exactly when that is.

I do know that prior to that threshold being crossed, the question of abortion is 100% an issue between the woman and her doctor.

After it, that is no longer the case.

After it, there are two persons involved, and as with any other circumstance where the rights of two people are in conflict, it is reasonable and just that some equitable balance of their individual rights be determined.

As with all such cases in our legal system, sometimes the rights of person A are recognized as having priority, and sometimes person B has priority.