Abortion

[Danoff]

Surely you'd consider a 1 day old born baby a human with rights, right? What's the difference between that and a full term fetus?

I've answered this several times (and you're ignoring). One is attached to and dependent on another specific human being, and the other is not. That's the difference.

 

[Joey D]

What's the difference between that and a full term fetus?

If you were to cut the umbilical cord but leave the fetus in utero, it would die. If you cut the umbilical cord and removed the fetus, it would live.

 

[R3V]

Does that allow them to demand use of a woman's body to live?

If it's no threat to the woman, then at some point, yes.

See, the thing is that left and right is about economics. The social scale is generally authoritarian and libertarian. Abortion isn't about economics (mostly), it's about social freedoms.

So that's what that sounds like.

you'll find that you have a remarkable amount in common with the American far right

Other than guns, I don't. Even that topic and abortion I only agree with the principle not the laws they advocate for. I think this says a lot more about you guys than me. You really have to be extreme for me to sound like them. The pure selfishness of absolute "bodily autonomy" sounds more right wing than anything I've read in a while. The left (economy) comes from compassion and demand for justice. Where's the compassion in killing a fully developed baby just 1 day before birth?


Oh and if anyone's interested

Yeah it's not me.

 

[Danoff]

If it's no threat to the woman, then at some point, yes.

Define threat.

Where's the compassion in killing a fully developed baby just 1 day before birth?

For the woman.

Yeah it's not me.

It is actually, literally, authoritarian to demand state access to someone's body (this includes late term). Whether or not you have enough authoritarian leanings to score overall authoritarian on a chart is a different issue. There are some die hard libertarians that are pro-life. But they're still authoritarian on that issue.

 

[R3V]

Define threat.

That's entirely up to her, as long as she waits a week or two on it.

It is actually, literally, authoritarian to demand state access to someone's body (this includes late term). Whether or not you have enough authoritarian leanings to score overall authoritarian on a chart is a different issue. There are some die hard libertarians that are pro-life. But they're still authoritarian on that issue.

No one's demanding access to anything.

 

[Danoff]

The pure selfishness of absolute "bodily autonomy" sounds more right wing than anything I've read in a while.

The idea that your body belongs to someone else is authoritarian, but also just deeply troubling. To the extent that you do not own your own body, your are a slave. To a pregnant women, the slavery is specifically to birth a child (or continue to carry the pregnancy as per your example below). Any extent of lack of ownership over your body is slavery. If it is illegal to get a piercing, change your anatomy, or kill yourself, you are a slave to that extent.

Abortion is not a conflict of rights. I know that many people see it that way, because they see the unborn as having rights. But if you understand why we have rights, you will understand that the unborn do not have them any more than lots of other animal life. Why does a newborn have certain rights? Because it is convenient to extend some rights at that time. Not all rights, of course. Some rights require further development, some rights we legally extend when the individual can be presumed to have reached adulthood. All of it is based on when we can assume that the person has developed enough to have those rights.

Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes a person has not developed enough, or properly, to have certain rights despite making it to adulthood. For many of these people, they do not have some rights. Usually they're called criminals. Sometimes insane or disabled.

Occasionally a fully grown adult human lacks a right to life.

That's entirely up to her, as long as she waits a week or two on it.

You dodged the question. You said as long as it's not a threat, but then apparently you do not care what a threat is. So why did you say it?

No one's demanding access to anything.

You just demanded access to someone's body for two weeks right above this.

 

[R3V]

you will understand that the unborn do not have them any more than lots of other animal life.

Excuse me, I think animals have damn near every right we do. Including shelter, food and sending every animal abuser to a nuthouse or behind bars.

Occasionally a fully grown adult human lacks a right to life.

I hope you're talking about self defense and not the death penalty.

A fully developed fetus is a human to me. I don't want to shift the discussion from the 6-7 month cut off, but a full term fetus is a baby with rights. That's where I draw the line, unless doctors say giving birth would be to the physical detriment of the woman. In which case, it's self defense (to me) so it's justified.

I don't think you're going to change my mind on this. The cut off time from free-choice to waiting period, sure. The duration of the waiting period, alright. Full term? Too late.

You dodged the question. You said as long as it's not a threat, but then apparently you do not care what a threat is. So why did you say it?

I didn't understand what you were getting at. In case it got shuffled in the walls of text, I've said before that after the cut off she can claim whatever she wants as a threat. Even a threat of poverty or depression. That's until full term as I stated above. Then a threat is a threat of bodily harm.

You just demanded access to someone's body for two weeks right above this.

I'm not seeing it. Continuing as normal for a few more days is not a big deal unless it's full term. Maybe it is in the states where you don't have maternity leave, but I assume such rights exist.

 

[huskeR32]

Continuing as normal for a few more days is not a big deal

Says you. You don't get to dictate that to others.

 

[Danoff]

Excuse me, I think animals have damn near every right we do. Including shelter, food and sending every animal abuser to a nuthouse or behind bars.

You must be vegan.

I hope you're talking about self defense and not the death penalty.

Both (for extreeeeeeeemely related reasons).

A fully developed fetus is a human to me. I don't want to shift the discussion from the 6-7 month cut off, but a full term fetus is a baby with rights. That's where I draw the line, unless doctors say giving birth would be to the physical detriment of the woman. In which case, it's self defense (to me) so it's justified.

All birth is physically detrimental to women. Also continued pregnancy is as well.

I don't think you're going to change my mind on this. The cut off time from free-choice to waiting period, sure. The duration of the waiting period, alright. Full term? Too late.

Based on... nothing as far as I can tell.

I didn't understand what you were getting at. In case it got shuffled in the walls of text, I've said before that after the cut off she can claim whatever she wants as a threat. Even a threat of poverty or depression. That's until full term as I stated above. Then a threat is a threat of bodily harm.

See above. All pregnancy and birth is bodily harm.

I'm not seeing it. Continuing as normal for a few more days is not a big deal unless it's full term. Maybe it is in the states where you don't have maternity leave, but I assume such rights exist.

Maternity leave? Wow... I think you mean pregnancy leave? And that's not really much of a thing, at least not here in the states. It would be a sick leave thing. But yes, continuing as normal for a few weeks is definitely a big deal. Every day of pregnancy is a big deal. For some more than others.

 

[Famine]

This was a fun Tweet to randomly roll through my feed today:

 

[Tornado]

Other than guns, I don't. Even that topic and abortion I only agree with the principle not the laws they advocate for.

Don't forget your desire of government intervention with private entities to force things they don't like to be hosted by them anyway; which you've laid out in such detail you've basically mirrored the Trump supporter cue cards on the exact issue all the way down to making this elaborate push for such legislation (and how the legislation would work) without any actual justification therein.






Again, if you don't want people to associate you with the American far right, stop taking stances identical to them and regurgitating their talking points in the process.

I think this says a lot more about you guys than me.

This means increasingly little the more you trot out variations of it.

 

[McLaren]

Other than guns, I don't.

Way to clip chimp that whole statement....

If you're an authoritarian leftist, you'll find that you have a remarkable amount in common with the American far right because they're really into their authoritarianism. That's where anti-abortion comes from, having authority over how other people are allowed to use their bodies.

Your posts don't show much of anything about your economic stance, but there's reasonable evidence there to show you in favour of at least moderate authoritarianism. That's you calling for additional actions and waiting periods before allowing abortion, even in cases where a crime such as rape has occurred. That's why you sound like the American right, because you're repeating their ideas of social control.

You may not find yourself having much in common w/ right wingers, but on this topic of abortion, you absolutely do. This repeated debate point of late-term abortion is a favorite of theirs, even though late-term abortions are rare.

“Late-term” abortions are generally understood to take place during or after the 21st to 24th week of gestation, which is late in the second trimester. That gestational period roughly corresponds to the point of “fetal viability” or when a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb with or without medical assistance.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

These percentages are similar to estimates by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center that supports abortion rights. Guttmacher found that 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or over 21 weeks out of a total of 926,200 abortions in 2014.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

 

[FuriousDemon]

You must be vegan.

What's the problem with that?

 

[Danoff]

What's the problem with that?

He's not (at least that's my guess). But he must be based on that statement.

 

[FuriousDemon]

He's not (at least that's my guess). But he must be based on that statement.

Didn't answer my question though.

 

[Danoff]

Didn't answer my question though.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, so I addressed why I made the statement. The "problem" is that he likely eats chicken and claims animals should have (near) the same rights as people.

 

[TexRex]

 

[huskeR32]

My gods. I don't what's more appalling - the ghoulish lies they resort to, or the number of people that happily swallow it right up.

 

[Brett]

I would lean towards the intentional lies that they know people will eat up. The lies are dishonest and I have very little patience for dishonesty.

 

[Famine]

This repeated debate point of late-term abortion is a favorite of theirs, even though late-term abortions are rare.

Not only that, they're overwhelming performed as a medical necessity.

I mean, I can't 100% rule out the possibility, but thinking a woman is going to go through all the pain (pregnancy is a massive physical assault on the body and can itself be deadly) and emotional upheaval of carrying a developing foetus for five months just to decide on a whim to terminate it and go through labour to deliver it afterwards (for some reason they always forget this bit, even though they also banned the IDX procedure for this in the US) is so bizarre that you simply have to question if anyone floating it has a single adequately tightened screw, or has any contact with any women at all, ever, other than on a screen.

Terminations after 20 weeks* are performed due to serious health risks to the mother, or extreme abnormalities with the foetus that are "not compatible with life" in almost all cases. There are some remaining elective cases which largely come down to mental health, extreme changes in lifestyle (usually involving domestic violence or substance abuse), or inaccessibility of termination prior to that (again usually involving domestic violence).

It's not a flippant act, and these women grieve hard, regardless of circumstance.

*And let's remember that this could be 18 or 22 weeks of actual development, thanks to the unique way pregnancies are dated, which isn't exactly an insignificant difference.

 

[Pupik]

Just tell 'em that the dead babies would have voted straight Democrat tickets in the future, and the question of challenging abortion will cease.

 

[TexRex]

Just tell 'em that the dead babies would have voted straight Democrat tickets in the future, and the question of challenging abortion will cease.

Clever conceit, but I don't see it working for one reason: they're predators first. Even if they could be convinced this is the case, every abortion represents a missed opportunity to the lizard brain and this overrides the prospect of a political win.

 

[Joey D]

Clever conceit, but I don't see it working for one reason: they're predators first.

I'm not sure if this means "predators" in that they're pedophiles or "predators" in that they look to pounce on people and indoctrinate them. Either way, it fits though.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure if this means "predators" in that they're pedophiles or "predators" in that they look to pounce on people and indoctrinate them. Either way, it fits though.

I'm compelled to point out the important distinction between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is attraction. Attraction absent action isn't predatory and it isn't child sexual abuse. Action--whether or not there's attraction (action doesn't indicate attraction and may instead be about power)--is child sexual abuse.

 

[Imari]

I'm compelled to point out the important distinction between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is attraction. Attraction absent action isn't predatory and it isn't child sexual abuse. Action--whether or not there's attraction (action doesn't indicate attraction and may instead be about power)--is child sexual abuse.

Absolutely correct and very dangerous to say out loud, as it will generally immediately get the poster labelled as a child rapist.

 

[TexRex]

Absolutely correct and very dangerous to say out loud, as it will generally immediately get the poster labelled as a child rapist.

This is more likely when you maintain a neutral position on it like I do. Condemnation of it, much like condemnation of child sexual abuse, is one's saving grace.

I neither condemn nor condone it. It's thought alone--thought that I'll readily admit I don't understand--and so I think it's inappropriate to condemn it. Some may need professional help dealing with these thoughts and I commend those who seek it.

I absolutely condemn those who perpetrate acts of child sexual abuse, whether it's motivated by attraction or power.

 

[Famine]

I'm compelled to point out the important distinction between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is attraction. Attraction absent action isn't predatory and it isn't child sexual abuse. Action--whether or not there's attraction (action doesn't indicate attraction and may instead be about power)--is child sexual abuse.

 

[TexRex]

S.F. archbishop says Pelosi will be denied Communion over abortion rights

The San Francisco archbishop escalated his feud with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over...

www.sfchronicle.com

Now these ones are anti-abortion because they're pro-molestation. No ambiguity, deliberate or otherwise.

I don't believe Pelosi is missing out here, though I recognize that delusion may make her think she is.

 

[R3V]

You must be vegan.

No, but I'll eat you too if we were stranded on a mountain after a plane crash 🤣

All birth is physically detrimental to women. Also continued pregnancy is as well.

Whichever route has the least risk of serious injury or death, obviously.

Again, if you don't want people to associate you with the American far right, stop taking stances identical to them and regurgitating their talking points in the process.

I don't mind who I'm associated with on this board. I know where I belong on the spectrum in the outside world. I'm just pointing out that this section of the the website does seem like a little bit of a self-feeding bubble. No where else have I gotten 0 people on my side.

Way to clip chimp that whole statement....


You may not find yourself having much in common w/ right wingers, but on this topic of abortion, you absolutely do. This repeated debate point of late-term abortion is a favorite of theirs, even though late-term abortions are rare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

Hmmm there's a pretty stark difference between full or late term abortion and what TexRex posted about the power grid being powered by abortions or Jewish space lasers or whatever they're spewing next.

Interesting you think abortion and guns are the only differences between the parties or their voters. The issue that matters most at the end of the day is the economy and worker rights. On this issue alone my beliefs would get me assassinated by right wingers with the guns I advocated they keep

The "problem" is that he likely eats chicken

 

[TexRex]

No where else have I gotten 0 people on my side.