To What Extent Do You Support Abortion?

[Aristides]

Stop eating eggs, you are killing baby chickens.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Stop eating eggs, you are killing baby chickens.

The eggs that you get in the store aren't actually fertilized, so they'd never hatch, but that didn't stop my grandma from telling me that the little white spot in the egg albumen is "the rooster's goo". I had a very prim and proper upbringing, being an Albertan an' all. 

Anyways, enjoy your next breakfast. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

A fertilized egg is not a person.  It only has the potential to be a person.

Like a Democrat or a Liberal. So, by your logic, we can abort them. 

I like the way you think.

I'm gonna watch Deathrace 2000 tonight, or maybe the purge, and just dream for a while ? 

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

It is the potential existence of a human.

A fertilized egg is not a person.  It only has the potential to be a person.

no it's a person who has the potential to be born

not being born doesn't make it not a person

Edited July 12, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[-TSS-]

In the American context if there wasn't the right to abortion there would be millions of more georgefloyds. The stereotypical anti-abortionist is a white male conservative. Of course that's just a stereotype but why would anyone like that want any more georgefloyds by banning abortion? 

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, -TSS- said:

In the American context if there wasn't the right to abortion there would be millions of more georgefloyds. The stereotypical anti-abortionist is a white male conservative. Of course that's just a stereotype but why would anyone like that want any more georgefloyds by banning abortion? 

that's a stupid question

because they don't support pre-crime executions

you don't kill someone because they might commit a crime in the future, duh

Edited July 18, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Zijlstra]

On 7/9/2022 at 2:41 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

killing humans is immoral

Why?

[Goddess]

Women are already getting very sub-standard care because of the new anti-abortion laws.  Basically, a woman has to be majorly hemorrhaging and at death's door before doctors will remove an unviable embryo because theya re afraid of getting charged with murder.

Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care | AP News

Quote

 

Now, he said, doctors whose patients develop pregnancy complications are struggling to determine whether a woman is “sick enough” to justify an abortion.

With the fall of Roe v. Wade, “the art of medicine is lost and actually has been replaced by fear,” Munoz said.

Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.

“We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’

CHOOSING STERILITY

Julie Ann Nitsch, a sexual assault survivor and community college trustee in Austin, Texas, is among many women in states with restrictive abortion laws who are taking drastic steps.

Nitsch says she chose sterilization at age 36 rather than risk getting pregnant by another rapist.

“I ripped my organs out” to avoid that, she said.

Nitsch said she “saw the writing on the wall” after Texas enacted a law last year banning most abortions after six weeks, even in cases of rape or incest. She said she sensed that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, so she had surgery to remove her fallopian tubes in February.

“It’s sad to think that I can’t have kids, but it’s better than being forced to have children,” Nitsch said.

Dr. Tyler Handcock, an Austin OB-GYN, said his clinic has heard from hundreds of patients seeking sterilization since the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision. Many choose this route because they fear long-acting birth control or other contraceptives could also become targets, he said.

 

Why?  Why do men hate women so much?

[James99]

On 7/4/2022 at 2:15 PM, WestCanMan said:

I chose the 3rd option: Up until approximately 16 weeks it should be legal, and only for health/medical reasons thereafter.

What happens at 16 weeks to change from legal to illegal unless for medical reasons? I am curious. 

[WestCanMan]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:52 AM, James99 said:

What happens at 16 weeks to change from legal to illegal unless for medical reasons? I am curious. 

2 things:

1) We all understand that unexpected pregnancies are a thing, and that having a baby go to full term isn't an option for a lot of women for hundreds of reasons, and there's a reasonable timeline for a woman to make her decision and get it done. 16 weeks is plenty of time IMO. 

2) At around 16 weeks the fetus starts choosing to drink more or less amniotic fluid, depending on how it tastes. IMO, once it starts making choices, killing it isn't quite the same anymore. 

I'm not saying that it should go from free & easy to highly illegal right at 112 days, let's not be ridiculous, but some form of reasonability needs to exist.

[James99]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

2 things:

1) We all understand that unexpected pregnancies are a thing, and that having a baby go to full term isn't an option for a lot of women for hundreds of reasons, and there's a reasonable timeline for a woman to make her decision and get it done. 16 weeks is plenty of time IMO. 

2) At around 16 weeks the fetus starts choosing to drink more or less amniotic fluid, depending on how it tastes. IMO, once it starts making choices, killing it isn't quite the same anymore. 

I'm not saying that it should go from free & easy to highly illegal right at 112 days, let's not be ridiculous, but some form of reasonability needs to exist.

Taking a human life is never justified as I am sure you would agree. I just want to know when they become a human life. Does making decisions qualify them as being a human life and then we cannot kill them? Because I would say that some handicapped adults cannot make decisions (coma). Is there something else that kicks off the human life? 

[traveler52]

No Man has the right or the purpose of right to tell a Woman what she can do with her body...period.

Nor does a Man, or any man have a right to decide for a Woman what medical procedures she may or may not receive or what medications she can and cannot take.

Women's Health is the perview of Women, they know they need more a Man does.  Female Contraceptive Care is for her decide.  

[traveler52]

Other uses for Female Contraceptive Pills.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ss/slideshow-birth-control-other-reasons

Men do not have right to decide what medications a Woman can take.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, James99 said:

Taking a human life is never justified as I am sure you would agree. I just want to know when they become a human life. Does making decisions qualify them as being a human life and then we cannot kill them? Because I would say that some handicapped adults cannot make decisions (coma). Is there something else that kicks off the human life? 

If one looks at this topic from within the confines of their own religious views, or through the most puritanical of ethical lenses and completely disregards "situational" ethics and reality, it makes sense to just issue a blanket statement of "thou shalt never..."

But in this country, where girls have a realistic chance of a cute nuclear family with 2.3 children, and where children raised in that environment tend to be the happiest and most productive (or at the very least pose the least risk of incarceration) adults, it makes sense for them to have those 2.3 children after they're married instead of while they're in HS.

The old wisdom of "belch out as many babies as possible" worked well when 30% of the menfolk would be killed or injured in wars, but it is no longer a bonus on a planet with 8 billion people. 

[traveler52]

Religion has no business dictating a person's health care, Man or Woman.  In the bible there passages in which if a Man beats a pregnant Woman and she dies, so does he.  If a Man beats a pregnant Woman and the baby dies, he pays a fine.  In antoher passage Women are told how to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Never mind all those first  born Male Children that were butchered after birth of Magical/Mythical/Mystical Non-Existent Sky Man's equally non-existent son.  The killing Lot's Wife or the flood that killed millions.

It boils down to who has control and dominion over a Woman's Body and it is the Woman, not Religion/not Government/Not Men who will never get pregnant.  The Woman must have control over her body.  Men have control over their bodies. Woman have that self same right.

Edited August 25, 2022 by traveler52

[James99]

On 8/25/2022 at 4:29 PM, WestCanMan said:

If one looks at this topic from within the confines of their own religious views, or through the most puritanical of ethical lenses and completely disregards "situational" ethics and reality, it makes sense to just issue a blanket statement of "thou shalt never..."

But in this country, where girls have a realistic chance of a cute nuclear family with 2.3 children, and where children raised in that environment tend to be the happiest and most productive (or at the very least pose the least risk of incarceration) adults, it makes sense for them to have those 2.3 children after they're married instead of while they're in HS.

The old wisdom of "belch out as many babies as possible" worked well when 30% of the menfolk would be killed or injured in wars, but it is no longer a bonus on a planet with 8 billion people. 

Situational ethics and reality? There is what is true and what is not true. Taking the life from an innocent human being is wrong. That is a truth. You can argue that this statement is false and that you can take the life of an innocent human being  or you can argue that it is not yet a life. 

Where did I ever say you should belch out babies from hs on? I believe in responsible sex and I 100% agree that children should be born into a family where the parents are married. 

We are more at risk of underpopulation. To sustain our current population, there need to be more births. 

[traveler52]

Forcing a Woman to carry a child she cannot care for or afford is wrong.  Forcing 10-Year Girl who was raped by her father to carry a baby she totally incaplabe caring for is wrong.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, James99 said:

Situational ethics and reality? There is what is true and what is not true.

Everyone likes to believe that they're above "situational ethics", but no one is. It's all just posturing.

Quote

Taking the life from an innocent human being is wrong. That is a truth.

Yes, but it's an unrelated truth.

Quote

You can argue that this statement is false and that you can take the life of an innocent human being  or you can argue that it is not yet a life. 

It's a "potential" life. 

If a girl has two babies while she's in HS she is resigned to a tough life and her children will start off behind the 8-ball. 

If that same girl got an abortion after 9 weeks and had her 2 babies after she was married her life would almost certainly be far easier, more fulfilling and nicer, as will those of her children.

And statistically speaking, the kinds of people who would force her to carry the unwanted babies to term are the exact same people who'd discriminate against her and slut-shame her.

Quote

Where did I ever say you should belch out babies from hs on? I believe in responsible sex and I 100% agree that children should be born into a family where the parents are married. 

The world will never meet the level of perfection that you want. Unwanted pregnancies will always occur. There's no doubt that a few of the women whom you respect and who never had to choose whether or not to abort a child had their scary moments when they thought that they might be pregnant. They'll never admit to it, just like 250 lb 19 yr olds won't admit that they took steroids.

Quote

We are more at risk of underpopulation. To sustain our current population, there need to be more births. 

?

[traveler52]

"The Truth" is that Women know what is best for them.  "The Truth" is that forcing a Woman or Girl to carry they are incapable of caring is wrong, especially when that pregnancy is the result of Incest/Rape.

 

"The Truth" is Pro-Life is plain out and out "Anti-Woman", it is deny Women control over their bodies

[Goddess]

Opinion | Distinguished person of the week: An Idaho judge says women's lives matter - The Washington Post

 

Quote

Litigants, advocates and lawmakers who pushed for abortion bans understood full well that they would create horrible situations and legal chaos. Their persistence reflects how little advocates of forced birth care about women’s lives and health. One has to wonder what kind of legislature would dream up such a perverse system that endangers women even when the fetus is no longer viable. 

 

I think forced-birthers have shown, through the unreasonable and dangerous laws they support and legislate, that this is not about life. This is really contempt for women. Devaluing her life and health. It's anti-life, and so are they.

This part was interesting, too:

Quote

By looking at potential risks to patients’ lives and health, as well as physicians’ practices and obligations, a single federal judge displayed far more insight, care, legal acumen and humanity than the six right-wing Supreme Court justices who essentially told women: You’re on your own.

The ones here who commented that if you don't like the anti-abortion laws in your state, just vote differently....basically saying the same thing to women - "You're on your own."

[traveler52]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Opinion | Distinguished person of the week: An Idaho judge says women's lives matter - The Washington Post

 

 

I think forced-birthers have shown, through the unreasonable and dangerous laws they support and legislate, that this is not about life. This is really contempt for women. Devaluing her life and health. It's anti-life, and so are they.

This part was interesting, too:

The ones here who commented that if you don't like the anti-abortion laws in your state, just vote differently....basically saying the same thing to women - "You're on your own."

Forcing Women to unwanted children is inhumane and demonstrates a desperate need to control a Woman's Body.  

[Yzermandius19]

54 minutes ago, traveler52 said:

Forcing Women to unwanted children is inhumane and demonstrates a desperate need to control a Woman's Body.  

it's not their body

the side who wants to control someone else's body

is the pro-abortion side who wants to control the unborn child's body, to the point of killing it

[Goddess]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it's not their body

And that, is the crux of the problem.

Men who don't believe women are the owners of their own bodies.  They believe men, the state and children own women and have primary say over what she does with her own body.

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, Goddess said:

And that, is the crux of the problem.

Men who don't believe women are the owners of their own bodies.  They believe men, the state and children own women and have primary say over what she does with her own body.

women own their own bodies

they don't own the bodies of others

there is a difference

Edited August 29, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

women own their own bodies

they don't own the bodies of others

there is a difference

But you do believe that men and fertilized eggs have primary say over how a woman uses her body.

Why should a woman have to carry a headless baby?  It's not viable.  Explain that to me.

Why should a woman have to die for an ectopic pregnancy?  It's not viable.  Explain to me your reasoning for these things.