FoxHastings said: ↑ Only in your mind. I promote women's right to their own bodies and you promote destroying rights. You haven't presented any... Here we go round the rosy ...and around and around... IF a fetus is deemed a person with rights then with those rights comes the same restrictions we all have. We cannot harm another without their consent...A fetus couldn't do that either We all have the right to self defense so a woman can defend herself by killing the fetus( the ONLY way to stop the harm) You promote women losing the same rights you have and enjoy... You couldn't address my post....why was that? Too many facts for you to not want to see???? There are no females "slaughtered" in utero. And that's a stupid question.... I want any BORN female to have all the rights everyone else has, YOU DO NOT.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Sure it runs out but by then who cares.....certainly no mentally stable woman would want an elective abortion after 24 weeks...so no prob... WHERE ? HOW MANY? What stats show "plenty"??? WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT WOMEN ARE HAVING ILLEGAL ABORTIONS? If you have NO answers, as usual, to those questions then it proves your statement was quite wrong.
FoxHastings said: ↑ The "nitty -gritty gestational age is 23-24 weeks....the age of viability....how many times do you have to be told that???? O M G !!! Just OMG! VIABILITY ISN'T BACKED BY REAL SCIENCE ????? WTF...
The real strength of the Pro-Choice side is that it give the individual the right to make a decision for themselves based on the particular circumstances affecting that individual. Pro-Choice supporters don't inflict any particular choice on anyone. That's called "freedom of the individual." Pro-Life supporters want to inflict their views onto everyone else in a "one size fits all" scenario, and do it thru the law so they can arrest and punish anyone who disagrees with them. This is called "tyranny." You are free to believe whatever you want. I should have the same right, if indeed we do live in a "free" society. To me, your views are too extreme to work in a society that encourages individual freedoms.
Choice? To do what? Commit a wanton homicide? Why would any decent society want homicide to be legal to commit just cause you want to kill somebody???
Show me where science has determined the exact age at which a child has reached “ viability”! Now prove that everyone agrees on what viability looks like! Yeah thought so, bubye now!
What I'm about to say won't penetrate you, but for the sake of discussion, I'll write it anyway. To be redundant, the Supreme Court justices who ruled in Roe vs Wade were faced with the very dilemma you cite here. They wanted to protect the rights of everyone involved--the fetus and the mother. Both must have rights under the law. They spent months doing research and in private discussion trying to find a balancing point. Roe vs Wade was one of the best rulings ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court throughout history, BECAUSE they cared about the rights of everyone, not just one side. That's unusual, and reflects the best in humanity whenever it happens. Their research at that time indicated a fetus could survive outside the mother no earlier than 6 months into the pregnancy. So, they said at the six month point, when the fetus became viable on its own, then the rights of the fetus would take precedence. Until then, while the fetus was dependent on the mother for staying alive, the mother's rights would take precedence. It was a magnificently fair and carefully thought out ruling, and one that has withstood the test of time. Changing it now, after decades of being part of American life, culture, society and our legal rights, will create new dilemmas and issues that will become nightmares in comparison. I don't want us to go there, and I predict after you see the ramifications of killing Roe vs Wade, you'll have second thoughts as well--unless you don't really feel mothers have rights once impregnated--as some Pro-Lifers do.
It doesn't matter whether scientists can determine the precise date a fetus becomes viable. In Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court decided on 6 months, and that worked quite well for many years. With today's technology, that could be pushed to earlier in a pregnancy, but we still have to agree on a reasonable point where the rights of the fetus and mother don't conflict. But the Pro-Life position that only the fetus has rights is untenable--and wrong ethically. I've also noticed that many of the most fervent Pro-Lifers who are dedicated to saving fetuses from conception, seldom show any concern whatsoever about the living conditions of that child once born, and often are first in line to support foreign wars where innocents are slaughtered in mass. I've never understood these discrepancies.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I promote women's right to their own bodies and you promote destroying rights. You haven't presented any... Here we go round the rosy ...and around and around... IF a fetus is deemed a person with rights then with those rights comes the same restrictions we all have. We cannot harm another without their consent...A fetus couldn't do that either We all have the right to self defense so a woman can defend herself by killing the fetus( the ONLY way to stop the harm) You promote women losing the same rights you have and enjoy... You couldn't address my post....why was that? Too many facts for you to not want to see???? There are no females "slaughtered" in utero. And that's a stupid question.... I want any BORN female to have all the rights everyone else has, YOU DO NOT. I do know that you could NOT refute a word of my post If there are people committing "premeditated homicide"....AGAIN, why haven't you called the police?
From Wiki: Viability, as the word has been used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions.[2] Another definition for viability, as used in the medical phrase limit of viability, is the expectation that a fetus has an equal chance of surviving and not surviving outside his or her mother's womb. According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viability of a fetus means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[3] Medical viability[edit] There is no sharp limit of development, gestational age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increase 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5][6][7][8]
“There is no sharp limit of development, gestational age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable! “ Thanks for posting that, although it destroys your position.
They missed the mark quite clearly. Of the two human beings involved one is in a dramatically stronger position to take advantage of the other. The woman, in the overwhelming number of cases, created the new life through her own actions. Then decided later she didn’t want the responsibility of a child so she wanted to wantonly execute the child for no reason other than the child is an inconvenience. There has been a steady moral erosion ever since that horrifically bad SCOTUS ruling came down, so don’t talk to me about consequences when you don’t even recognize the ones this fiasco has caused.
No, my post was perfectly logical. The original ruling by the Supreme Court was as detailed & accurate as they could devise for that time. Medical technology has altered the details since then, so I'm not sure what constitutes "viability" right now, but that doesn't change the focus of my argument that the rights of both the fetus and the mother MUST be part of the ultimate answer. You cannot simply portect the rights of the fetus alone. The mother is a viable human being and citizen of the U.S., and her rights are protected under the Constitution as well. The Pro-Lifers seem to want to avoid that recognition. I, and the majority of Americans living today, don't. Aside from that. Have you taken time to actually consider the pain and tragedy you will inflict on our nation and its women by killing Roe vs Wade? How many innocent teens and women in their twenties must ruin their lives before Pro-Lifers recognize that "life" includes the living?
Of course there's no sharp cut off....fetuses do not all develop at exactly the same rate. BUT it is generally at 23 -24 weeks it becomes viable. Yes, there is some leeway so those numbers were chosen as an average since viability cannot be exactly determined. Sure beats your idea of banning all abortions...
. More baloney.....the fetus USES the woman's body to sustain it's life....something NO ONE ELSE can do....the FETUS is taking advantage of the woman!!! So what? NO child is killed wantonly or otherwise despite your erroneous term for a fetus and hyperbolic crap you use only because you have no facts. AND once again ALL ABORTIONS are performed due to the INCONVENIENCE of having a kid you don't want and/or can't afford....women do not have abortions for fun or sport, they have them because the pregnancy is INCONDAMNVENIENT.. BULL! Abortions have been around for thousands of years and have affected society not at all.... NOBODY's "morals" are eroded because abortions take place.....HAVE YOUR MORALS ERODED ?????REALLY! MINE HAVEN"T
That's because Anti-Choicers are usually misogynists to whom women's rights, suffering and deaths are meaningless.
