I believe I am now fully Pro-Life.

Roe vs Wade being overturned is political suicide for the right. They may not agree or see it now, but this will not be good for the GOP.

 

At the end of the day and since the beginning of time, we are animals with no other purpose other than to reproduce.
Today reproduction is a morality free, responsibility free accident of reproduction. The women getting abortions are either too selfish, or too stupid to use birth control, and then having the audacity to refuse to honor the donor as a “Baby Daddy”.
Nothing like have four kids with four different studs to put you on a pedestal.
Again, we have a people problem for 80% of abortions.

 

We have a democracy, so you get to vote. I will, however, do everything in my power to resist you taking away a woman's right to determine the course of her life.

You can pass all the laws you like. I'm still going to resist.

 

Easy buck, I was thinking of it as more of conservative collectively.

 

Pretty flippant response, there. If she thinks an unborn baby is a human being, and she gave you good reasons for so thinking, why shouldn't she "force" her beliefs on you? She's trying to protect babies -- are there more helpless and innocent creatures anywhere? -- from being killed.

Christopher Hitchens made a not completely original argument in support of the pro-life position when he declared that we all have an interest in unborn children. "[An] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix. You can't say the rights question doesn't come up. I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be", and, "as a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity."

Is that true or false?

There's also a mystical-isn argument that we are not just what we are at the moment, but rather bit players flitting across the stage for a moment in a procession that started a few million years ago. The survival and flourishing of our successors is critically important. The "rights"argument butts up against this and it has to be reckoned with, which is why I think the lines drawn in Roe v. Wade are defensible, though obviously it would be better if there were a national consensus, enshrined in the constitution, rather than the opinion of 7 out of 9 political appointees.

By the way, at least 3 of the Roe majority were Republicans: Blackmun, Burger, and Stewart.

 

I deeply respect your political position and your services to the poor and distressed.

The problem with this debate comes down to the highlighted language. Once we start seeing "the foetus" as a "baby," everything changes.

"We had to kill the baby to save the mother" sounds and feels a lot different from "The mother elected to excise the fetus."

 

What difference does it make if birth control prevents conception and a fetus is a aborted at several weeks with mifepristone and misoprostol?

 

Still not hers or anyone else’s business what a women wants to do with HER own body.

 

So you were just making an assumption about an individual based on what group they belong to. Par for the course with you as I said

 

No "I" was making a generaization, you took it personally; par for the course.

 

What is your position on abortion? Are you pro-choice or anti-choice?

 

So you want to be free to infect people. Got it

 

Please point out where I said that.

 

you said "My right to not be infected by you supersedes your right to not get vaccinated."

Are you or are you not worried about being infected by the unvaccinated?

 

NOT WORRIED.

 

But see, the point is that her "choice" (like she's picking out an entrée) is affecting someone else's body as well. That's Hitchens' point. And in a more dramatic fashion than the pro choice campaign wants to recognize.

 

So why do want to force others to get vaccinated if you don't feel they are a danger to you?

 

Yes it’s affecting a fetus that doesn’t know it exists.

 

Because their a danger to other people.

 

forced abortion is a crime, so is forcing one to give birth

 

I don't think there's any reason to have an abortion after about a hundred days.... That should be plenty of time to know that you are pregnant.

The only exception I would say would be incest or mother's health. I do not believe in partial birth abortion. If you're going to do it get your ass in gear and do it.

But I must say thank you for actually asking instead of just making an assumption based on my politics like some people would

 

You're making the assumption that I would be infected to begin with.

You want to force people to take an injection of a largely untested vaccine.... That they actually had to change the definition of vaccine for.

You're not going to be able to force everyone to take it so if you're scared of people I recommend you go move out in the middle of nowhere or be a hermit or do whatever measures you feel you need to do because it's not your place to force everyone on the freaking planet to do what you want them to do.

You are not free to be a dictator sorry for your luck.

Life isn't fair and life isn't always safe either and it's not the government's job to make it that way.

 

At what point does the baby, I mean the fetus, know it exists? How do we know?

 

Now that argument-- equating an inchoate human fetus, absent much of its brain (the thing that really makes us distinct from other species), as well as having most of its vital organs insufficiently developed, to permit its survival, outside of the womb, with "black people"-- is the real sophistry. I have underlined your argument's two, fallacious posits. First, the idea that meta-physicality has anything to do with U.S. law, is misguided: they are plain facts, both that black & brown people are absolutely human beings, and that undeveloped fetuses are not. Yes, of course fetuses have human DNA and, given time, there is a very good chance that they would become human beings, but it is only from the religious or "spiritual" perspective, which you cite-- not from that of the biological sciences-- in which a zygote or embryo, attached to the placental wall, is de facto indistinguishable from any other human being. This has nothing to do with the Pro-Choice argument.

What the argument really comes down to, if you are interested in knowing the truth, is the differing valuations of when the gestating fetus has reached a point at which it is close enough to the rest us, to be thought of more as an individual, than as only a potential individual. This idea of what would be, is the basis of any Pro-Life argument, which does not rely strictly on the ideas of a "soul," or of "God's Will." (Remember, we have separation of Church & State in America, so, while we are free to express our spiritual beliefs, they are inappropriate, as a basis for law.) Those who try to make a biological case for considering a fetus as a "person," as you appear to be doing, must rely on the concept of regarding the plans, encoded in the unborn's genes, as being as good as already accomplished; in fact, however, those plans take time, to come to fruition. It is, therefore, during this early part of pregnancy, in which it is reasonable to weigh the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy (and right to choose the timing of when she wishes to add to her family size), above the rights of the, as yet metamorphosed, child in waiting.

Obviously, differing arguments can be made as to the point at which a fetus crosses that line; but your six day litmus is ridiculous because, functionally speaking, at that point, a human zygote is not much different from the life, one might find within a fish egg. I also think that the radical Pro-Choice attitude, of a fetus not being able to be thought of as a human being, before the moment of its emergence from the woman's vagina, is equally ludicrous.

The human gestational period, is 40 weeks. The national standard, since the Roe ruling, has been at about 24 weeks, though it has varied somewhat, among the states. Personally, I feel the halfway mark, 20 weeks, would be a better place to set that line, as it would still give women who wish to end their pregnancies, ample time to do so (almost 5 months), but errs on the safer side, when it comes to fetuses which, by that point, much more resemble functional human beings. This 20 week point, BTW, is the one which most states, not going with the 24 weeks/"viability," standard, have chosen.

It should be self-evident, however, that none of us-- especially the males, among us-- can reasonably take a specific, hard line position, on this question; compromise is particularly apt, on this issue. Accordingly, I still accept the roughly 24 week viability standard, even if I would have my own misgivings about it, if it were my own, developing child. Likewise, I acknowledge the 15 week standard, recently imposed by Mississippi, IIRC, as being within a reasonable range for argument, even if it seems to me that, for some cases, this could be too limiting; in most of Europe, for example, I believe the abortion cutoff is at only 13 weeks. Texas' six-week standard, however, and the position which own your argument, here, advocates, IMO, have no legitimate justifications.

 

Nope. Yes it is.