Well, first of all it absolutely can be healthcare. A fetus can be found to have serious problems and need to be removed. A woman can require life saving treatments for any of a variety of diseases where the treatment will harm the fetus - leaving horrible decisions that should be made by the woman and her doctor, NOT the government. Besides, the factors and odds assessments can be complex. We've seen young girls become pregnant at or before even being teenage, with carrying the fetus to term being highly risky to the life and/or future procreative ability of that girl. Etc. You claimed I've said the following. "And trying to justify completely unrestricted abortion by any woman at any time in a the preganncy up to the moment of birth ..." That is flat out false. I've always been in favor of the LONG HISTORY of fetuses that have reached viability while being without immediate serious defects being saved. But, let's remember that there are defects that preclude reasonable life that aren't discovered until late term. The mistakes you are making have a general theme of ignoring the health of the woman and disregarding the state of the fetus.
I don't see her mentioning the fact that a fetus can have issues anywhere from being dead to having conditions that preclude reasonable life. And, that removal can be important healthcare. I also don't see her dealing with situations where the pregnant woman has cancer and can be successfully treated for that disease, but that such treatment would be seriously harmful to the fetus. Denying treatment for the term of gestation can be a death sentence. Cancer is NOT the only type of disease where this is the case. I don't see in your quote where she addresses young girls, such as pre-teens who become pregnant, but whose bodies are not prepared for that. Etc. Simply saying that none of these situations (and others unmentioned) can be considered healthcare is simply nonsense. This doctor clearly has an agenda, as she is supposed to be taking care of the woman.
I raised 5 kids. The best moments in our lives are the moments we spend with children. The 4 year old I am helping raise still stays with me 1 day a week due to her moms work schedule. Yesterday, we made pretzels in her Easy Bake oven, and did some art projects. I can't imagine not wanting a child. The best part is watching them grow into happy, self confident adults. I guess my reason for opposing abortion is the total sum of life and experiences that will never exist as a result.
Feel free to go and read her entire testimony at the link I can't post it all here. She deals with them all. And don't try to move the goal post this is about the claim that abortion is health care. That abortion is not necessary for health care is is quite the antithisis of it. The doctor is talking the SCIENCE you are talking agenda.
No, you're just wrong about that. Having government prevent radiation or chemotherapy to save a woman from cancer absolutely IS healthcare. And, using government to sentence her to die is NOT healthcare.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, I NEVER SAID THAT....it's just your warped idea of what I posted. Now tell me how many fetuses have SSN s ....
I believe its wrong, but using government might to impose my beliefs on others is also wrong. If I accept one abuse of power, I have to accept them all. Also, abortion laws simply cannot be enforced. If I gave you unlimited resources, how would you enforce abortion bans? Medical tourism, the internet, and abortion drugs render these laws as useless as the liberals gun laws.
Not at 31 weeks. That was viable even when RvW was new. Technically it's a baby when it's born. But losing a desired pregnancy feels horrible even when it's early and clearly not a person yet. People stray from the technical definition of "baby" all the time. I think my mom even calls me her baby sometimes still but it stopped being true once I turned 1 or 4, depending upon whose definition is used.
"Technically" it's an unborn baby from the getgo the abortion supports just have a need to engage in denial.
No need to yell! I described the value of life in my view and abortion prevents what I have described. I can't make it any simpler. Its your turn. If I gave you unlimited resources, how would you enforce abortion bans?
I use the common and proper language how about you? Morally and scientifically it is a human being, an individual human being......that is a person. The person which is at the baby stage of life.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, I NEVER SAID THAT....it's just your warped idea of what I posted. Now tell me how many fetuses have SSN s .... And now the dodging . I will inject whatever I chose. Now tell me how many fetuses have SSN s .... An SSN does not make a person, BIRTH does. A person has to be born to get one, be a legal person......and that is why YOU can't show me a fetus with an SSN.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, I NEVER SAID THAT....it's just your warped idea of what I posted. Now tell me how many fetuses have SSN s .... And now the dodging . I will inject whatever I chose. Now tell me how many fetuses have SSN s .... An SSN does not make a person, BIRTH does. A person has to be born to get one, be a legal person......and that is why YOU can't show me a fetus with an SSN. Nope, BIRTH makes A person.... and that is why YOU can't show me a fetus with an SSN.
Everyone knows what an abortion is, and calling it a baby over a fetus doesn't actually change anything. Both terms are correct, even if fetus is the more medically accurate. There are no "ahha" moments to be had by calling it a baby. Every pro-choicer knows what occurs, it is already baked in to their position as pro-choice, just like it is to those who choose to be anti-abortion. Whether you want to call it a baby, a blessing, a human, a child, a mini-me, a gift from God, etc etc, none of it matters. That's just semantics. The terms used don't change what an abortion is and therefore isn't going to change people's views on it. If you're like me and you feel that so long as the fetus/baby/blessing/gift from God/human/child/mini-me/whatever is a part of it's mother that the mother has the right to make ALL the decisions including the decision to abort, the noun or pronoun you use means nothing.
As I have repeatedly done here I can quote you medical cite after medical cite discussing the unborn baby. If pro-"choicers" know what happens then why can't they admit and instead hide behind the phony "choice" so they don't have to utter the word or admit what it is they support? And a baby is never a "part" of the mother, another scientific and medically fallacious claim to try and justify the the mother killing the unique and individual human being, her baby, because she does not want it to live. It's not semantics it is reality.
