FoxHasting said: You: ""Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus should be slam dunks"" Why an exception for rape and incest? A fetus is a fetus. So YOU contend that all fetuses are NOT "innocent life" with rights..... LOL. "leeway" says it's OK to kill what YOU call "innocent life" with rights????LOLOLOL YUP, SHE DOES...not you, not Repubs Bigger Government, SHE does... . So THERE IT IS...women who have consensual sex must be punished ....clear as a bell... And I guess the fetus due to rape is NOT "precious innocent life " as Anti-Choicers claim......what TF makes it different??? Which is what we had for 50 years until control freaks decided that wasn't PUNISHING women enough LOL, thanks for admitting you got trounced
I never ever claimed woman had a ""Constitutionally guarantied right to an abortion"""they DO have a right to bodily autonomy, a right you have but don't want women to have...pathetic..
That would be the 24 week viability system, with the exceptions for problems as you already noted. The problem is not that there is no compromise. The problem is that too many conservative types don't even want that. You yourself noted the problematic 6 week law. I'm betting there was a lot of grumbling about allowing even that much.
In the context of whether it needs another's bodily resources, yes. After the viability point, there is a 50% chance that it can survive on its own with no further support via the umbilical cord. Prior to that point, it cannot, or rather the chance rapidly diminishes, with after that point the chances rapidly increase until it's as close to 100% as any infant is going to get. After that, any support from adults is interchangeable and the offspring needs no bodily resources from another. Doesn't need to. A single father can provide formula or a wet nurse can provide breast milk. Not necessarily. As noted plenty of adults not the parents can do that. The body does survive on its own with no need for an isolated environment or umbilical support making use of another being's bodily resources. If the offspring end up coming out too soon then it cannot digest food, process oxygen, expel waste via urine or feces, in short it cannot survive on its own as can an offspring fully, or near fully developed. I certainly won't argue against this point.
If a newborn need parents or caretakers to survive then he is not sustaining himself. More subjective answers.
I'd be careful about stereotype conservatives - many are amenable to abortions under certain circumstances. Also, I'm not sure viability is the check point.
In a free and self determined society, people retain all freedoms that they do not empower government to restrict. There is no basis to restrict abortion and the government certainly has not been empowered by the people to deny them the freedom to chose.
I'm posting my opinions on an opinion forum. How is that getting into other people's lives? Is it that you just cannot stand to hear opposing views?
If you want to use the words differently, you go right ahead. But the fact objectively remains, that a born infant's body can sustain itself without the use of another's body in the direct fashion that it required when developing in the womb. There is a difference between sustain itself and take care of itself.
Did you see that part about "too many conservatives"? That right there indicates that I am not stereotyping conservatives as a whole, and its use also automatically indicates that there is a portion that is certainly willing to compromise. But, as I said, the problem is that the compromises that the later portion is willing to make is not enough for the first portion. And that first portion tends to concentrate itself into the politicians and try to make laws that don't compromise, or try to push those compromises even further back.
Now just get the 10 states that have banned abortions even to save the woman's life to back off of that stance, and we might be good. The only exception they have is rape or incest. Woman's life or health....not important. Are we at least agreed, among us at any rate, that the vast majority of late term abortions are from necessary circumstances?
I'm not involved in the lawmaking at all. That's up to the citizens of each state through their elected representatives and no one else, as it should be.
Discussion, debate you mean. When you make declarations that you want women to suffer you are getting into their lives. So it is better to think before you post if you truly want to stay out of other people's life or just really stay the **** out of it. Oh, I can stand them and welcome them, when they are rooted in reality and intelligent reasoning. I have yet to see that in your posts.
Nope, never said I wanted women to suffer. I recommend a reading comprehension class for you.. Same for snide comment that my comments don't show intelligent logical reasoning. That says more about you than it does about me. Most likely you don't understand how little you actually understand the issue. It sounds more like you're just offended, in which case, I don't care, be offended.
Uh, where does THAT ""show intelligent logical reasoning. "" Sounds like pouting and being offended....nothing about the topic
Why do you ****ing lie? In post #156 you said: I recommend for you some integrity. It is just simple reality. Yea, it says that I am not falling for your crap. Yet it is you that does not know the difference between biological and social dependence or that there are no children in a womb. I am not offended in the least, but it is you who seems to be.
It's time for people who want to change things to get to work. The people of the state working at that level will work better Than hundreds of thousands shouting and yell in front of the Capitol. . Correct.
It won't be easy, of course. We've become a "yell at each other" nation versus a "let's reason together" nation. IMHO that's because we make every issue a federal case rather than work at state and local levels.
