Abortion is in the constitution.

The question was : You can't explain how an abortion due to rape is different or has a different outcome than an abortion due to consensual sex?





I ask Anti-Choicers this question whenever they make an exception for rape.

They claim a fetus is an "innocent precious life" that shouldn't be killed.

So I want to know why it isn't an "innocent precious life" that can be killed if it's the product of rape.

I point out that an abortion due to rape is the same procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex.


So why do some think abortion is OK if the woman was raped?

 

23-24 weeks is the legal cut off.

Pregnancies are NOT going any faster than they have since day one.....it's 9 months....still...

ZEFs do not grow any faster than they ever have...

 

If you are to advocate for women and free choice, you should at least know the difference between conceptions from rape and consensual relations. Do you think it serves a womans right to be raped?

 

The poster knows the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Do YOU know the difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex?

HINT: There isn't one.

 

That is exactly the excessively prudent view of right wing radicals.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The poster knows the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Do YOU know the difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex?

HINT: There isn't one.

WHAT is?

IF there is a difference why can't you point it out?

 

Because neither of you care about the woman. You're both fixated on your own dogma.

 

OBVIOUSLY some don't know there is no difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex.


They may think that in an abortion due to rape there is no "innocent precious life" and in an abortion due to consensual sex there is an "innocent precious life".

VERY illogical...

 

Show me that. And isn't the whole point of the Texas law that is before SCOTUS about making that point earlier?

Which has nothing to do with whether or not they can survive outside the womb if they are a premature birth, and there odds thereof based on how premature.

And yet drugs were used to stimulate faster development of my grandson's lungs (among other things) while he was still in mom's uterus, and as a result, he was healthier and needed less oxygen than a preemie born without given those drugs.

I did notice that you avoided the whole preemie and extraordinary care and viability contradiction i pointed out. Think you can manage to actually address that? Here, I'll help.

Now, IIRC, at no point in this thread has anyone actually defined fetal viability. So let me rectify that:

So once again, I have to ask. If a preemie is a birth prior to 37 weeks, and viability is being capable of survival without extraordinary measures, as you claimed a preemie needed (I quoted it above), then how can a preemie be viable at all since they need extraordinary measures?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The poster knows the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Do YOU know the difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex?

HINT: There isn't one.

WHAT is?

IF there is a difference why can't you point it out without a silly insult?

 

That still does not answer the question though. Why is is alright to terminate the ZEF if it was conceived from rape, but not alright if it is conceived from consensual sex? If the ZEF has a right to life when created by consensual sex, what causes it to lose that right when created from rape?

 

What are you talking about? While we have having issues on some other points, we both want the woman's rights to be upheld, particularly her right of bodily autonomy. We're not the ones saying that she is required to give birth if she gets pregnant when she tries not to.

 

Law canNOT make a fetus viable sooner....

I agree with this from your post :Various jurisdictions have different legal definitions of viability. In Ireland, under the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018, fetal viability is defined as "the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary life-sustaining measures." [Definitions (Part 2)(][7]

I believe that's how it is in the US.

Yes, DRUGS can aid at times with development, drugs...the ZEF still grows for 9 months, no faster than it ever has.

 

it's not mine either so don't ask me some justification based upon it. Nor is the bodily autonomy argument since that does not necessarily threaten the mother's life or her with serious bodily as is required in order for one human to take the life of another.

 

Im glad you are willing to discuss variables. Since the population in Los Angeles is close to 4 million, that sample size should more than make up for any variables and anomalies. Factor in that the majority of the population leans left and that elected officials on that side went heavy on daily messages and mandates.

Personally, my refusal to consume this product has nothing to do with politics. I almost died from taking the prescribed dose of a pharm product and it took me 12+ years to repair the liver damage it caused. Through healthy diet and exercise, I not only cured the condition I was given drugs for, I now have an immune system that keeps me from getting sick. I have not had a cold or flu for 20+ years. I know whats best for me and know better than to trust our government.

 

You are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense...

 

I was referring to FoxHastings and the far right.

 

In deference to the woman. To be raped is bad enough. To be forced to carry it to term is akin in some cases to raping her 24/7 for nine months along with the entanglements of her psyche and affections. It is too much to make someone bear, imo. It is where I break from the far right. When FoxHastings said there is no difference between aborting a conception from rape or from consensual relations, he places himself in the same extreme as the far right who also see no difference. They are both prisoners of their own dogma.

 

Nope you are ignoring the results of an abortion and YOU have made the self-defense argument in conjunction with this asserted "bodily autonomy".

 

A woman who has been raped does not have to become pregnant there are widely available and highly effective drugs that will prevent her fertility and the pregnancy from even beginning. Why, when rape barely accounts for 1% of all abortions is it always presented as justification for ALL abortion by some?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense...

Nope, you are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense.

I did not make the self defense argument in conjunction with bodily autonomy although they are related.


You are confusing bodily autonomy with self defense...and I won't explain them again since you don't seem to understand either one.

 

ANOTHER one who thinks women are not harmed in rape.

Raped women are traumatized, injured, stabbed, shot , tortured , burned, beaten...they are not in shape to calmly pull up their pants after being gently raped and walk to the nearest drugstore as YOU seem to think.

They may be in a coma, in surgery, recovering from surgery, recovering from wounds, near death, and all are mentally traumatized....and maybe not be able to judge what kind of drugs she wants in her body

Thank you for your understanding and compassion... (uh, that's sarcasm)

 

So now that Texas isn't doing abortions what is the next step?

 

Now that the government of Texass owns pregnant women they can also tell them when they have to abort.....

 

Stop putting words in my mouth and address what I actually said.

What percent of all abortions are due to rape? What percent of rape victims are in coma's? Why do you believe that is justification for ALL abortions?