I am sick of recreational abortion! Keep my tax dollars away from mass murderers!

All too true

 

Straight from the CDC website...

It took me about 30 seconds to find this. You could have done the same.

 

And what is the level of child poverty in “red” states with strong abortion restrictions?

In fact, forget the USA, what is the correlation between abortion restriction and poverty worldwide?

 

Thank-you

Interesting but it ally refers to legal marriage not someone in a stable partnership

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6624a1.htm

The fall of the number of women married between 2005 and 2014 may very well reflect the trend to cohabit rather than marry

Guttmacher had a much higher ratio when it surveyed and asked for “stable partnership” and that in itself indicates there may be a male influencing factor here. The men unwilling to commit to marrieage may well be those encouraging partners to abort

 

A reasonable suggestion - on the surface. In an unusual bout of brevity - you did not support your claim so I will try to add some color.

My position is the "neurological perspective" - at the time significant brain function is achieved.

and what do we mean by "heart beat" - something with a consistent rhythm I would hope.

the quickening - 16 weeks - when the entity moves - is an interesting point as well.

Trying to find timeline for the "Fetal Heart Beat" - knowing 6 weeks (the normal time stated) is somewhat ridiculous .. I came up with this.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

Some good info - but no luck in better defining the rhythm question ... but a better understanding of the question.

I choose "Sig brain function" SBF - because - I think therefore I am. I would venture to guess that a high percentage of Philosophers adopt this position - Philosophy being one of the subject matter domains - Biology - Bioethics (NOT Embryology) being the others.

The medical definition - when SBF ends - they pull the plug and the dirt nap begins.

If I ask you to describe "What is a human" and "What is valuable about humanity" - at least to the second question - most of the answers are going to require cognition.

There is a point when the wiring of brain gets connected that it lights up like an xmas tree.

A reasonable cut-off would be 20-22 weeks. Heck I would even go for 18-20 .. that's 5 months.. clearly long after a woman knows she is pregnant (in vast majority) - and if you have not made the decision by then .. I don't have much sympathy .. from a moral perspective.

but that is my personal feeling - The legal perspective is different - and on this there are different arguments ..

Do I have the right to force my particular perspective on another through law (Physical Violence - the Heavy Hand of the State)
this is a different question - and I will default to the right of the woman in general.

..Instances beyond this level are rare -which I claim ads weight to my position.

Note that moving back to 18-20 weeks - gets pretty close to "The Quickening" hmmm.

In summary - I have moral issues with abortion after SBF

 

Just picked a number I knew was relatively close to the range - to give an idea of when SBF happens.

There are many ideas - and disciplines - that converge on "Sentience" -

Of those properly schooled in the subject of abortion - I dare say it would be very difficult to get 2/3rd's to agree that abortion should be banned prior to that point .. and that after all - is the legal bar that is supposed to be used.

 

YOU: """"It still doesn't matter what you call it as long as we're in agreement on what the law should be;""

Baloney! It DOES matter what it's called, it's NOT a "privilege", that's a very different word from "protection" and that is a very different word from "right"...words have different meanings for a reason.


You: ""It still doesn't matter what you call it as long as we're in agreement on what the law should be;""


WHY? WHY do you and I need to be in agreement ?? WTF ??

 

whom on public assistance, among others in low income (near poverty level) has $350 for the procedure? the reality is, the majority of these abortions are from teenagers, drug addicts, and the financially unsecure (poor)... they'd be forced to find some back-alley dude with a coat hangar...

@Bowerbird ... forced contraception is akin to forced medical/surgical procedures... do we really want to travel down that path?

i'm all for limited their births, especially those that use them for the additional gov paycheck, short of castration of everyone on public assistance, what's the next best choice? for me, let them get their abortions on the government's (taxpayer's) dime, it'll save us all a much larger headache...

abortion should not be a religious platform, it's societal as a whole, leave religion out of it, this is strictly a taxpayer's financial problem...

anywho, leave personal feelings out of it, unless you're willing to take on the responsibility of raising/housing/clothing/feeding these parasites (children) on your own dime... (you means anyone/everyone collectively, that is against abortion)

 

Yes, if you want the fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life then that means the fetus has more rights than anyone .

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If the unborn is not part of the woman's body then she has all the more reason/right to have it taken out.

IN FACT, if it isn't part of her body then it should be able to be removed and set on a shelf to grow on it's own

WHY would it die???

YOU said it isn't part of her body so why would taking it out kill it???

 

Who said anything about forced contraception? Certainly not me! Ideally we would have a reversible male contraceptive but that is a future dream

 

Women have heartbeats, too...

 

So it really is all about controlling women...

 

Why not stay focused on the TOPIC.....ya know, it's in the OP....

And if you want to discuss law then you'd better use correct terminology.


Again, I am not "arguing, I'm trying to show you your errors ...and one is thinking a fetus has "privilege" or "rights' which is does NOT.

 

That's your opinion.

The unborn and its mother have the same rights.

 

It is its own body with unique DNA. That is undeniable.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY would it die???

YOU said it isn't part of her body so why would taking it out kill it???

you didn't answer the questions you quoted...


Why not?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Yes, if you want the fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life then that means the fetus has more rights than anyone .

That's impossible....no woman can demand that another person use their body to sustain her life....no woman can demand another person give her their heart or kidneys or blood.... NO ONE CAN.


But you think a fetus can so that means you think a fetus has more rights than women or anyone else...

 

Because it's using the mother has a temporary host. duh.

 

More poppycock.

 

Absolute bologna propaganda like all your stuff. The GOP propaganda machine is pure misinformation and spin.