I believe I am now fully Pro-Life.

What if you did NOT believe 15 weeks to be within the reasonable range?

Presumably you would find 54 weeks not to be within the reasonable range. Is it at that point "her body her choice"? And if not, can the legistires outlaw abortion? With what penalty?

 

It must be a scary word for you to live in when you expect the government to remove all risk from your life. It sounds like you might enjoy North Korea, or any other totalitarian regime

 

Don't expect it to.

 

Which other people?

 

Could you be more specific about what you are asking? Your question refers to my example of not having the unrealistic expectation that I should be able to set the abortion cutoff point, to the exact week. Personally, I noted, I thought that 20 weeks was a preferable limit; but, in demonstration of my understanding that I have no Divine right to make this decision for all, I state that I see 4 or 5 weeks, one way or the other, within reason. This is based not only on my own perspective, but also on the equivalent international standard and on our own, historical practice.

If you cared to take my argument a step further, I guess you could say that what is considered "reasonable," varies among us. Nevertheless, I still think that most people understand the general concept of the meaning of "in the ballpark," when it comes to negotiating the price of a house, or of a used car, or for evaluating bids on some carpentry job or landscaping project. The two criteria with abortion, as I stated, are giving women sufficient time, after they discover that they are pregnant, to utilize the abortion option, and judging at what point, a fetus becomes more like a person, than something evolving towards being a person. Since changes in utero, come rapidly, and as I am no expert on fetal development, I would think it should be obvious that I would have little objection to variances from my own opinion by a week or two, in either direction. As I had also said, I find 24 or 25 weeks to be pushing it a bit, as well as 15 weeks to possibly presenting difficulties, in some cases. So these are a little further than I'd like, but not so far that the general view would support saying that 15 weeks is beyond a credible suggestion. By what measure?

On the other hand, once fetuses could viably come into the world, and be human beings, clearly is a reason to set a bar. Or the six-week standard, when not even all women realize they are pregnant, is a non- starter, and not a serious "offer," towards satisfying the two objectives I stated. There are various other factors, and aspects, to this idea, but I would rather get a clearer sense of the point you are trying to make, before I go off, unnecessarily, in one of those directions.

 

.

 

Nevermind. Your just trolling me.

 

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. First you say your right to not be infected by me means I should be forcibly vaccinated, then you say you're not worried about me infecting you, but rather me infecting 'other people' ...but you won't say who those other people you're worried about me infecting are.

Kinda seems like you're just angry that the unvaccinated arent following the rules more than they're actually a threat to you or some mysterious 'others.'

 

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's a tough ethical, conceptual and legal problem for all but the absolutists on either extreme. For everyone in the middle, it's a line-drawing dilemma, which is worse than a problem.

But start with this: Assuming you did have a problem with abortion at some point, and it sounds like you do post-viability, certainly at 30 weeks, do you as a legislator vote to prohibit abortion, assuming we're not talking rape, incest, life of the mother, hideous birth defects? If post-viability outside the womb is the test, then fine. But what if the legislature legalizes it, even subsidizes it, until 39.5 weeks? That is really murder, in my view, and we may get into a John Brown situation. Brown was the leading exponent of violence in the American abolitionist movement:[6]: 426  he believed that violence was necessary to end American slavery, since decades of peaceful efforts had failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

I don't think we will, but there are some on the extreme left being elected to the legislatures in the northwest. Who knows if their numbers will grow?

And what do you do as viability outside the womb, as science advances, is moved further and further back? What if the science develops that allows gestation to occur wholly outside the womb? Remember, viability is our criterion,

Elsewhere you mentioned "when the fetus starts to look like us." It can't be based on appearances.

I think where this is going is we are going to move into a Roe v. Wade regime, but set by legislatures instead of the courts, as RBG advocated and predicted. I don't see it as the end of the world, legally speaking, if California sets it at 27 weeks and Mississippi sets it at 15. Not the end of my world anyway. As for "the fetus".....

 

To clear up, are we talking about covid or just in general?

 

I guess that depends on whether you supported forcibly vaccinating people before covid or only after.

 

Well then, from now on if a dangerous disease is spreading and the vaccine for it reduces or eliminates a persons ability to spread the disease you will be vaccinated.

 

Let us know when they come up with one will you?

And you aren't going to force anyone to do a damn thing

 

Not me personally.

 

You're the one telling people what they will do.

 

Why do you have the right to be typhoid mary?

 

Now you're just power tripping. Which is really strange considering you dont even have that power...

You still didn't answer the question though... which people are you worried about the unvaccinated infecting?

 

As of right now none. Why do you have the right to be typhoid mary?

 

Thats a strawman. I cant be typhoid mary without getting infected, and getting vaccinated doesnt prevent me from getting infected. So Im nott typhoid mary now, but I could still become typhoid mary regardless of vaccination. You need to find a better narrative to regurgitate.

And just so we're keeping track- you think I should be forced to take a vaccine even though "As of right now" the people you're worried about me infecting are "none."

And you dont see any problem with that...

 

Do you remember being in your mothers womb? I’m gonna go with no.

 

Do you remember being out of the womb on day 1? I'm gonna go with no.

 

Nope. Is someone advocating killing a viable healthy newborn baby?

 

You appear to be drawing a line between babies who have a consciousness of being alive (not abortable) versus those without such consciousness. That's presumably why you asked if I "remember" being in my mother's womb. I don't see that as having any relevance to the debate. Some babies are born comatose or at least asleep. They don't "remember" this, of course.

 

No I don't see the problem with people being forced to take a vaccine that will reduce or eliminate the chance of you infecting others.

 

As you note, this issue is most problematic for "absolutists on either extreme." In my opinion, it is only a "line- drawing dilemma," and I would be using the word dilemma, a bit loosely, as I don't think it should be overly difficult to come to agreement amongst "those in the middle," who are willing to compromise a little from whatever point they would see as the ideal, to find a satisfactory medium. Like you, I would have no problem if this varied, from state to state, as long as there were some federal parameters. For comparison, think of the federal minimum wage. There is nothing stopping any particular state from setting a higher minimum, but all must at least meet the federal litmus. Except for a couple of states, that is essentially what we have, with abortion, now. If, however, the SCOTUS leaves it completely up to the states, as it appears poised to do, there would be no federal minimum standard, which is a problem, as we have seen numerous states, ready to all but completely outlaw abortion.

I would not object, if the SCOTUS set that bar at 15 weeks; but I feel it should, at a minimum, extend to the entire 13 weeks of the first trimester. From your comments, am I to take it that you include yourself among those extremists, who would condone violence as a supposed remedy, if the foregoing scenario was the case?

What is your point, here? Did you know that there are 7 or 8 states, currently, that have no cutoff point, for abortion? And they are not all "extreme left," or in the northwest. They include Red States, like Alaska, and purple states, like Colorado (IIRC). What seemed to stand out among the group, were that they all seemed to be states that had some rather isolated parts (even NJ has its Pine Barrens), so my guess would be that the reason for allotting more time, has to do with ACCESS to abortion services. If the SCOTUS were to set a 1st trimester bar, I would think it equally important that they dealt with the phenomenon of states which have been regulating abortion clinics, in their states, all but out of existence.*

I would also see no problem with the SCOTUS setting some carefully considered, scientifically based, and reasonable upper limit, for abortions; this would need take into consideration, the issue of access, as well.

You are mistaken, about my ever stressing physical appearance. If you go back, you should see, from the context, that when I said, "more like a person (than not)," I was not referring to looks. I had previously noted brain size and, of course, organ functionality.

DEFinning said: ↑
..."The two criteria with abortion, as I stated, are giving women sufficient time, after they discover that they are pregnant, to utilize the abortion option, and judging at what point, a fetus becomes more like a person, than something evolving towards being a person."

Your speculations about scientific advancements are very premature. Even at the current 24 week standard, which has held for 50 years, the majority of those infants would not survive, and practically all would end up with serious developmental disabilities. Even just looking at an extremely low, but feasible, survival rate, we have only pushed the threshold down to 22 weeks, so the 17 states that have a 20- week limit, already have no case that this is the onset of "viability." Accordingly, there is no reason, at present or for the foreseeable future, to be concerned with the possibility of gestation, "wholely outside the womb." Your thinking appears unduly influenced by science fiction, and by unrealistically pompous advocates of science, as a panacea for all ills.

What you postulate, is something that I believe reasonable people should be able to live with-- but didn't you suggest that you couldn't live with liberal limits?

It is, however, irrelevant, as your speculation, above, is a fantasy, based on the early draft of the SCOTUS decision on abortion, and the laws that many states already have on the books, to go into effect as soon as the Supreme Court permits them. It is a quaintly naive idea you seem to present, that Red States will be content to limit abortion, on their own, to the first 15 weeks.
*Unfortunately, it looks as if the SCOTUS is not even going to offer a minimum national standard. This will forever, be their shame.