Attempting to refute the judgement of the doctors in attendance can not be justified. Ms Cox is NOT your patient.
Do you want to tell me about the Carnegie stages again? I mean that seems to be about where your medical knowledge starts and ends
I wasn't talking about specifics and nether are you. Would you support abortions only for women in this predicament? If not using this as an example of why people need to be permitted to continue genocide is dishonest. Fetus means child. Yes I see the child as a child, what the **** else would they be? I don't think that's justification for genocide.
A fetus is a fetus. What's dishonest is that those opposed to abortions CLAIM that it's not that hard core, because women can get an abortion if they need it for medical reasons. But, we see that in Texas that is absolutely NOT the truth. You are demanding that women must suffer and actually die for YOUR beliefs. YOU can die for your beliefs, but others get to have THEIR beliefs, especially when it concerns their bodily autonomy. Besides, what Ms Cox did doesn't qualify as anything you have proposed. That fetus had a fatal disease. Having YOU or anyone else besides HER decide to risk her life and procreative ability for a terminal fetus makes NO sense by ANY logic.
You should know the topic. Your wrote it: "Some will say about abortion, "It's her business, not yours"
So I guess you think that gives you license to debate about the Catholic Church or prattle on about some specific woman's story with debatable & complicated issues? You could start another thread and leave the link here, but you won't. Because you want to change the course of discussion in this thread.
That's a synonym for child. That's a broken sentence for you. I didn't realize I was the supreme dictator of Texas. People can vote. I didn't propose anything so no idea what you are talking about. I'm not in charge of that.
What percentage of total abortions are done for unusual medical reasons? In the past I presented some evidence suggesting (though not proving for sure) that the majority of abortions done up to 19 weeks gestation are likely not being done for medical reasons. And that even after that, a substantial portion are likely not being done for legitimate medical reasons, even if not a majority. I have also presented evidence that it's not extremely unusual for certain women not to find out they are pregnant until 7 or even 8 months.
More than you would think. But one of the biggest drivers for abortion is economic - if a family is struggling then one more mouth can be overwhelming. The young homeless woman who knows she will not be able to defend herself when gravid, the young waitress raped by her employer who knows she will lose a job lots of research supporting this - so tell me are you willing to see a “baby bonus” be given as an incentive to reduce abortion?
In those situations, how late into the pregnancy do you think that justifies a termination? Here's a fetus at 18 weeks appeared in an April 1965 issue of Life magazine picture was actually taken in black and white by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson, who commissioned two companies to build the components for an endoscopic camera that travelled into a womb. The picture on the cover of the magazine had color artificially added to the image.
Talking about going down the rabbit hole!. The Pro 'life' movement is full of people so desperate, that they not only dig that hole before they go down, they re-define the entire concept of spacial relationship to include only those of the inches of the walls of the rabbit hole that validate the reason they have to dig one and jump down and conversely invalidate the other inches of the walls. This is thread is a tortured twisted alternate universe of logic.
I could understand how it might appear that way to you, when nothing in this thread is able to register in your very pro-choice mind. Since you have already decided what the truth is, seeing any line of thinking that conflicts with that will not make sense.
Hmmm foetal age 18 weeks or gestational age 18 weeks https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-u-s-five-key-facts-n889111 So only 5.1% of abortions happen after 16 weeks - now Guttmacher did some research on the later abortion (between 16 and 21 weeks - this is where the poverty, access and stigmatisation cause delays https://theconversation.com/less-th...rd-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/
One of the ways they redefine the argument is to concentrate on late term abortions mischaracterising them as the norm. In fact they even take it to the ridiculous extreme of “after birth abortion”
It is the woman’s choice. There are hundreds reasons why a woman might opt for an abortion. I don’t see men losing any health choices if they cause a pregnancy by force or walk away after getting a woman pregnant. What would men do in the case where they abandon the mother, therefore the fetus, they have to submit to removal of their penis, no choice, no exceptions? A woman deserves the right to make her own medical choices.
You are attempting to discredit the "it's her business, not yours" by trying to claim it is a "child". The fact that it is NOT a child makes the "it's her business, not yours" argument valid.
I think you totally misunderstand the point of my post then. I just didn't want pro-choicers to keep derailing every pro-life discussion by constantly turning the argument towards the issue of whether it is a child. I concede that the pro-life argument falls apart (theoretically) if it is not a "child". You also need to recognize that, if that is only main solid argument you are presenting, then your entire pro-choice position is totally built on that one issue. Maybe you have trouble realizing that not every individual abortion discussion or argument is about all of the entire issue of abortion. You are willing to concede the point of my argument that, if hypothetically, for the sake of argument, it were a child, that abortion would be wrong? And if not, do you have any logical arguments to make? Like I pointed out before, I've noticed a pattern in this forum where when pro-choicers start getting pushed into a corner, they just change the argument, trying to focus on a different issue. If I start a thread that has as its focus the issue of whether or not it is a child, invariably several pro-choicers come in and respond that "Well, that doesn't matter. Even if it were a child she still has the right to abort because..."
I think you are forgetting that the fetus can be anywhere from dead to healthy. And, the health of the woman can have the same range due to health issues. The fetus and the woman are tied in terms of health. For Ms Cox of Texas, there was no course of healthcare that would save the fetus. And, the fetus was making her seriously ill and would quite possibly end up making Ms Cox unable to have another chance at motherhood. Yet the courts of Texas denied her the healthcare she needed. So, she had to go to another state. This is a major travesty of justice. And your crap about calling the fetus a "child" does not answer ANY question at all.
If the pro-choice movement consented to a flat out allowance of abortion whenever there was the slightest legitimate health issue or abnormality, it would still not allow 98% of the abortions that are happening. I find these frequent appeals about "medical issues" to be mostly a red herring, when it comes to the overall issue of abortion. How about we focus on all those abortions that are not done for any real medical issues, in this discussion?
The reason why women seek an abortion are very complex and every women who is contemplating an abortion has their own unique reasons based on variables unique to the individual. Reasons can include age, circumstances like socio-economic status, age health, mental status, unplanned/contraception failure, barriers to contraceptive use, rape, incest, fetal anomalies, partner violence, exposure to drugs and alcohol etc etc etc etc. Abortion is a medical treatment, therefore, like all medical matters, it is up to the woman to make decisions related to abortion according to her own unique circumstances without influence by outside parties Women, it’s a human rights issue, have the right to decide what they want to do with their body and a woman’s right to self-determination should not be replaced by political ideology. So therefore, threads like this are stupid and useless and insulting. Anti-abortion legislations allow men to control women’s bodies. The argument related to ‘it’s their business, not yours’ is just another attempt by the right to try to paint women as selfish sluts who have nothing better to do than use abortion as birth control. Women are dehumanized to the extent of being vessels for delivering new life and their own personal circumstances and freedom make their own medical choices be damned. Tell me, you righties, why are you so interested in controlling women to the extent they have to bring a fetus into the world, yet once a fetus is delivered, you lose interest. At the end of the day, righties may well believe that embryos/fetuses are people but stop pretending that anti-abortion legislation is actually about children. Forced-birth legislation is about punishing women and taking their free-will away. What it is — anti-freedom, anti-women, anti-child, and anti-mother. This post requires no response from you Mr Kazenatspooh because your opinion is irrelevant and supports control of women and the hatred of women and seriously find a new obsession. My seven year old has more sense than you.
My pro choice argument is based on that...it's a choice. More specifically it's the choice of the woman involved. It's not YOUR choice, it's not MY choice. It's not the choice of the legislators who want to take away that choice. To argue that someone else gets to make that choice for her is anti freedom.
That is as logical as saying "There is no such thing as a newborn. They are called Neonates." Human unborn and born are human offspring, correcty called human children. Everybody but those who want to dehumanize the unborn so that it can be easily killed---refers to it as an unborn baby. Just like people refer to a newborn as a baby. No one calls them NEONATES--but if people were for post-abortion--they would start correcting people when they referred to a newborn as a baby. They would say "THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a newborn. They're called NEONATES.
