Keep abortion legal. Let mothers choose the slain.

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by bricklayer, Jan 3, 2020.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a time to kill. No one knows better who should be killed than their very own mothers.
    We need to keep abortion legal and let mothers choose the slain because moms know.

    There is a time to kill, and abortion kills the right people. If not for Roe V. Wade, there would now be among us, just here in the US, another thirty three million people all raised by mothers who would have just as soon killed them had it been legal. Like I said, Abortion kills the right people.
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your opinion on a consensus position such as the following?
    This is something we came up with a while back following a Ranked Vote on the subject:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/
    Also as part of that thread I asked posters the following:
    1. How does the above proposal differ from what you would view as your ideal resolution on the abortion issue?
    2. Despite whatever your ideal might be, do you view the above proposal as at least acceptable as a compromise?
    3. If not, what specific abortion related changes would you make to the proposal to make it more acceptable,
      while still maintaining its status as a compromise?
    4. Some of the points of this proposal are somewhat broad. If you were to add additional details to the proposal to better flesh out the more general areas, what would those details be?
    -Meta
     
    Junkieturtle likes this.
  3. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,739
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So does war, the pigs and God.
     
  4. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Medical science has progressed quite a bit since Roe V. Wade. We no longer need to choose between a woman's right to choose and the sanctity of human life. Abort the pregnancy, but don't kill the baby. Neonatal care is amazing but expensive.

    As a man, if I impregnate a woman and she gives birth to a premature baby, I would be on the hook for half of the neonatal care and child support. Mothers should be equally responsible. For decades we've been told that mothers don't want to kill the babies to get out of the financial responsibilities; well, put your money where your mouth is. We no longer have to choose between a mother's right to an abortion and a baby's right to life.
     
    Chester_Murphy and modernpaladin like this.
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,568
    Likes Received:
    9,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This would've made a way better thread title.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  6. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,507
    Likes Received:
    2,228
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a huge thread jack.
     
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally agree
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,932
    Likes Received:
    15,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Medical science" has NOT made pregnancy progress any faster. It still takes 9 months , fetuses do NOT grow faster now than they did before. :roll:

    Women should always have the same rights everyone else has including the right to bodily autonomy.

    "We" , whoever THAT is, do NOT get to choose who has rights and who doesn't based on whether they are pregnant or not.
     
  9. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    21,515
    Likes Received:
    17,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No fetus has EVER survived under 21 weeks of age, even with best medical care available.
    Very few abortions are performed beyond that stage of development and most of those are for medical reasons.

    You know nothing, Jon Snow. These are decisions made by the mother and her doctor, not random strangers on the internet who will never, ever face the possibility or uncertainties of pregnancy.
     
    Junkieturtle and FoxHastings like this.
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as I'm aware, the earliest surviving baby ever was born at just over 21 weeks gestational age.
    Though nearly every other baby (99% or so) born before the 24th week does not survive,
    and rates of survival for babies born at 24 weeks are still relatively low even then,
    20 to 35% survival rate for them with substantial medical assistance. (rapidly increasing as 25th week is approached)
    Those born at 24 weeks who survive, even with the artificial help to keep them alive,
    then have high risk for certain disabilities, impairments, and diseases... or so I've read anyways.

    To your point though, this could all be outdated information by now. Human society after-all is always advancing.
    As a matter of fact, it used to be that the commonly agreed upon period of viability started at 28 weeks gestational age.
    Its only due to our modern advances in technology helping to keep premature babies alive at even earlier stages
    which is why viability these days is instead considered to be 24 weeks gestational age and not 28.

    Still, if further advances which have a meaningful impact on these numbers have since been discovered,
    then what exactly are some of these advances specifically? And what are the new numbers as a result of these advances?
    Also, how do they impact your opinion of where the cutoff point should be for legal abortion?
    Are you a 20/21 weeks gestational age leaning guy?

    -Meta
     
  11. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, my point is moot before neonatal care can sustain the babies, but 21 weeks is pretty darn good; and if this became the standard, that window would begin to close even more rapidly than it is now. If it's not about the money, for the moms, and it's just about their rights over their bodies, why kill the babies? The dads can't do that because they can't afford it. The fact is that moms are not just killing their babies in an exercise over their bodies; they're also doing it to get rid of the financial liabilities.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on the results of the vote we had, even though a cutoff of 24 weeks was preferred,
    I think you could still probably get a good deal of support from PF members for setting the cutoff at 21 weeks.
    Ranked Vote: How Should the Law Handle Abortion?
    Though getting that same level of support from folks outside of political forum might be a bit tougher.
    Either way, it's probably best to stick with arguments squarely based on viability/survivability of the baby.
    That's what most folk seem to use as the deciding factor, so other arguments aren't likely to be as convincing.

    -Meta
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,932
    Likes Received:
    15,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are no "babies" killed in abortion.

    And what do you mean by "it's JUST about their rights over their bodies" ?

    THAT IS what it's all about. It's not a "just", it's a basic human right, bodily autonomy.

    THEY, the pregnant one, decides what to do with HER body.






    The dads can't do what? Have a baby? No, they can't.



    The FACT is they can have an abortion for any reason they choose......it is their RIGHT.


    "Medical science" has NOT made pregnancy progress any faster. It still takes 9 months , fetuses do NOT grow faster now than they did before. :roll:

    Women should always have the same rights everyone else has including the right to bodily autonomy.

    "We" , whoever THAT is, do NOT get to choose who has rights and who doesn't based on whether they are pregnant or not.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Fox, if I recall correctly, you were actually a part of those abortion Ranked vote discussions we had way back when.
    Though I don't remember what your view on the final compromise was. Was it acceptable in your opinion?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/
    Or would you say that even such a 24 week cutoff with exceptions for life/health of the mother etc. is too restrictive?

    -Meta
     
  16. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By all means, I want the moms to abort any pregnancy that they don't want; however, don't kill the baby if it's not necessary. After viability, we do not have to choose between a mother's right to abort a pregnancy and the baby's right to life.

    Take the money out of it for the moms just like money is not a factor for the dads. Moms should not be allowed to kill a baby for financial reasons any more than fathers. By all means, abort the pregnancy, just don't kill the baby.

    The whole argument has been that the death of the baby is an unavoidable consequence of a mother aborting a pregnancy. That's just not true in millions and millions of cases. In millions and millions of cases, there is no need to choose between a mother's right to choose to abort a pregnancy and the baby's right to life.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  17. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    21,515
    Likes Received:
    17,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <Mod Edit> The only way to extract a 24 month old fetus is by C section, a medical operation that requires anesthesia and surgery. All surgery under anesthesia puts the mother at risk and C sections are very stressful on the child. At 24 to 28 weeks, the chances of survival are under 20%.

    <Mod Edit>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2020
    FoxHastings likes this.
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you think the cutoff for legal general abortions should be at viability then?
    Again, the current point of viability is considered to be at 24 weeks gestational age.
    This would actually concur with the consensus compromise proposal I posted earlier.

    What exactly are you suggesting for women wanting abortions beyond 24 weeks though?
    That doctors still take the baby out, but then just use whatever medical tools available to them to keep it alive?
    Or that the pregnancy should just be allowed to continue naturally?

    Personally, if we're setting a cutoff, then for anything beyond that cutoff I think the latter would make more sense.
    If you go through procedures to take a baby out before they're ready, that could cause all sorts of complications for
    both the baby and the mother. If you want the baby to live, better imo then to leave it in there and let nature take its course.

    (unless of course the life or health of the mother comes into play; very likely for most abortions at that stage)

    But then again, I'm not familiar with all the latest advances. Though I doubt there is anything out there that would significantly and satisfactorily reduce the risks associated with forcefully removing a baby prematurely and then trying to keep it alive afterwards. Like I mentioned before, around 99% of babies born before the 24th week do not survive as it is, and only 20-35% of babies born between 24-25 weeks gestational age do, with those depending upon substantial medical assistance, and even then there is high risk for disability, impairment, and disease among them. I don't think that's something we want to force on anyone, right? But again, if you know of any specific recent advancements that would allow all that to be avoided then let us know.

    -Meta
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,038
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that gestational age or fetal/embryonic age?
    I think its important to be clear on stuff like this,
    and personally, I always like to go with gestational age.

    -Meta
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,932
    Likes Received:
    15,150
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Once again, there is no "baby" involved in an abortion, and denying science just won't change it.

    Are you willing to donate the $300,000 to raise and care for every UNaborted fetus ?

    I bet not.


    Are you not aware that pregnancy affects women physically not just monetarily?

    ARE YOU going to pay her for permanent and temporary pain and suffering to her body?

    For her risking her life? YES, EVERY pregnancy carries the RISK of serious illness and death.

    Denying it doesn't change it.




    I see you choose to ignore women's basic human rights.


    Where TF do you get the idea that all women owe YOU a child ????
     
  21. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,886
    Likes Received:
    28,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we will never let the anti-choicers force rape victims to have their rapists babies

    only the mother can choose to bring a child into this world or not
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  22. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "So you think", once again precedes a misrepresentation. I made quite clear in my OP what I think the law should be and why. I have some very good intentions for other people, and so do you, but none of them are so good that they should be imposed upon others by force, not even by force of law.
     
  23. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let mothers choose the slain; after all, moms know.
     
  24. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,507
    Likes Received:
    2,228
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  25. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,739
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When did Bricklayer get so sacrosanct he thought he is a woman?
     

Share This Page