Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

Second trimester is 6 months into the pregnancy. You're saying the fetus isn't sentient or aware of its surroundings until 6 months?

BTW, are you also saying a person on life support or knocked out for any reason for any length of time shouldn't be given the rights of the conscious?

 

Not punishment. Responsibility. Again, if you pick up a child and hold them high, or off the side of a cliff, are you not responsible to then put them back down safely? If you create the danger, I think you have some level of responsibility to the person you put in danger.

 

This would make an interesting sci Fi episode.

A man abducts a woman, somehow makes her physically dependent on his body against her will while he holds her captive, and then when the police finds them, he demands the right to murder her.

Or maybe have an alien species create another alien species, designed to rely on the first species' bodily resources (maybe their blood is a drug the new species needs to drink to survive) as a means of control and enslavement (similar to the Gem Hadar in Star Trek DS9), and then declare they therefore have the right to genocide this sentient species they created.

 

Is it legal there for a man who gets a woman pregnant to end her pregnancy? Is he allowed by law to drug her or stab her womb to kill the unborn? I don't think he is. Legal abortion is between mother and child.

That is an entirely different matter. And we do have courts forcing even men who are not the father to be financially responsible for children.

 

I ask you to be mindful of this sort of stereotyping. There do exist people who oppose abortion who also support child welfare, paid parental leave, and more.

 

Indeed, and I'm not sure why that happened. I did miss it when I posted. I wouldn't think that the one bracket being bold would have thrown the code off. But you managed to figure it out.

I'm not the one that claimed that ALL women are harmed and have permanent damage from pregnancy. And I'm trying to figure out on that list what affects every woman in every pregnancy. Especially since you have that one that states it only affects 50% of women. Since you made the claim of all, as a support argument to why women should be allowed abortion, then I want to know what on that list affect 100% of women every time they are pregnant.

And sure, if you could find a way for me to go through pregnancy, I would volunteer. Well and have a younger body, since child bearing after 40 highly increases birth defect risks.

Every woman faces the risk of them. But that wasn't your claim and I quoted the claim. You said "has harm" and "have damage" along with "all". Which means that there is not a risk of damage and/or harm, but that it will happen each and every time. I am asking you to either back up that claim or simply admit that you miswrote, wanting to have said that all are expose to the risk of them, even though some (not even saying most) women might never experience any of those. Hell I am willing to note that the vast majority, upwards of 99%, will experience at least one thing on that list. But that still is not all, and I would not count fatigue as damage or harm.

 

I am with you on that. The idea that personhood should begin at conception makes no sense to me. But I do think we should attach personhood at a point before birth. I see people who disagree with that much as crazy, on either extreme. But exactly where I do not know, but would prefer to err on the side of caution.

If you can get it done (as I believe the vast majority of abortions are) before personhood should attach, then I agree. But some pro-lifers will see it attaching sooner, so it is harder to convince them.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Here you indicated that the status of slaves was elevated over slave owners and that only the owners were human....both errors.



No relevence to abortion.

YOU brought up slaves and then made a mess of it !!! LOL

 

I am sorry, in your effort to minimize and denigrate what women go through , you refuse to read the list or even the headings...

. ALL women suffer from some of that listed...ALL of them do. See, that's why if an autopsy is done on a woman they can tell if she's had kids or not....it leaves PERMANENT damage from the pregnancy.


But is you care to show scientific evidence that pregnancy leaves NO damage, causes no suffering, no illnesses and never harms a woman or cause her any discomfort PLEASE do show it...I'm sure the women who went through a pregnancy ( and scientitists and doctors) will be happy to laugh hysterically at you.




You can denigrate what women go through but denying science won't change it.

 

The unborn human being is not taking an organ from the mother.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We also hold that no human being can take the life of another human or use lethal force against them unless that other human being is posing an imminent threat to their life or extremely serious bodily harm.

 

What a bigoted assumption they do not.

 

Conversely does he have a say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated?
My point is that it takes two to Tango but all too often these threads deteriorate to slut shaming the women

 

Well, there is no political push to address any of the issues mentioned

 

It is competing for nutrition and blood flow and multiple other factors - so what is the real difference? And I do not see a clump of cells as “human”

 

My only caveat with the idea of a fixed point where terminations should not occur is in the case of a foetus so malformed that even the birth itself may cause suffering. Anencephaly, where the brain does not develop, is one such condition and that can also be a very problematic birth for the mother due to increased incidence of shoulder dystocia

 

You have selective statistics.

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”

 

If you say so, but not my opinion. Maybe yours?

 

why can't women do that?

 

That actually supports my point. In the entire history of the world a woman has never become pregnant without first conceiving a child. That's actually how our biology works.

 

So what? It's not taking her mother's organs nor posing an imminent threat of death or extremely serious bodily harm (if the child ever does then of course abortion would be the appropriate course, and it is most certainly not and never is "just a clump of cells". It is a human organism, a human being, from conception. And nature insures both the Mother and child receive their adequate nutrition as long as the mother cares for herself.

 

"Political"? I would hate to live in a country where people believe only through the government can people express care and concern for others.

 

At least if the government is doing it it becomes waaaay more equitable and not just “those that the ministers of the church think deserve it because they are the right demographic and religion”

But if the government does it you don’t get that lovely superior feeling that you can when you are “donating” through a church

 

How do you know? You do not know what her underlying health conditions are

 

Why would I want government choosing what is "equitable" I give where I CHOOSE to give. Do you get a lovely superior feeling when you donate through your church or something?

Are you going to limit it to the rare when there are such underlying health conditions? She can see a doctor who can care for and manage those underlying health conditions. The child is still not taking an organ or posing an imminent threat of death or extremely serious bodily harm as I have already addressed.

 

The fact is, Bbird, you’re also just a clump of cells. A big clump, but still a clump of cells.