I am not making any such claim. I am pointing out that if you suggest a woman has choice within a 6-week limit, this rests on the supposition she has knowledge of the pregnancy within that 6 week limit, and I challenge you to provide any kind of proof that said supposition is true.
You can’t and you won’t, partly because you have no knowledge of how pregnancy works, but mostly because you really don’t give a damn whether a woman has a choice or not, and you’re too cowardly to say it.
In regards to my timeline above, I would like to note that Laura and I were trying for a child and were looking for any sign whatsoever that our efforts were fruitful. And we still didn’t know until the end of week four, and it wasn’t confirmed by a doctor until the middle of week five.
I’m pretty sure he would rather ban all abortions, with the possible exceptions of rape and incest, so it’s not that he doesn’t care whether she has a choice, he wants to take away the choice. Although, from his perspective, it’s that the fetus has a right to life, which overrides her choice.
I’d love to get back to discussing the implications of a fetus being a natural person - does it change the age of the resulting person? Could someone claim they can drink at 21 minus 7 months, since they became a person seven months earlier than their birthdate?
Can someone address the conspiracy to commit murder I mentioned above? It’s clear that the Slate article was discussing the implications of fetal personhood when discussing jail time, etc. Once a fetus is a person, then killing it is murder, likely premeditated at that. Drinking or taking drugs could be deranged indifference to human life or maybe contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The reason why the law doesn’t have to mention those things is that they follow from personhood. If a law deemed a chimp or dog or houseplant as a natural person, then killing it would be murder, etc. It is very disingenuous of those saying that those implications aren’t in the law. They don’t have to be - they follow from personhood.
Here is an article that discusses a study of 136 women who were trying, and succeeded, to get pregnant. 50% of them reported some symptoms of pregnancy by Week 5. Given the fact that Week 6 is too late under this bill, one would think that a woman needs to be aware of her pregnancy by the fifth week in order to schedule and undergo a legal abortion. Yet, according to this study, half of all pregnant women don’t know that they are pregnant by Week 5.
To be even more precise, half of women who were actively searching for signs of pregnancy saw these signs week 6 and later.
I think it’s also important to highlight what said (from that article) symptoms are:
Pregnancy symptoms at 4 weeks
Normally you get your period about 4 weeks from the start of your last period, but if you’re pregnant, the clearest sign at this point is a missed period. Many women still feel fine at 4 weeks, but others may notice sore breasts, fatigue, frequent urination, and nausea. About one-third of women experience nausea at 4 weeks of pregnancy.
Pregnancy symptoms at 5 weeks
While your baby grows at a dizzying pace in your uterus, you may be growing more aware of pregnancy-related discomforts, including fatigue, achy or swollen breasts, nausea, and more frequent trips to the bathroom.
Again, a woman who is likely to get an abortion is not looking for these signs, because she isn’t trying to get pregnant. She may not realize she’s a little tired or nauseated because she’s pregnant. She may put it off to a bug or stress.
Nope.
Viability is 50-80% at 25 weeks, 80-90% at 26 weeks, and >90% at 27 weeks.
Those statistics say nothing about her pregnancy.
But is 2-10% at 22 weeks, which is the age of the pregnancy referred to.
How do you feel about immigrant abuse?
How do you feel about someone breaking into your house and eating your food? Then let’s say the government…nay, the federal government…says you have to let them stay for nine months despite their only goal, their only sentience is their own survival and not yours? Wouldnt you rather shoot them and claim stand your ground?
It is really weird to equate a zygote with a walking, talking human.
I assume you eat meat and if you do then you are fine with killing living things.
An adult cow is far, far more evolved and conscious than a human zygote.
But you are ok with killing the cow for consumption because you like burgers but have a problem with someone else terminating a zygote that might kill them.
I submit your priorities are messed up.
Please explain why Doug’s body autonomy protects him from being forced to sacrifice an organ to save his brother’s life, but it’s okay to deny a woman’s body autonomy and force her to deliver a child, BECAUSE there’s a life at stake.
If he can say no, to saving his brother, why is she forced to save a life against HER wishes for HER body. If his body autonomy can’t be sacrificed to save a life, why can hers?
You seem reluctant to address this obvious double standard.
I think it also safe to assume that even those low percentages are heavily dependent on prompt medical care, i.e. the premature delivery takes place in a hospital, so basically I have no idea what D’Anconia is objecting to.
I’m not seeing this.
There is a difference between taking a life and saving a life.
You are under no obligation to save a life.
You are under a prohibition against taking a life.
Those opposed to abortion are claiming you are taking a life.
Well, those opposed to abortion can claim whatever they like, but if the difference between donating a kidney and continuing a pregnancy seems too wide, try this:
John donates blood regularly. It is discovered through this that he has a rare blood type and his donations are being used to sustain the life of a recipient who has the same blood type. Is John obliged to continue donating blood once he learns of this, or can John choose to stop? Could John choose to stop even if he is in the middle of a donation at the time?
No.
Again, you are under NO obligation to save a life (maybe doctors are…not sure how far their oath extends legally).
Morally you may well feel there is a very strong compulsion to do so and you would be a shit if you didn’t but you do not have to do it.
I get where you are going and I agree with you on a moral level. Maybe even an ethical level but not a legal level.
I’m not entirely certain what you’re objecting to. In any case, legal standards are even more arbitrary than moral or ethical ones - at least morals and ethics generally have to relate somehow to real-world consequences, while legislation can be based on pure fantasy.
And legislation based on religion is fanatsy[sup]2[/sup]
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Are you legally obligated to run into a burning building to try and save people?
You are trying to make a case that being forced to continue a pregnancy is akin to being forced to donate a kidney.
I am on your side (I think). I just do not think this is a good argument and that is what I was trying to highlight in my last few posts responding to you.