You just admitted above that a fetus is a human being. So - intent to kill a human being.
It can be an inconvenience. It can be a wonderful experience. It can be a real drag. It can even be a life-threatening thing. But only in the last case it is justified to kill the kid. Even by rape. The kid does not carry the blame for the rape and does not deserve the death sentence because of it. Hell, even rapists do not get death sentences in our courts.
The trouble with this line of debate is…it isn’t convincing to anyone.
Ooh, ooh, killing a human being is BAD. And abortion kills a human being, so it has to be BAD.
And… Nobody, even those on your side of the debate, finds this in any way convincing. We know it’s “human.” It isn’t equine, or canine, or feline. It’s human tissue.
It just isn’t a “person” in the eyes of the law, nor is it a complete human in the anatomical sense. It is in the process of gestation. It might not have a brain; it might not even have a heart.
(The bumper sticker, “Every abortion stops a beating heart” is untrue; many are performed well before the beginning of cardial functioning.)
The argument seems to obvious to you – because you have a specific belief about the matter. You seem absolutely oblivious to the central fact of the debate here: others of us don’t agree. There actually is a debate here…
And neither side is listening. You sit there and go la-la-la, I don’t hear you…and so do we! We do not find anything you have to say useful, any more than you find anything we have to say useful.
So…Why are we wasting our damn time? Let’s close up shop and go fishing. Since we cannot progress toward a meeting of minds, let’s just give it all up as a bad job.
Of course…this would require your peeps to stop introducing legislation…
I seem to recall that your side struck down the existing legislation in 1973. You made the change, not us.
It’s human, in that it has human DNA. But so does a tumor. Or a brain-dead motorcyclist on life support.
Neither the tumor nor a brain-dead motorcyclist on life support will become a conscious and sentient being - and even better, without any intervention. That’s the difference.
And to Trinopus: this thread is not about convincing you of the error of your ways. The OP was about why conservatives are against abortion. I believe you have been educated of that by now.
It. Is. Not. A. Kid.
It is a posability to become a kid. The WOMAN is a woman. Already there. The embyo is not a kid. The womans rights trump this because she is already a person.
Even by rape. Your words. Lovely. I assume you’re a man? I am, and I know rape victims. And women that have had abortions. You think that having to go through pregnancy because of rape would be an ‘inconvenience’ or a ‘drag’. Those are your words.
I have no more words for you. At least none that I can use in GD.
You said it better than I could, Terr. I would extend ‘life threatening’ to cover any serious threats to health, but other than that I entirely agree with you. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
And you’re killing that “posability”. Let’s say there is someone in a coma. And doctors tell you that there is a very high chance that they will come out of the coma in a few months and lead a full and productive life. Do you think you will or should be allowed to “pull the plug” because there is only a “posability” and the person is currently not conscious?
The woman’s rights do not trump another human being’s life. Not unless her life is in danger.
And failing utterly to make a reasonable argument.
No change, exactly. The Constitution is on our side, that’s all.
The OP has been answered, certainly, and the thread moved on to a general abortion debate.
The OP may ask the mods to close it at any time. (I vote for this, as far as that goes.)
That’s actually a much greater concession than I have ever seen before in any SDMB abortion threads. Alas, this view is not widely held on the pro-life side of the debate. The general position is to permit abortion solely to preserve the life of the mother, for, should she die, the pregnancy would come to an end anyway. The unborn could not be saved, and thus the ban would be pointless.
By and large, the pro-life side is suspicious of extending permission to cases involving threats to health, for the concern that it would start down a slippery slope. Who would be in a position to define the health threat? Would it have to be legislated in exacting detail? Or would a doctor’s word be acceptable?
It’s like “unreasonable burden.” It can be defined and interpreted differently by different people.
That’s incorrect. If there is a serious danger to life of mother if pregnancy is allowed to proceed all the way to birth, and even if there is a very high chance that there is no danger to the baby’s being born, the abortion should still be allowed. In that case, mother’s right to life trumps the baby’s.
I would accept the opinion of the woman’s doctor subject to review by two other physicians if it is challenged by a relevant/interested party (such as the father of the baby). And, of course, I would expect the ethics supervision of AMA over these doctors’ opinions.
By the way, for those pro-abortionists here who think that their views are prevalent in the US - they are not.
Among all US adults:
26% of Americans favoring legalized abortion under any circumstances
13% favoring legality under most circumstances
38% favoring it in only in a few circumstances
20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances
So - 58% favor allowing abortion only in “a few circumstances” or never.
Looks to me like 80% want to keep it legal for at least some circumstances. I’m not seeing a consensus to ban it.
I want to keep it legal for “a few circumstances” as well. When there is serious danger to mother’s health.
It all depends on how people interpret “a few circumstances” Some may think of that as first trimester or rape or incest or health of mother.
You can be pretty sure that no one thinks of “first trimester” as “a few circumstances”. Considering there are 1.5M or so first trimester abortions annually.
No one? Have you met the American people?