A fetus has absolutely no interest in its own body right up to the day it’s born? Even after viability?
Even Roe didn’t go this far.
I think I’m contributing to the topic. I’m not a pro-lifer. But if you think it’s about nothing than polls and bashing the GOP, whatever.
If I were on the other side, I would have exposed a few gigantic weaknesses in the pro-choice arguments presented here. I could have already written a few political ads painting them as insane radicals who think it’s fine to kill a fetus even during labor, etc., or even throw a born baby in the trash just because it’s not loved. So I think I’m doing everyone a favor by probing the weaknesses of their arguments. Like I said, I’m a devil’s advocate.
So you’re saying God decides when a person exists? And God loves everybody regardless?
If so, then this standard has no relevence to abortion. God loves a person equally regardless of whether they’re aborted or miscarried before birth or if they live a hundred years - it’s all the same to God.
So if God doesn’t have a preference, then abortion policy must be an issue for humans to decide on.
Hey, you asked for my opinion. I believe that whether the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant- every person has the right to control their body. If a little person is inside me and I want it out, I have the right to expel it- even if expelling this little person will kill it. It’s true whether it’s a tiny concert violinist or a fetus.
I think it’s about “The abortion issue is a losing issue for Republicans” and the political maneuverings (or not) to restrict abortion access. No, I don’t see what individual poster’s opinions on abortion have anything to do with it.
But if you really want to know, I believe that IF an adoptive family can be found to pay for the medical expenses, then any fetus past the point of viability should be delivered alive on demand and adopted instead of aborted and thrown in the trash. And if no adoptive family can be found, it should be humanely (with anesthetic if appropriate to age, neural development and safety of the mother) removed and destroyed. Up until the moment the mother goes into labor, yes. I place the bodily autonomy of living women above “rights” of the unborn, yes. Put it on a poster if you like, but it doesn’t make a very pithy soundbite. And it has nothing to do with Republicans and whether they’re losing the issue of abortion.
I think the arguments for and against abortion are very very much part of whether Republicans can win on it. They don’t have to win on “stop abortion!” remember. They can win on "look at how extreme my opponent is about abortion - he’d kill babies just before birth! He’d be okay with throwing babies in trash cans after they are born, if they aren’t “loved!” "
They know they have no hope of overturning abortion rights, but they sure as hell can win races by talking about it.
And that’s just more fuel for the Republicans, because it’s an extreme position for most people, even most who support abortion rights in general.
The violinist might think you are the problem. But let’s not get too deep into this, since it’s been pointed out that it’s not just another abortion thread and I don’t want to hijack.
My point was related to the OP - that if you think this debate is black and white, and that Republicans who are anti-abortion will always be on the losing side, you’re wrong. It’s more complicated than that when you dig deeper. 70 percent of people support Roe v. Wade, but that’s a far cry from saying 70 percent support abortion for any reason at any time right up to birth (which even Roe didn’t allow for anyway).
That’s fine, I agree with all this. I think the majority of Americans don’t want to outlaw abortion- even if they’re not quite as “pro-choice” as I am.
And yet if I don’t speak up, it gets assumed (by my lawmakers) that I’m only accepting of first trimester abortion with ridiculous clinic restrictions, waiting periods, invasive unnecessary ultrasounds and inaccurate medical information beforehand. Fuck that noise. I’m not going to compromise my ethics to avoid giving them “fuel”. I’m going to stand here on the other extreme, feet firmly planted in the right to healthcare remaining private between a woman and her doctors, and do everything I can to make that middle ground of law a little more middle.
I realize my views are extreme. They are also consistent with my views on patients’ rights to bodily autonomy in every other area of medicine. I’m pro-advance directives, pro-DNR, pro-assisted suicide, pro-sure-you-can-choose-the-less-favored-treatment-option (or no treatment at all) if you can articulate and accept the likely consequences if you do.
I didn’t say you shouldn’t talk about your views. I’m saying someone is listening, and if you run for office, they’ll be listening even more, and the GOP’s political ad copy will write itself.
Also recognize that “extremists” like (perhaps) WhyNot and myself provide useful cover for the “moderate” pro-choice Democrats- they can say “we believe abortion should be legal, but we don’t go as far as those wackos”.
They need crazies like us to make sure the “moderate” stance is still on the side of legalized abortion 
Jonathan Swift had a better idea . . .
Hey, if the violinist has another, smaller violinist in his body, I won’t object to him demanding its expulsion.
But anyway, it’s kinda hard to tell if the U.S. is getting more polarized, of if the relentless efforts to redraw district lines only makes it seem so.
Thank you! Jeepers! Did anyone here actually believe I was supporting infanticide? Context, guys! Thank you for comprehending and responding!
There’s no way to qualify “independent existence” without either (a) justifying abortion at any point in pregnancy or (b) justifying infanticide.
I don’t see how (b) follows, there.
The problem for Republicans are that they’re trying to reconcile the pro-life extremists and pro-choice moderates who are both nominally part of their base. So anytime Republicans talk about their position on abortion, they alienate some of the supporters.
Democrats don’t face this problem. There essentially are no pro-life advocates in the Democratic base so they can maintain a consistent pro-choice platform without losing any of their supporters.
The thing is there are only extremists on one side of this issue - the pro-life side. They’re the ones who are insisting that they alone have the one right answer and everyone else has to either join them or be wrong.
The pro-choice side doesn’t have this kind of extremism (outside of the imaginations of the pro-life extremists who want to believe the other side is as fanatic as they are). That’s the fundamental point of pro-choice - their position is it’s every person’s choice to make for themselves. Even a person who is personally anti-abortion can be pro-choice - nobody is ever forced to have an abortion just because it’s an option.
Yes, many doctors would refuse an abortion that late, unless there was some reason that an abortion was the best decision. In fact, I think most doctors would refuse. Which is precisely why I said it’s a decision to be reached by a woman and her doctor. If they discuss her own personal case, and decide that abortion is the best option, I do not think it’s my right to interfere.
I feel comfortable with this. Yes, it is possible there would be some incredibly sociopathic doctor who was willing to abort healthy babies from healthy mothers mere seconds before birth. And also that there were healthy women with healthy pregnancies who waited until that point and came in, blithely wanting an abortion. But I believe that would be incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare. And the rare possibility that this might occur is balanced out (for me) by the knowlege that, if me way were the law of the land, women who need late-term abortions would be able to get them without further trauma.
Because the TRUTH is, late term abortions are the most tragic, heartbreaking type. Something has gone catastrophically wrong for one to occur. A much wanted and loved fetus has been found to have severe problems that make it unable to survive outside the womb, or the woman is dying, and abortion is the only thing that can save her life. Just awful, horrid. heart-wrenching situations. So, yeah, I think when a woman is facing the prospect of finishing carrying a fetus to term over maybe, six weeks or so, just so she can give birth and watch it die in horrible pain, I don’t get an opinion.
Actually, I could buy that there are many women in the later stages of a normal pregnancy that demand an abortion, but this is just the byproduct of stress and discomfort and impatience with the pregnancy itself (“I don’t care, get it out of me NOW!!”).
I’m prepared to trust that the vast majority of doctors will recognize this impulse for what it is.
Is living in an orphanage really a fate worse than death? Or, couldn’t the foetus just be kept in a little heat bed and fed intermittently by the doctors? Say if it were four weeks premature, it could be kept alive for three weeks and six days and if nobody claimed it by the due date, then it could be destroyed?