Re: your parenthetical. I know. Just wanted to hear what that argument was.
It suggests to me that the difference is in the choice. Woman has no choice in consenting to sex? Oh, psh, well, that’s an atrocity. Woman has no choice regarding whether or not she can carry an unwanted and unplanned for pregnancy to term? That’s just a minor inconvenience.
I take issue with the attitude this choice is okay (for whatever projected moral reasons) but that choice is not okay. No. Either I get to control my own choices or I don’t.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey has supplanted Roe as the controlling ruling on abortion rights in the US. While it upheld the fundamental question of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion it allowed greater intrusion by the state than Roe did.
It was unlikely Roe would be overturned wholesale so they punted and whittled away at it.
Incoherency is pretty common with me, i’m afraid. Anyway, my objection was that the status of mother and fetus prior to any kind of abortion, or birth, isn’t necessarily the same as the result after or during. Healthy mothers and healthy fetuses, after all, do not always stay so, sad as that is.
This seems like an unreasonable point to me. It’s fair to say (per your cites) that some pro-choice types agree that that is not true. But it is quite another to declare uniform opinions based on the beliefs of a few, simply due to membership of the same group. I’ve known humans that have lied to me. You’re a human. Therefore, you are a liar. It doesn’t really work.
Out of general interest to the whole labelling debate, i’ve extended the courtesy of calling the “other side” pro-life, as the term they’d presumably prefer. If you would personally prefer some other label, and my insulting of you has led to you using pro-abortion when debating me (a label i’d not prefer, on the whole), please, say so.
As I understand the term, similarly late-term abortion is no more synonymous to 3rd trimester abortion as is partial birth abortion. Having read your cite, i’m not sure which part you believe is a carefully phrased reference to not exercising his medical judgement in that way; perhaps it’s simply too subtle for me, so could you cite the specific part you understand to mean that?
Well, I would tend to imagine that the general public already doesn’t accept hacking holes in babies’ heads at twenty months along, no.
As to twenty weeks along, I’d note that we don’t know to what extent from that first cite that women were having an abortion for which reason at 20 weeks. It’s 16 weeks or more that covers the entirety of those opinions, for which i’d personally not consider any of those reasons given as equivalent to “never got around to arranging an abortion”. The first two would indicate a lack of knowledge of a problem, while the latter two would indicate that getting around to arranging an abortion was difficult, and therefore something they’d already been arranging for some time. “Never got around to arranging” tends to imply to me more an attitude of “Meh, can’t be bothered”, which would be not only not covered but positively at odds which each of those reasons - of course, I could be mistaking the tone you meant it in. Anyway, my point is that it could well be, from that cite, that each and every 20 week old fetus was aborted in those cases for medical reasons. We don’t know, of course, but it’s possible, and so it doesn’t really work as a cite.
No, it doesn’t. It lists “changing her mind” as a reason for a woman to choose to have a late term abortion, “apart from the serious or life threatening health risks”, meaning that those reasons are in addition to already assumed considerable medical problems. You’ve misread the cite. I also note that the site appears to refer to the UK, not the US, though I don’t know if that affects your point at all.
I didn’t see anyone respond to this, but I thought it was interesting. In that context, what would pro-choice mean? It sounds akin to giving the baby up for adoption, except you’re doing it pre-natally. That would be way more preferable then abortion.
It’s preferable if you think we don’t have enough orphans to go around. I’m guessing most of the “pro-life” side will be conspicuously absent when it comes time to dole out the babies.
No, just that one side is not going to get a pass on using loaded and pejorative terms for the other.
Well, that is certainly true. Especially if someone shoves a scissors into the back of your head and sucks out your brains.
I’m not talking about opinions. An assertion was made (that PBAs and other late-term abortions were always done because the fetus was dead or dying). That assertion has been shown to be false.
You don’t think “late-term” means the same as “third trimester”?
I have no idea how to respond to something as silly as that.
As I already pointed out “Late term” is purely a political phrase, used by anti-abortion groups to refer to both second and third trimester abortions. When you see stats for “late term abortions,” you are seeing stats for 2nd trimester abortions. Third trimester abortions are vanishingly rare and never elective. As I also said upthread, the kind of confusion and misunderstanding you are demonstrating is exactly the intention behind the invention and use of that medically meaningless phrase. If you beg to differ, please show me a cite defining “late term abortion” as being synonymous with third trimester. You won’t find one. Virtually all of the abortions referred to as “late term” by anti-abortion activists are SECOND trimester. Not third - SECOND. You are regurgitating deceptive, misleading, obfuscatory bullshit.
Yes, that’s accurate. Also there are other complications that may ensue between pregnancy and birth.
That certainly may be the main thrust of your argument, no doubt. But you did talk about opinions as part of your post;
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Even pro-abortion types know this is not true.
[/QUOTE]
You made an assertion, based upon opinions of pro-choicers, which I responded to as I did with the rest of your post. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to address your claim that pro-choicers, by whichever name you’d care to use, either agreed with you on that point or were liars.
Per Wikipedia;
Per one of your own cites;
Per another of your own cites, which you used to prove “hat pro-abortionists found out why women seek late-term abortions and realized that they had better lie about it”;
Per yet another;
Per yet another;
Your own cites do not seem to agree with you that “third trimester” and “late term” mean the same thing. Perhaps they are also silly.
I will give my opinion. I hate abortion, I hate that the procedure exists. It destroyed families it deceives women in particular under the grounds that it empowers them. Taking away what I see as God’s greatest gift, the ability to have children which is the ability for their love to grow.
It comes from the belief that the children are the very heart of the parent (part of the essence of the ‘life or soul’ of the parents now resides in the child), and as the child is loved, the parent’s ability to love will increase, as that child has loved children of his or her own the now grandparents will have their love grow even more. This cycle continues forever in God’s plan.
On a spiritual level a mother does chose the child and a child chooses the mother. The woman’s heart sees something desirable inside the heart of the man, so much so that she yearns to give that aspect of the man’s heart of life of it’s own, in our world this is what sexual attraction is. The woman’s heart offers a home to the nascent soul, and the soul accepts, this is conception after which time the nascent soul + the mother’s soul are one with each other - this is the ‘glow’ that women get when pregnant.
With abortion that child is given to death, that soul dies, and so does that aspect of the heart of the parents, which they must hide from themselves, causing guilt and shame, and hiding that they even had a abortion. Blocking the admission is also blocking the healing that can happen.
If a child’s soul is repeatedly aborted the child learns to detach from the mother emotionally, as they no longer trust the mothers due to past hurts - this happens in the womb. Normally in the womb the child is suppose to receive great continuous love, that doesn’t happen with a repeatably aborted soul. The child is detached from humanity and I believe very well be the cause of autism today. Autism as such is a detachment which occurred from a violation of trust between mother and child, and the child learns not to trust the mother and later others and loses the ability to interact normally with others.
As with everything God does have a plan to redeem all. Every aborted child will eventually be given back to the woman to raise and love, actually I believe every egg a woman has will become a child. No aborted child is lost forever.
So yes I hate the procedure, but have acknowledge that God allows it and everything will be restored, though it may cause great temporary pain.
Hang on. I seem to recall from previous debates that you’re against abortion even in cases of rape. In such cases, the woman does not see “something desireable inside the heart of the man”, nor does she yearn to give that aspect a life of it’s own. There’s neither spiritual nor sexual attraction on the part of the woman. So would it be correct to say that this doesn’t happen in the case of rape?
Slave owners of course acted legally when they owned slaves in antebelleum America.
How criminals do something believing it to be wrong? Undoubtedly many do but how many commit crimes because they see nothing wrong with it? Or how about this: adultery is legal in the sense it carries no legal reprucussions and again many of those who commit it see no problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
No I don’t think pressing the button would make you morally guilty. But I see your point there; I would not try abortionists for first degree murder even if it was illegal. I think a good analogy here would be a drunk driver killing people. However is a murderer not seeing his murders as murder or victims as human an excuse? After all racists are not insane (necessarilly) but they without hesitation may murder someone of a different race because they don’t see him as human and until the 1950s was legally sanctioned (or at least tolerated).
Interesting and probing thoughts. In fact while I’m undoubtedly pro-life I have questioned on whether I think fetuses are equal to other human life or inferior but still worthy or protection.
Much of the evidence was conflicting-perhaps Iraq was a mistake but it was not an intentional war of aggression.
If one supports the death penalty, one is not pro-life. Pro-life is not a description any more, it’s just a label.
In my experience, and from news elsewhere, what really motivates people with extremely strong opinions on abortion is religion. I was a security guard in an abortion clinic for a number of months during its construction and after it opened, and there was not a protest that didn’t have a religious theme to it. I didn’t have to deal with murderous religious zealots because this happened in Edmonton and it was more civilized then, but religious they were. Mostly peaceful, too. Mostly.
Yes it was. That’s exactly what it was. The evdience wasn’t “conflicting,” it was made up. It was a lie, and it was an intentional lie. Jesus Christ, how old were you anyway? Weren’t you like two?
Your comparison of abortion rights to slavery does nothing but trivialize slavery, by the way. Slavery had victims. Abortion does not. It’s that simple.
