See, that’s the kind of honesty I can respect. If you don’t think that abortions are “okay” at any time, that your opinion should override that of the people actually involved int he decision, then, while I disagree with your opinion, I appreciate it when people are forthright about it.
It is when they claim that it is only about late term abortion, then conflate that with mid term abortion, while simultaneously making it harder to get an abortion prior to 16 weeks that I find anti-choices to be at their most dishonest.
Though, at least even they are not as dishonest as the ones who claim the restrictions and unnecessary procedures like vaginal ultrasounds is for the benefit of the woman.
I greatly appreciate it when someone can just come out and say that they are against women having the right to choose what happens to their body, that they should get to be the deciders of what other people do.
Yep, those were the posts I was talking about. The ones talking about 16-20 weeks, while what you are talking about is 40ish weeks. It would be very dishonest to take the statements from those posts, and then imply that they are the statements made by women in their third term, or even in their final week.
While I appreciate you for pointing out the post #'s that confirm what I said, it was unnecessary.
IMHO as long as the baby is inside the woman it’s hers and her decision (by nature of where God put it in the design plan) - the woman has the right to decide the child’s rights and status, but if that child comes out alive, it deserves the common human rights of the land, including medical attention and child protection services.
Now if during a abortion the child is born and injured in the process that’s where it gets sticky. I would say that the child must show ability to thrive.
seems to be a sticking point to you, but I mean, that’s what it is, is it not, denying a woman a right to have a choice over bodily autonomy.
People against late term abortions, I can see are pro-life. They see what they think of as a viable human being in there, and they don’t want that “little baby” to be terminated.
In that particular instance, that you have chosen to call out, I was talking about people who would use dishonest tactics to prevent someone from having access to a legal and safe abortion in the legal timeframe. That is dishonest and unethical, and it is, IMHO pretty close to evil. Anti-choice, in those circumstances, is entirely the correct descriptions.
Glad you’re back. I’m not sure who “he” refers to here, but the study that I linked to, by, AFAICT, a pro-choice / anti-life (nod to k9bfriender) organization, defines “later abortions” as 20+ weeks. The thread title uses the phrase “late-term abortions”, and as I noted in post #44, the definition for that is somewhat fluid, but generally seems to fall around 20 weeks. What do you see as the “bait and switch”?
“He” refers to Shodan, who switches from “late term abortion”, meaning 16+ weeks, to aborting viable fetuses (meaning 24 weeks at least, but really 26 or 27 weeks) in the same post. It annoyed k9befriender here and annoyed me in another thread.
Anyway, I’m only back for that (and this response) since it really got on my nerves before. If Velocity is not interested enough to answer questions directed to him/her, I’m not that interested in defending his/her position.
BTW, I agree that anti-choice is not conducive to good conversation. I always use pro-life or anti-abortion. Similarly, I object when someone uses the term pro-abortion.
I do not approve of a government that forces women to bear children against their will. I fully support the right of women to make decisions with which I may not agree. “I don’t like it!” isn’t a good reason to make something illegal.
Making you feel better is not a good reason to rob women of the freedom to bear children or not as they see fit. The price they pay if you get your way is greater than the price you pay if they get theirs. They’ll be forced to have children against their will; you’ll just get upset then go about your life.
I agree when we are talking about policy positions, however, if someone is using deceptive tactics to prevent a woman from being able to exercise her legal choice, then I do consider that to be anti-choice, which is how I used the term the first time.
I wonder if with HD’s “nod” to me, if he is claiming that the pro-choice organization that he refers to is using dishonest tactics to trick people into having abortions.
If so, that is dishonest, and can accurately be described as anti-life. I will join in on condemning that.
If not, then he entirely misunderstands that I am referring to dishonest tactics, even though I told him that I am referring to dishonest tactics. Not sure how to make that more clear.
Since it is a fuzzy term, it would make the most sense to try to use clear and concise timeframes that you are talking about, rather than lumping in everyone at 16-20 weeks in with everyone up to 40. To do otherwise would create ambiguity as to what we are talking about, and could lead to the implication that there are women in their last week of pregnancy who are having the same issues as a woman in her 17th.
If you are concerned that women are not smart enough or capable enough or have enough agency to make a decision like that for themselves, then you could very well feel that substituting your opinion for theirs, and forcing them to conform to your opinion, is actually in their best interests.
Not at all. I’m generally opposed to people who would want to terminate the lives of recently-born now-breathing-on-their-own children too. Again, not because it benefits me in any particular way, but because I think killing innocent children is morally reprehensible.
