Now calm down, didn't mean to come out as an arse. Well...With your post in mind, I guess I will just share my view on abortion from a juridical point of view then: Since there is a market for abortion (people are animals and will have sex no matter what) it will always be around. Supply-demand, you know. If it is banned there will be black market alternatives, which- most likely- will, of course, be more dangerous and risky. So, the politicians should just keep their fingers out of this jar. No question about it. Let the market rule freely! Anyone who opposses this should sod off.
Only an adult person over the age of consent can give consent. The woman concerned is the only one who needs to give consent or someone who is appointed to be her guardian in the case of a coma.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hea...1.69i57j0l5.9991j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Cardiac activity in a developing fetus usually starts at the end of the 5th week. So by 6 weeks you should be able to see a heartbeat via ultrasound and by 10-12 weeks you should be able to hear the heartbeat via doppler device. A heartbeat would not be visible at 4-5 weeks of pregnancy.Oct 25, 2010 6 weeks is not long enough, many, perhaps most, women do not even realize they are pregnant at that point. Having a heartbeat does not mean personhood as quite primitive animals have heartbeats.
I am mildly curious as to why you told me to calm down. I will repost the post of mine you quoted and maybe you could explain why you thought I was upset or needed to calm down. ""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post Then feel free to discuss it in the Religion and Philosophy Forum, where it will be interesting to you. This is the Abortion Forum, abortion is discussed. You may be bored.""" It is 3 factual sentences, no exclamation marks or inflammatory language . Why would you think I needed to "calm down"? Because I responded? ...and then we should both get back to the topic.....
No. Haha. Of course it is not solely because you responded but more about in the way you responded. I guess I am just overly sensitive and took offense where there was no need for it. It is sometimes very difficult to grasp the tone of the other when you are having a conversation over text. To me it seemed like you very being rude. I apologize.
Apology accepted. There was no rudeness in those 3 sentences. Statements of facts are not rude. Now, can we please go back to the topic
A discussion on a philosophical level would be interesting, but perhaps requires a thread of it's own.
The "problems" about abortion when percieved from a juridical point of view boil down to one simple answer and that being there should be no regulations at all. In extention the "problem" of abortion, like everything else, derrives from the government.. It is evident that each time the government tries to fix a problem, they end up making everything worse. I remember reading somewhere that the US state with the toughest abortion laws, lowest access to birth control and least hours of sex ed in school, all in the name of "preventing teen-pregnancy", is also the state with highest amount of unwanted pregnancies. So, yeah. I rest my case. If the matter of abortion was left to the free market to handle, we would see equal satisfaction in both the pro-choice as in the pro-life camp. Because this would certainly fix the following problems; Abortion is subsidised FoxHasting will probably not agree with this so she could skip this one and jump straight to the next one. I don't know about the US, but in Sweden all health care is financed by tax payers, this of course also include abortions. If abortion clinics were to be privatised there would be no people turning into " pro-lifers" for the reason of "I don't want to pay for the causes of other's irresponsibilities". Which is actually not to invalid of a stance to have. Also, applying simple praxeology; a privatisation of abortion would mean people who wish engaging in sex solely for the fun and pleassure of it would think twice and be more cautious. Because there would be no incentives for being "irresponsible", thus less "unwanted pregnancies". If you "screw up" you will have to pay for it yourself. Making adooption-firms entirely free from state bureaucracy The government is way too deep up the arse of the issue of adoption. If there wasn't so much paper work and restrictions here, a couple that are too poor to affford their upcoming child, they could-if that feels better for them- choose to give birth and then give away their child to a couple that can afford and want kids but cannot recieve them. STEM-cell research and birth control For some reason STEM is a very controversial and restricted field. Although there so evidently is a big demand for it. If it was released from state-control their experiments could as well lead to the discovery of some fantastic NRT that could completely eliminate the concept of '"unwanted pregnancy" for good. Finally, no government should ever try to restrict the access to birth control.
The responsibility argument is ridiculous. We do not deny cancer treatment to smokers. Medicaid covers this
It is not ridiculous at all. Furthermore, I didn't anywhere in my text mention denying women access to abortion, quite the oppposite actually. Have no idea why you responded this way.
You said subsidizing abortion encourages irresponsible behavior. We don't hold that standard to any other irresponsible behavior. If you jump off a high place intentionally and break your leg we subsidize that treatment. We subsidize the treatment of all irresponsible behavior. But for some reason it should be different for abortion
Actually no, but the brain can regulate how fast the heart beats. This is all besides the point, however, as the fetus is already beginning to wiggle around a little bit at 6-7 weeks.
Clearly you did not understand even a bit of my post and clearly you do not.understand how the free market works. And again you randomly accuse me of trying to restrict and regulate female behavior and rights, simply as a desperate strategy of trying to silence me without even having to address my arguments. Amazing! Who the heck is this "we" you are talking about?
How can you still not get this? When we as a society say it is ok to subsidize treatment for irresponsible behavior of all kinds but not for abortion because that will encourage more irresponsible behavior we as a society engage in hypocrisy. I can not make it simpler
Clearly I understood every word especially since I've heard it all before.....clearly you have no rebuttal....clearly I was correct.....clearly I have not tried to silence you....
Oh, Foxy, Foxy! Cut it, please! I know from reading other posts by you that you are a very intelligent person, so you shouldn't really have any trouble understanding the points I am making and neither should I have to break them down for you like this, but I will do it anyways. Otherwise you will accuse me for being a misogynistic bag of puke and an advocater of limiting fundamental human rights again, a label I am not at all comfortable with. So here we go... Do I oppose a woman's right to her own body? Hell, no! In my opinion this is the most fundamenta of- and even the one and only human right there is. A woman should therefore be allowed to have an abortion if she so wishes Do I want government to legislate for a ban/regulation on abortion? Of course not. This would contradict my strong stance on what was mentioned above. I believe government should ban itself. What do I believe then? Anyone can do whatever the heck they want to and with their bodies as long as I and eveyone else aren't forced to pay for it. I.e. get rid of taxes. But doesn't thise mean I am against abortion afterall? Well, as a concept yes. Nobody wants to have an abortion when all comes around, but bad things happen so we need to have the doors to abortion open. In my Utopia, tthe people who wish to subsidise abortions and whatnot can engage in it, but no one should be forced to do so. In fact even I could consider donating a penny or two as charity to abortion clinics to help the unfortunate every now and again. As long as it is voluntary. My stance is simple; Decentralise everything!
But the majority of the Pro-Choice crowd is not just pro-choice; they want society to pay for Abortions. That's Pro-Abortion, in case any of you hadn't noticed.
