She shouldn't HAVE to pay for it especially if abortion is banned and that is her only choice besides pregnancy... In fact , if abortion is banned the taxpayers should have to pay all medical costs for pregnancy and delivery....it would be nice if only Anti-Choice taxpayers would have to pay but we all would have to pay.....and then there would be more taxes for Welfare and other programs for poor children...
I'm referring to history, and noticed that the suggestion of @Cybred, that as long as it is in the body of the woman, she should have the power to kill it, is similar to what was possible during the roman republic and roman empire : a father had the possibility to kill his children. I notice it's similar. Considering your definition of a "person", it's the point, you don't consider an embryo as a person, that's an arbitrary concept. Considering the fact that en embryo isn't a person, prove it. Am i ? My bad, I mean at the 8th month of pregnancy. The point of @Cybred is that it doesn't matter if the child inside is a human being or not. Cybred think that a mother should have a right of death or life on the children inside her, at any month. Yet, at 8th month of pregnancy, there is virtually no difference between a just new born child and 8th month of pregnancy baby. A lot of baby are born after 8 month of pregnancy and are just fine. My whole point isn't to defend or attack the right of abortion, I already gave my position, and it's not my problem if Cybred and you have difficulties to read. Considering the fact "it's about to believe the fact that women have rights", that's false generalization and it's just outrageous. The anti abortion people could only answer that "human beings, including women have rights at the moment of conception".
Oh, did you have "difficulties to write"....like you think people have "difficulties to read" ..... which is really bad English. Ya, I do , too. WRONG...There is a HUGE difference between being attached and part of a woman's body and not being attached, HUGE changes take place with the fetus as it's born... Maybe it's your difficulties to write ?? . No, there is no person at the moment of conception.
The dissimilarity comes in the form of laws against murder and a constitution that refers to persons. And, that is not just "my" definition of person. Besides, your direction is ridiculous. If you actually believed that then you would realize that an embryo has rights of representation and can "voice" arguments on such issues as use of alohol, acceptance of general medical treatments, etc. An embryo is not a person. And, we will never go there. A person who is denied rights of ones own body on issues of physical and mental health is clearly being sujected to harm. That's a gross and purposeful misrepresentation. The GOP direction on late term abortions was that women have NO RIGHTS even if they are in eminent risk of death. They INSISTED that the mother's life could not be considered. That is not the law today, because the mostly Catholic Supreme Court of the time ruled in favor of the mother's life being of value. So, today late term abortions are almost never performed and the decision is a medical one. Plus, viable fetuses are protected by law. So, you do NOT have a serious issue here. There isn't any opposition to that. No, you can NOT assume that women have rights at the moment of conception. Let's remember that pretty much every American would prefer to see fewer abortions. So, arguments that someone is "pro abortion" represents a political agenda - not some sort of truth. My bet is that once you recognize that AND note that these laws against women do cause harm, you may be more open to the idea that these laws are NOT THE ONLY WAY to reduce the abortion rate. We COULD be on the same side IF your objective wasn't dedicated to this government assault on women that you demand.
If you except apologies because I'm not perfect at a language I self learned, take your time, because you will have to wait a long time. Prove it. There is plenty people that can't voice arguments, old people with deep dementia, people with heavy native conditions and so on. Prove it. That's something I'm absolutly against, the problem of abortion is sacredness of life, you can't decently threaten the life of the mother. So, today late term abortions are almost never performed and the decision is a medical one. Plus, viable fetuses are protected by law. So, you do NOT have a serious issue here. There isn't any opposition to that. Why ? Let's remember that pretty much every American would prefer to see fewer abortions. So, arguments that someone is "pro abortion" represents a political agenda - not some sort of truth. It's not my objective.
Prove it is.....you can't.....and even if it was a person the woman's right outweigh it's rights and if she chooses , out it goes NO person can use another persons body to sustain their life. No ne can harm another without their consent.
(It would work out easier on this board if you actually restate what you want proven.) Our constitution states that all persons have individual rights. Plus, it says that all persons must be counted. A fertilized egg simply does not count as a person according to our constitution. We're not going to start counting the flash frozen fertilized eggs, the possible pregnancies of women, etc. And, we're not going to start prosecuting cases where a reasonable standard of care is not being provided by the pregnant woman. Nobody is going to assign an embryo to a legal representative regardless of the qualifications of the pregnant woman to carry out guardianship. I disagree. This is an issue of national policy. Let's remember that the issue of the value of the pregnant woman's life was PURPOSEFULLY ignored by our legislaure, requiring the SC to void that law. There is NO indication that the political right wing that is in power today values the life of the pregnant woman when it comes to pregnancy. Let's remember that these same people ignore issues such as rape, insist, the ability of the pregnant woman to support herself, etc. Again, it is not clear what you are asking. I'll guess that this question comes a claim that women always have rights at the time of conception, but that is a right wing political narrative that totally ignores rape and incest. I'm glad to see you say that. It's something that I have repeated over and over again. The real disagreement has to do with methodology. The political right wing insists on addressing this issue with laws against women. THAT is the problem. Pretty much all Americans would prefer that there be fewer abortions. It's the legal asault that is the issue. Again, I don't claim to know what your objective is. I thought it was to reduce the number of abortions through the use of laws against women. If not I'd appreciate you making a positive statement of your position.
I already gave my point of view : I think that abortion should stay legal, especially when the life of the mother in the danger. Obviously, the matter of length during which you can abort matter. On that, it's quite similar to my position on drugs, drugs disgust me, but I doubt that prohibition is a viable strategy. I don't support those laws. My first post on that thread was to notice a specific thing : Most abortion and anti abortion oppose on the definition of what constitute an individual and when he start to become a true individual. From that observation, we can deduce a simple thing : Debating abortion is most of the time useless and sentences like "my body, my choice" or "abortion isn't murder" are sterile. The reason of that is most anti abortion right tend to have a "soul" vision of the individual, that an individual is constitued of a principle that start at the conception and cease on death, or at least leave that world. Pro abortion right tend to have a materialistic vision of life, and tend to see human as valuable only by their ability to reason, and so are more interested by the brain activity. Shortly, on that matter there is an opposition of essentialism and nominalism. Trying to make people change on those philosophical matter is almost impossible. Because most debate on those issues are dialogue of the deaf, I supposed it would be interesting that anti and pro right to abort developp a better mutual understanding.
Well, you call one side's argument sterile. But, the other side is just as serile. There is no evidence of a "soul". There is no evidence of what abortion would mean to a soul. We have large amounts of death in this world where the individuals are far too young to confess an aceptance of Jesus as their savior, for example. Etc., etc. The idea of having the government tak legal action in such cases is not acceptable - even if the pregnancy isn't the result of rape or incest.
""Debating abortion is most of the time useless" Yes, but when certain demented misogynists want to take away half the population's basic right of bodily autonomy it is right and proper and necessary to call them on it. When they demand rights for a fetus they should explain what those rights are....and they NEVER can explain... They can NEVER justify taking away women's rights ….. When they say incredibly stupid things like abortion is genocide they HAVE to be called on it. To remain silent is to agree with these thugs..
@FoxHastings Effectively you can't prove the existence of a soul. You're just demonizing your opponents, especially by calling them misogynists. Because you don't manage to put yourself in their shoes, from their point of view, an abortion is a murder, because they consider the foetus as a full human being, as you and me. That's not my point of view, as I consider a foetus as a potential of human being, but that potential is almost as sacred as a human being, which put myself at odd with both anti abortion right and pro abortion right. Even if I disagree with them, if you place in their position and consider a foetus as being already a full individual, then you can understand why they would consider it as mass murder. The name of genocide is clearly not appropriate, as genocide imply the wish to make a specific people disappear, which isn't the intent there. A large part of why it's useless to debate abortion is also because both sides spend their time demonizing each other, if we would listen both side, we would have "fascist misogynist" against "genocidal freaks" on the other side. I remember to have red somewhere from a social activist that have been quite successfull, and explained that a key to success is dialogue, a key to the success to dialogue is not demonize your opponent. And today, that's issue is especially important, as demonizing grow in importance, both at the left wing and right wing.
Uh , YUPPERS! What do you call people who want to destroy rights and make women nothing more than cattle ? Your FRIENDS ? As I said : ""They can NEVER justify taking away women's rights ….."" It might be nothing to YOU that Anti-Choicers refer to women as sluts and murderers but when they stop maybe they won't look so nasty and stupid... ......when certain demented misogynists , or YOUR beloved "SAINTLY" destroyers of women's rights , want to take away half the population's basic right of bodily autonomy it is right and proper and necessary to call them on it.....AND call them what they are.
You really think any real talk can happen with this behavour of you ? I don't, and I don't have any patience for that kind of insults.
The UNCHERRY PICKED POST:FoxHastings said: ↑ Uh , YUPPERS! What do you call people who want to destroy rights and make women nothing more than cattle ? Your FRIENDS ? It might be nothing to YOU that Anti-Choicers refer to women as sluts and murderers but when they stop maybe they won't look so nasty and stupid... ......when certain demented misogynists , or YOUR beloved "SAINTLY" destroyers of women's rights , want to take away half the population's basic right of bodily autonomy it is right and proper and necessary to call them on it.....AND call them what they are. WHAT "behavior"? Are you saying defending women's rights against those who would destroy them is "bad behavior" !!!!!!! What insults? I stated my opinion.....if you have nice things to say about people who want to destroy other's rights then go right ahead....
@FoxHastings I didn't said half of what you pretend. I don't have time to loose with people who twist other people neither I have time to loose with people who demonize people their political opponents. Since, you manage to do both things, we would both spare our (precious) time by ending this conversation.
WHAT did I "pretend" ? I asked questions....questions you obviously can't answer.... WHAT did I "twist" ? That's fine...but I will always have time to demonize the demons who want to abolish women's rights.... ….and you seem to have NO defense for them....
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Have you ever tried to buy eggs from a white woman? Very expensive. And there is a waiting list. As for excess embryos, there is a reason Catholics generally oppose in-vitro fertilization.
So, I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, but YOU think it is legal to buy a human embryo??? Really? It is certainly true that the costs related to successfully implanting a human embryo are huge. And, it is true that there are cases where the donor can be compensated for up to a year of expenses that they would have incurred. Everything about IVF is highly expensive. And, there are various reasons for wait lists. OK, so stepping beyond THAT for a moment ... IVF and implantation trashes significant numbers of fertilized human embryos. It is NOT the case that one such embryo is involved. Typicaly, an attempt is made to fertilize multiple embryos and then one or two of those are selected for an attempt at successful implantation. The reamining fertilized embryos are aborted - that is, tossed out as medical waste. FAR more fertilized eggs are disposed of than are implanted. What I want to know is: From the standpoint of the embryo (and iit's soul, if you believe there is such), what's the difference between that and abortion?
You think it's legal to buy a child? But it happens all the time in the adoption market. There was an article in a thread some time ago about how eggs end up costing different amounts depending on which type of donors they came from.
Let's start with the suggestion that you consider what I say as what I mean, rather than trying to claim I said something else? Isn't that a form of lying? As to your first paragraph, selling or buying a child is a SERIOUS federal crime. It may be happening, but so is murder happening. This discussion isn't about the crimes people commit. The costs of obtaning and implanting a fertilized egg can vary significantly depending on the source and handling. And, the only ones making a profit are the doctors and technicians who are providing services. The high expense is not because of profit made by the person or persons that had custody of the egg. The provision of the egg will have come through medical intervention with the woman, it may involve cryogenics, it will involve serious lab work, the implantation is not as simple as one might think, etc., etc. The costs of these procedures is very high. As I mentioned, the woman whose egg it was may be compensated for some costs. Let's be careful about what we consider to be buying and selling. This isn't a csase of free market enterprise.
Again, IVF causes numerous fertilized eggs to be disposed of as medical waste. So, in post #143 I asked what the difference is between IVF and abortion from the point of view of the fertilized human embryos (and which many argue have souls) that are being terminated. Do you have an answer for that?
Yes, the RCC as a whole does recognizes the issue of IVF and the resultant disposal of viable embryos. However, like some other Catholic laws on sex and procreation I don't seen any significant adherence by Catholics. How many Catholics prick a hole in condoms in order to ensure that procreation remains a possibility? Etc. I know of no objection voiced by other branches of Christianity. The LDS policy states that they don't like IVF, but they leave the decision to individuals. Surely those who want to write laws against women but DON'T want to write laws against IVF DO need to answer why they are willing to allow women to destroy fertilized embryos in one case, but not the other. And, that includes Chrisians as a general population, as they present no movement against IVF even as some actively work to write laws against women, claiming a religious justification in one case whill ignoring the identical issue in the other.
Many misandrists are extremely abusive. Their anger is instrumental in intimidating anyone who opposes them. Just had interaction with a very nasty creature on Twitter.
My position is that abortion should be legal as no one has a right to impose their Ethics on others. On the other hand, morally, women who has abortion should be seen as Senator John McCain. Neither of them broke American Laws. Many would see their actions as murder.
Amen. The laws against women are just not acceptable. If we want fewer abortions we should consider two things: - Canada pays for abortion through their health care system and has NO laws against abortion. Yet they have fewer abortions per thousand pregnancies than we do. - how about addressing the reasons that women give for having abortions? For example, job loss, insecurity of support, insecurity of healthcare for themselves and their pregnancy, likely end of education, etc. Canada addresses those better than we do.
