SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Sunseeker]

I think Karreck probably posted his response at the same time you were typing yours, but I feel he explained it pretty clearly.

I went back and reviewed the quote chain, I see what y'all are saying now.

[unfilteredJW]

Damn all "they" have got is a bunch a laws.

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

This is dishonest framing in a desperate attempt to save face.

I ain't buying what you are selling liar.

[cubby]

They by definition are the exact same thing.

No, they are not. Just as you pointed out a rectangle and square. They are not the same thing. One is the other, but the other is not the one.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

The entire point of this conversation, and the essential root of your lies and ignorance.

[Shadowferal]

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

It's none of your business unless you're the woman carrying...

[Dontrike]

Let's clear the air and say this is grammatically wrong. It should read "the abortion issue is all about a woman's right to her body and to be in 100% control of what happens to her body."

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent..

Nope. One patient. Even the Bible says a child isn't alive until it takes its first breath. When both science and fairy tales tell you you're wrong then it's just your problem not living in reality by forcing your self righteousness onto women and children.

[Candiman]

There was the case in Ireland, since they have a constitutional abortion ban, that a woman died because she couldn't have a procedure to remove a septic partial abortion. That's fucking horrendous and no one should have to go through any of that.

Just to factcheck this slightly. This happened in 2012 and the people of Ireland were so outraged by this that it cause a constitutional amendment to legalise abortion. So Ireland no longer has a constitutional ban on abortion.

Death of Savita Halappanavar

[Adamas102]

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

Uhhh, is this a serious question? The answer is very clearly "birth". Are you confused as to how monumentally different it is going from existing entirely within and subsisting 100% on another person's body vs... not?

I take it you're also against things like age of consent because there's no REAL difference between someone who is 17 years 364 days old vs 18 years 1 day old? You'd at least have far better standing arguing against literally every single other age based law (drinking age, driving age, minimum age for being elected president, etc) since none of those cases would have to take into account the incredibly significant event that is BIRTH.

You did tip your hand though when you finally came out and said your concern was only with late term abortions being done on a whim. It would probably be best for you to stop focusing on things that don't actually happen. No one endures a late term abortion on a whim.

[Shadowferal]

[Sunseeker]

Lol this conversation is so fake.

[unfilteredJW]

There's that age of consent libertarian creep shit.

[Endus]

So, a perfectly healthy fetus should just be terminated, even though a c-section or natural birth at that point would produce a completely healthy baby.

Fun fact; birth also ends a pregnancy. Abortions, as a procedure, are about ending the pregnancy, not about killing the fetus. If the safest way to abort a pregnancy is inducing birth or a c-section, guess what doctors are going to suggest?

This is so obviously not a good faith argument. You're just spewing bullshit at this point.

Because there are some real weirdos out there that suggest such things. But I've already said twice in this thread that I'd rather not have the government with their hand in the matter at all. And yet these lefties still argue petty semantics as if I'm disagreeing with them.

Because as much as you say this, you then parrot horseshit pro-life whackadoodle propaganda bullshit. And none of it makes sense. Why are you wasting people's time?

I don't give a fuck what fairy tales say. Science doesn't have a stake in bodily autonomy.

In the same way that science doesn't have a stake in murder, or freedom of speech.

But if your arguments against those things contravene scientific understanding or basic reason and what words mean, you don't have a legitimate argument against them.

[PosPosPos]

15, 16, 18 are all arbitrary. Humans aren't fully matured well into their 20s.

Ah yes, here comes the weird conservative regurgitating their tired pro-pedophilia argument of how age is just a number.

[Doomcookie]

So, a perfectly healthy fetus should just be terminated, even though a c-section or natural birth at that point would produce a completely healthy baby.


15, 16, 18 are all arbitrary. Humans aren't fully matured well into their 20s.

Because there are some real weirdos out there that suggest such things. But I've already said twice in this thread that I'd rather not have the government with their hand in the matter at all. And yet these lefties still argue petty semantics as if I'm disagreeing with them.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't give a fuck what fairy tales say. Science doesn't have a stake in bodily autonomy.

We've already proven that abortions are exactly the same as births, so you have no argument.

You're the weirdo suggesting those things. You... just you.

[Edge-]

Because there are some real weirdos out there that suggest such things.

I'll note that generally the only people talking about third/fourth trimester abortions right up until the day of birth, all things that don't happen or are literally impossible (there's no fourth trimester), are generally folks arguing against bodily autonomy and for fetal personhood.

Y'all pick these topics to talk about. This is your choice. There are some real weirdos out there, and you are very much one of them.

Since you're also still doubling down on the lie that fetal personhood is codified into law when it's fucking not, because you're taking your personal "feels" interpretation of a law and claiming it as fact despite the fact that there's zero case-law to support your interpretation of the law in question.

Again, why are y'all so fucking weird? Why do you spend so much time thinking about fictional abortions?

[Paranoid Android]

I'm just jumping in here for shits and giggles.

To tell another woman what a life, fetus or whatever is and giving the No Choice of what they can do with their body doesn't work. It's simple this is a pro-choice issue or a woman's autonomous right to their body. The polls and elections are proving this. Keep debating that whatever is a something not even defined. Most woman don't care they just want control of their body.

[Captain N]

Again, why are y'all so fucking weird? Why do you spend so much time thinking about fictional abortions?

But isn't that the whole gist of Conservatism? Create fantasies in your head, get mad about them, and then accuse other people for doing what you created in imagination land?

[Dontrike]

I don't give a fuck what fairy tales say. Science doesn't have a stake in bodily autonomy.

So you don't live in reality or even a more "accepted" version of reality, just your own shitty one. Cool.

[gondrin]

What bothers me is that people dont understand that abortion and miscarriage are the exact same thing

No, they are not. While a miscarriage is a type of abortion, not all abortions are miscarriages.

A miscarriage is basically the pregnancy going from viable to non-viable for some reason or another and it prematurely ending. A spontaneous abortion.

An abortion is an abrupt end to a pregnancy either through natural or human directed means. An abortion can be a conscious decision or one that is forced onto someone for some reason or another. A miscarriage is not that.

[Adamas102]

So, a perfectly healthy fetus should just be terminated, even though a c-section or natural birth at that point would produce a completely healthy baby.

Outside of medical emergencies, perfectly healthy fetuses are not terminated after the point where carrying to term is the safer alternative. You can look back through this thread for the article about the Colorado abortion doctor who caters to the desperate women who come from around the US after being denied treatment elsewhere. The poster who kept referencing it thought it would support his anti-choice views but the article was very good about laying out why having no defined limits is important.

Anyway, one of the things mentioned in the article was that around the 30-33 week mark, even this supposedly extreme abortionist doctor would not do the procedure outside the most critical emergencies. Why? Because the risks to the patient associated with having an abortion after that point are higher than carrying the pregnancy to term. As a doctor whose responsibility is to his patient, that is the primary concern. There is very much a point at which even the most staunch pro-choice doctor will tell a patient that carrying to term is the best medical alternative.

Additionally, 33 weeks is still well before a fetus could be birthed as a "completely healthy baby". Perhaps you saw somewhere that fetal viability is around 24-26 weeks, but that is ONLY due to state of the art medical intervention. A baby born prior to 36 weeks is definitely NOT a healthy baby, and premature birth before that time frame is a catastrophic event even for parents who wanted the child. So to reiterate, NO ONE is terminating perfectly healthy fetuses at the point where simply doing a live birth is an alternative.

Because there are some real weirdos out there that suggest such things. But I've already said twice in this thread that I'd rather not have the government with their hand in the matter at all. And yet these lefties still argue petty semantics as if I'm disagreeing with them.

Whatever "some real weirdos" say is irrelevant. You're not proving a point by arguing against something that doesn't actually happen.

[gondrin]

Let's clear the air and say this is grammatically wrong. It should read "the abortion issue is all about a woman's right to her body and to be in 100% control of what happens to her body."

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

I'm going to interject here that I'm not for outlawing form of abortion, at all. Although, I am against it ethically. That's only between me and my wife, and she shares that opinion.

There was the case in Ireland, since they have a constitutional abortion ban, that a woman died because she couldn't have a procedure to remove a septic partial abortion. That's fucking horrendous and no one should have to go through any of that.



All miscarriages are abortions. QED. Semantics like arguing that squares aren't rectangles.

- - - Updated - - -



That's one of the biggest problems with legislation is that lawyers and politicians draft it, without the guidance or jargon of professionals.

Ok, the issue of abortion is the right to determine what can and cannot be done with one's own body. The thing is, if you outlaw abortions, you should also be requiring forced organ donations from healthy people to sick people because, if outlawing abortions is about saving lives, organ donations save lives too.

It is about bodily autonomy. Pure and simple. It is about the choice someone can make about what to have and what they don't want to have in their own body. If what they are removing doesn't survive, then so be it. While the fetus has a right to life, it does NOT have a right to use someone else's life to sustain it against that persons will.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun fact; birth also ends a pregnancy. Abortions, as a procedure, are about ending the pregnancy, not about killing the fetus. If the safest way to abort a pregnancy is inducing birth or a c-section, guess what doctors are going to suggest?

This is so obviously not a good faith argument. You're just spewing bullshit at this point.



Because as much as you say this, you then parrot horseshit pro-life whackadoodle propaganda bullshit. And none of it makes sense. Why are you wasting people's time?



In the same way that science doesn't have a stake in murder, or freedom of speech.

But if your arguments against those things contravene scientific understanding or basic reason and what words mean, you don't have a legitimate argument against them.

That is the thing here. Very few doctors are going to be willing to end a pregnancy that doesn't end in the actual live birth of the fetus pretty much 8 months into it unless there is something majorly wrong with the fetus where it is either dead inside of the womb(miscarriage) or is so deformed to the point that it wouldn't survive being outside of the womb for any length of time. That is why, even in states that are extremely friendly to abortion like California, very late term abortions are pretty much restricted outside of some specific circumstances.