"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
WizardofOz
New member
What is "held to the same import" by one individual will never be held by all. I am not looking for some consensus of personal opinion here.
Please explain the relevance of your question.
mighty_duck
New member
In the same way that your child will do their homework at gunpoint, I suppose...
Saying that banning abortion is a net good is one thing, and is a position I could respect.
But not acknowledging that a moral dilemma exists at all in this case is something I have issue with. It is burying your head in the sand, or rather, needlessly painting the world in black and white.
Let's take another moral dilemma. Many drug counselors recommend that the best way to save a teenager that has been caught several times with drugs is to kick them out of the house. After they have hit rock bottom, they will learn their lesson. Other counselors disagree.
While curing your child of drug addiction is a net good, you can't ignore the difficulty of throwing your own flesh and blood out in the cold.
I'd explain it, but it involves the words "person", "personhood", "personship", and possibly "personishhood" and "personologicalation" all in quick succession. :chuckle:
In short, the law needs to balance the liberties of all involved here - and that includes the mother's liberty to control who can access her own body.
Agreed. I was not questioning the motive, but the backhanded term of "convenience" involved in whether to carry a child to term. The pro-life side uses it as a way to demean the ordeal faced by the unwilling mother.
If you really don't want to get bogged down by semantics, instead of "they have abortions because of convenience" use "they have abortions because they choose not to have their body's most private parts used against their will, ending with a child moving through their vagina"
As a matter of principle, no. In much the same way as you admitted you would ban the morning after pill even in cases of rape.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and all abortion was illegal, then I would certainly see allowing it in cases of rape as a step up, and one worth pursuing.
No. I think I've explained my reasoning already - she had ample time to weigh her decision and understand what's ahead of her. At the same time, the fetus inside her has gained more and more of the qualities we value in a person.
The balance of justice would have shifted. It would become a net wrong.
Get ready to bookmark this page, then.
I, mighty_duck of TOL, being firmly in the Pro-Choice camp, hereby acknowledge that abortion is getting abused as it stands now.
There, you have it in writing. :chuckle:
Abortion-as-birth-control has become an epidemic, and it should be stopped. In many other cases the mother later regrets her decision, and the tragedy becomes even worse.
Seeing as you are in a practical mode, and looking for a compromise, I'll elaborate a bit (read long winded).
1. The need to compromise.
We are part of one nation, and this is a deeply dividing issue. It would be good if there were a solution most people could agree to. Unfortunately, there isn’t as much ground to give to we would like – any solution will leave close to the majority unhappy.
We could probably start with what do agree on and work from there.
A. The fetus has value. A full term child has as much value before birth as after birth.
B. The woman’s body is her own, and we should tread very carefully if we are to force her to use it against her will.
C. Rape is a terrible ordeal. The thought of carrying your rapist’s child against your will is very difficult for many rape victims, and makes the ordeal harder.
D. We want to see fewer abortions – ideally none at all.
2. Pro-Choice core 3 as a compromise (abortion allowed only in cases or rape, incest or medical necessity).
While on its face this looks like a sensible compromise, this solution leaves all sides unhappy, and still in fighting mode. It also has a lot of practical problems:
In cases of rape, how do we know a woman has been raped and is eligible for abortion?
A. Woman reported – with no further requirement. This leaves the situation pretty much as it is today. Women will just need to check a box that they were raped, and proceed.
B. Woman reported – with a requirement that charges are filed. This will lead to a lot of false reports. Best case scenario is the police being flooded with thousands of rape cases with an identical “I couldn’t see him clearly, it was dark and he was wearing a hoody.”. WCS, there will be false charges against the guy she had consensual sex with.
Many actual rape victims don’t want to go through with reporting, and they will be denied abortion rights in this scenario.
C. Allowed only on conviction – Takes time (sometimes over 25 weeks), luck that the rapist is caught, and then convicted. Rape victim rights over her body held for ransom by criminal justice system.
Medical necessity also has practical problems – who decides what is a medical necessity? The mother? The mother’s doctor? The government? When is there enough risk to warrant an abortion? Etc.
3. Reducing or eliminating abortions while keeping them legal
IMO, this is the way to go. Keep abortions legal, but
A. Reduce the need for abortions.
About 50% of current abortions are done by mothers who did not use any contraception. Increase education so that they use even a moderately effective method like condoms, and half of abortions will be gone.
Increase awareness and availability of contraception, and you will reduce that number further.
Increase education about family planning and the worth of every human being, and that number keeps going down.
B. Make abortions less convenient.
While keeping it legal, make abortion a less viable option as a form of birth control. Make it expensive (especially for repeat offenders). Make the mothers go through mandated counseling.
I understand the aversion to philosophy. But it is an ethical issue – which requires some philosophy. Science says absolutely nothing on what is “wrong” or “right”.
I was not making an ad-populum argument, as you are suggesting.
I was explaining why it is prudent to understand your opponent’s argument. This isn’t some fringe group trying to impose itself on the majority. This relates to every second person you see every day.
Ideally, you should know the arguments well enough that you could enter a debate defending the pro-choice side.
Oh, I know how that feels. I go MIA all the time… Wait, what regime change?
Cheers,
-MD
Last edited:
alwight
New member
No, that would just be being dogmatic for no particularly good reason afaic.
If some people want to insist on having blanket dogmatic rules about abortion then that’s fine by me for them to adhere to when their pregnancy is the issue, but should they be allowed to dictate the lives and bodies of women who don’t share their views? I don’t think so.
Surely anyway each case will be unique and should therefore be assessed on its own particular set of circumstances, all of them?
However if you are fine with accepting that some exceptions as above can be legal then good we can progress. We can perhaps put these to one side and try to decide whether there are any other justifiable abortions, perhaps those based on the woman’s right to choose not to be pregnant if she didn’t intend to be, such as below.
I don’t agree it is a rabbit hole, surely being a person or not is completely relevant if we are attempting to honestly and un-dogmatically make reasonable choices in any given situation. But perhaps you would prefer to ignore such things and not want to assess each case on a more individual basis and medical science in favour of a dogmatic blanket ban?
I don’t suggest that its always easy but I can see no way it can be said that any form of personage exists at least while a nervous system is yet to form, so why shouldn’t that be a reasonable guide when making law?
If a pregnancy was to be aborted at that stage then let’s have all the specific details before we simply dogmatically reject it out of hand. The reasons would not be trivial to get my green light, but simply enforcing a total ban in law whatever the facts are, as some seem to want, would be wrong and should never happen and probably won’t imo.
Nice try btw, I’ve already agreed it is of human origin but whether it can be regarded as “a” [living] human person is really the point at hand, and something we may all have our own opinions about. This is all the more reason imo that one group should not dictate to others since no honest assessment of the individual case and medical facts would be considered, only that an adherence to a dogma is imposed on those who don’t agree with it and particularly that it involves the denying of the human rights to a woman in choosing what happens to her own body.
No imo you are trying to not be cornered into considering all the facts and implications as a legal basis to each case in favour of perhaps an easy dogma rather than sometimes making difficult human choices with the best intentions.
Well, I only fully understood that from your post here, sorry if I missed it before. I presume that this has always been your position, but again I've read many of your posts before but didn't get that impression previously.
No that’s just dogma again, it isn’t honest reasoning based on the individual facts, medical evidence or the needs of an extant human woman to choose to be pregnant or not.
I think you seem confused as to what value you give all zygotes, whether they implant or not, does that actually matter? Do you think that two thirds of humanity begin at conception but fails to implant or is a zygote actually just something expendable that contains the information in a form that would allow a new human being to develop given time, the right conditions and a willing human mother? Personally it seems rather more rational to me that at some albeit vague point a foetus accrues rights that exceed the woman’s right to veto, but not before.
OK
I’m of course mortified to be accused of red herrings, but my attempts at persuading some on TOL that allowing any exceptions at all requires some steely determination and to explain that my views are not the work of Satan. My responses here may contain residues of that, but you do seem willing enough to consider at least some of the facts of a case some of the time (rape), while my task as I see it, is to argue that all the facts of each individual case, medical and personal, are not things to be dogmatically ignored when making abortion law.
Last edited:
mighty_duck
New member
WoO,
Perhaps without realizing it, your argument is largely semantic.
It seems to go something like this:
1. Human beings are worth protecting - and have a right to life.
2. Biologically speaking, zygotes are human beings.
Therefore zygotes have a right to life.
The semantic argument comes from switching from a vague description of a human being in #1, to a specific meaning in #2.
Like it or not, we don't agree with #1 using this definition of "human being". As wee see it, zygotes shouldn't have the same rights as an adult woman.
From there, you can do the pro-life "Nazis said some people aren't human beings too" dance, or you can ask what we do mean when we say human beings have rights.
Alate_One
Well-known member
This will be going on, likely within our lifetimes. It should be part of your assessment.
You are a silly person O_O . . . . . . . :chuckle:*See what I did there?
A cell isn't a human body, scientifically speaking. A human body has many differentiated cells which compose tissues, which compose organs which then make up organ systems. All of those make up a human body (or the body of any other multicellular organism). If humans were single celled organisms, then you'd be correct, but we're not.
A zygote is a cell that after many cell divisions could form a human body, but it isn't one yet. It has the *information* and, possibly, capability of forming said body if it's placed in a suitable environment. Rather analogous to "what science can do with something", hmm?
I do find it interesting you are trying to tell me what is scientific fact.
The information is there in a zygote yes, but the information is in the skin cell as well. The human body isn't actually there. Similarly, an acorn isn't an oak tree. Neither is the zygote of a giant sequoia the same as the General Sherman tree. A sequoia zygote doesn't have, roots, leaves or stem which are all organs we associate with *plant* bodies. The information to make something, isn't the thing itself.
And you/he seems to have missed the point a bit, the question isn't when "human life" begins, it's when you're dealing with a person. The zygote is certainly human (it has human DNA) it's alive in the sense that the cells can divide and metabolize. But it's human life in the same sense any human cell is human life.
But it may or may not actually become a human being as we recognize it, and that's not simply because of environmental factors. It may be intrinsically lacking enough human DNA (or have too much) that it will never form a human body. And you can't tell that by looking at the zygote. So if you assert humanity on every zygote, you're asserting it on many things that will never have anything we normally associate with humanity, other than some amount of human DNA, which again our skin cells also share. There are also the many lines of immortal human cells, the most famous of which is HeLa which has outlived the donor by many decades now.
Only because the DNA switches that tell a cell to go through the embryogenic process are turned off. They can certainly be turned back on and have been in several mammalian species. The instructions are there. There's nothing intrinsically different about a skin cell and a zygote other than "settings" and a new combination of genes in the zygote compared to existing organisms.
The other thing you're missing is if you take a zygote and put it into the same artificial environment as the skin cell, much the same thing will happen. It will divide many times and then also fail to recreate the organism because the embryo requires the complex environment of the womb and the structure of the placenta to develop properly. Much like the skin cell would require the correct signals to undergo development.
Mind you conception isn't a "moment" it's actually a time-taking process itself.
Gladly, since the "science" you're posting is based on a rather limited understanding of human reproduction.
Last edited:
There is no moral dilemma. Murder is never justified.
This, likewise, is not a moral dilemma. It's an uncomfortable choice one makes, a hard decision, to bring about a potentially good end.
The right to life outweighs your invented rights.
Not really. That's just you being ungracious.
And both end in the murder of countless innocent lives.
:yawn:
Every evolutionist thinks less babies should be murdered as if a lower number would be more palatable.
What value is that?
Nobody's forcing anything on anyone. Unless you mean the end of life forced upon the unborn child.
Evolutionist's answer: murder the child, house and feed the rapist. Proper answer: execute the rapist, care for the child.
Because the unborn are people with a God-given right to life. Not because it will make the evolutionists feel better.
Yes, you should. :up:
You've just epitomised the spirit of choice.
Someone, a few years back, presented a moral dilemma (I believe it was TOL, perhaps not.) regarding this issue...went something like this:
Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in a lab and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular lab, on a table, held a depository of 100 viable zygotes within test tubes. Next to these test tubes though lies a 3 month-old, helpless infant. You only have time to rescue one or the other...which shall it be?
Now, (assuming) all being equal, and using a typical utilitarian or deontological ethical model..the 100 zygotes would be an easy call.
Nonetheless, intuitively we know this not to be the case.
In practice they're not quite as equal as the idealistic rhetoric would assert.
alwight
New member
Tell that to the two in three zygotes that are pre-destined quite naturally (through evolution if the ToE is actually a point) to never have any right to life whatever choices humans make and laws enacted and whether you personally approve or not.
If it's not Darwinian evolution and all zygotes are indeed sacred then who or what should we attribute this apparently ongoing ghastly human tragedy to? :think:
Or maybe it's not actually a tragedy at all, maybe zygotes are not so sacred, perhaps that's just how nature has evolved to be, no actual persons are involved at that point or harmed in the process. :thumb:
WizardofOz
New member
As a basic premise ("at gunpoint" is a bit sensational), yes. They are responsible even if grudgingly.
The grey area is the 4%; cases of rape, incest or life of mother. What grey area exists with the 96%, which are cases of elective abortion?
I don't see the example as applicable. If you throw your drug-addicted child out, it is because you hope it helps them improve. How does an abortion improve the life of the child-to-be?
There isn't really a fair comparison that exists. Assisted suicide is as close as an example I can think of but even this involves consent on behalf of the soon-to-be-departed.
You cannot simply put a pillow over the face of your vegetative loved one because you feel that is best. People can be taken off life support, which then allows nature to take its course resulting in the natural death of the suffering. Whereas, if we allow nature to take it's course with pregnancy....
If she engages in consensual sex, she should be responsible for the possible outcome of pregnancy. She had the liberty and decided to take that chance by having sex. The woman has full control of who accesses her body just like any individual has liberty to control if another person chops off their hand. Put your hand in a blender, however.....
I appreciate the acknowledgement. :thumb:There is always the possibility of abuse. This is possible in so many scenarios not involving rape as well. A person could report their car stolen in order to defraud the insurance company. Yet, it is still illegal to steal cars and it is legal to sell auto insurance.
I understand the possibility of false rape reports but filling a false police report has its own set of possible consequences. It's fair point to raise, however.
I wish the government would give the victims of rape free counseling, information on adoption, free health care if they choose to see the pregnancy through, etc. Just give them more support across the board.
A doctor would determine the risk and the mother would have the final say. But the doctor would have to attest to the fact that their life was in peril and be responsible for the determination. Then, remove the baby and try to save him/her.
I wish all individuals who consider themselves pro-choice were willing to work on finding common ground. :cheers:
Exactly! This is precisely why what we know as scientific fact must be the common ground. From there we can venture into the subjective.
If both sides cannot agree on objective facts, then there is no reason to venture further.
I used to be pro-choice and debated such in school once. Debating it is what landed me on the other side.
:shut:
WizardofOz
New member
4% of abortions are for rape, incest or life of mother. Address the 96% rather than speaking in generalities. What circumstance/rationalization justifies elective abortion in these 96%?
If she engaged in consensual sex, then she is responsible for becoming pregnant. It's the risk she took.
I simply want to find an agreement on facts before we venture into the philosophical. If we cannot agree on what is fact, there is no point on venturing into that particular realm of debate.
The central nervous system develops quite early. Do you support the ban of all abortions after this point or is the CNS argument a red herring? I predict this is the point where you no longer want to use the CNS as a guideline of any kind. :idunno:
| The central nervous system appears in the middle of the 3rd week of the development as a thickened area of the embryonic ectoderm, the neural plate. Its lateral edges become elevated to form the neural folds, which approach each other and fuse in the middle, thus forming the neural tube. At the cranial and caudal end of the embryo the neural tube is temporarily open and communicates with the amniotic cavity by the way of the cranial and caudal neuropores. The neural tube differentiates into the central nervous system, consisting of the brain and spinal cord, and the neural crest, which gives rise to the most of the peripheral nervous system. The neural canal becomes the ventricular system of the brain and the central canal of the spinal cord. source |
If you could conceivably support the killing of an 8 month-old fetus, I doubt we'll find common ground on the subject.
But hey, give it a shot. Speculate on a set of circumstances where the killing of a fetus 8 months in is justified.
That's why we should avoid opinions until we agree on facts.
It is of human origin. We agree
It is a living human. We agree?
What a "person" is, is ambiguous, philosophical, etymological, etc. We're getting a head of ourselves needlessly by stepping into this realm of debate prior to establishing the facts.
But this is done already. The government dictates that a woman cannot receive an abortion after X number of weeks whether the woman agrees with the "dogma" or not.
Obviously you find current abortion law too restrictive.
Again, I want to agree on facts before we even bother throwing opinions around.
Simply realism vs idealism. I am being a realist in this regard.
Law usually doesn't work that way. Either an action is legal or it is not. What must a woman do to justify an abortion at the 30th week if it is illegal to perform one at this point?
I want to discuss what is still under human control and not random acts of nature.
WizardofOz
New member
Fixed as we have yet to agree on what a "human being" is.
The life and liberty of all humans should be protected by law. Zygotes are human. Therefore....
WizardofOz
New member
I don't think so. I have differentiate sufficiently between a zygote and toenail clippings. Further, let nature run its course and a zygote will become more. Leave a toe nail and it will never become more.
A cell has a body. The cell is human. Therefore, the body is human.
A zygote is a human body, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.
A zygote is a body that is not yet fully developed. Is a fetus a human body? Yes and so is an embryo and so is a zygote. These are simply varying stages of the development the human body progresses through.
Is that against the rules?I do find it interesting you are trying to tell me what is scientific fact.
The zygote isn't an adult human. It is a human zygote. A skin cell is a piece of a human body whereas a zygote is complete but simply not fully developed. There are no missing pieces (like with the toe-nail or skin cell); the pieces have not yet developed.
Needlessly ambiguous, philosophical, subjective, etymological prior to establishing and agreeing on objective facts.
Composition fallacy
Again, a zygote is the underdeveloped whole. A broken off human cell is a piece of the whole.
I fail to see the relevance. This sounds like alwights '2/3rds of zygotes fail to implant' argument.
Gladly, since the "science" you're posting is based on a rather limited understanding of human reproduction.
By all means, refute Maureen L. Condic's points here.
Especially the following:
| Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. |
Last edited:
mighty_duck
New member
We are telling a woman she has no right to control what is going inside her own body, who can access it and how.
You may think that this right does not trump the right of life of the fetus, and that is (arguably) a reasonable position.
But to ignore the first right completely is an unreasonable position.
Agreed. I wasn't making trying to make a comparison, only to demonstrate the parameters of a moral dilemma - balancing two wrongs to achieve the best possible good.
We disagree here. Consent to sex is not an implied consent to carry a baby to term.
I understand the objection. My point is a practical one - even if we were to agree in principle, the anticipated result of such a law are not worth it. The cure is worse than the disease.
A lot is already done, but I don't think anyone would object here.
All pregnancies carry risks, even in "normal" cases. Who gets to decide how much risk is too much?
We agree on the scientific facts. We disagree on the subjective - how much value to put on certain facts and how much on others.
Let me guess, you didn't win much? :box:
Without trying to understand the "personhood" angle, you will not understand almost half of our case.
After your correction we get:
While removing the ambiguous "human being" term, you made the first premise even less agreeable.
If we are using only the biological definition, we don't agree with #1. This is a subjective, value claim.
Zygote's shouldn't have rights, even though they are human.
People should have rights.
WizardofOz
New member
I am sure the same generality can be applied to any law. We should look at the specific merits of the choice being discussed rather than taking some anarchist view of choice in general.
The same game can be played with other scenarios yet does little to actually define the value of those involved beyond the hypothetical emergency situation presented.
If a 5-year-old and a 90-year-old were in a burning building and you could only save one, is the one you choose not to save less valuable as a human?
We're just spinning our tires
WizardofOz
New member
She had control of what is going inside her body and she consented with the knowledge that letting this *ahem* "something" in could result in pregnancy.
I simply feel that abortion irreversibly damages one party while the other party has options available that protects the basic liberties of both parties.
If there were not a plethora of parents ready, willing and able to adopt unwanted children then abortion may very well be the only option.
As it is, other options are available that balances the scale evenly.
See above. Adoption.
Sure it is. Precautions can be taken but pregnancy is a natural possible result of consensual sex. Both parties involved take that risk when they engage in such.
Driving is not an implied consent to pay a speeding ticket if we follow the same logic.
We can agree to disagree on this point.
I simply disagree when it comes to which is worse. But fine, let them lie if that's what it takes to obtain their abortion. At least the principle would stand. I am OK with that as long as they are charged when their story is exposed as fabricated and there are penalties that they will face for filing a false report or falsely accusing another of a such a heinous crime.
The doctor can determine when the mother's life is in peril due to complications in pregnancy. "In the United States, the maternal death rate was 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births." - wiki
Heck, abortions are a health risk all on their own. Pregnancy is a risk just as having an abortion is a risk.
Well, we won :idunno:
But the more I thought about it and weighed the oppositions arguments, the more I realized I had it wrong. Especially in light of the 96%.
I am not unwilling to engage the argument but simply want to A) agree on facts and B) point out that the "personhood" angle is a subjective crap-shoot.
Ask ten people, you'll get possibly ten different answers and values to go along with them.
Who's right? How to we determine such without allowing our own bias to fog the determination?
"Human" is an undeniable term. "Person" isn't. It's too ambiguous to let the entire premise lay on this semantic angle.
alwight
New member
I don’t understand why it is important to you to have a one-size-fits-all absolute legal definition about what women are allowed to do with their own bodies, perhaps you would explain?
However I’ll try to go into my reasoning on this below.
I think you’re heading toward an argument that perhaps all contraception is immoral or wrong, or that just having sex for fun is wrong. Having sex obviously has inherent risks depending on the particular circumstances, be it STDs or simply a risk of an unwanted pregnancy, why should there be extra legally imposed secular consequences to having sex unless you perhaps think sex is wrong except to produce issue? If a woman genuinely did not want to be pregnant but nevertheless is anyway why must the state compel her to suffer the consequences, it’s her moral choice to make at this early point, no one else’s and not the state’s afaic.
If contraception fails or circumstances conspire to produce an unwanted pregnancy then I personally don’t see that an early abortion is morally any different from seeking to prevent that pregnancy from occurring in the first place. I’m not advocating abortion as a form of routine contraception btw, for me it’s just an allowable final chance to opt out before that pregnancy is fully accepted. If that pregnancy is accepted then for me it would require some very specific arguable reasons that we might go into for that to then change afaic but I still wouldn’t rule abortion out without considering all the specific circumstances, and not by a blanket legally imposed dogmatic ban.
You would seem to want a legal ban enforced before any consideration of what you term to be philosophical issues. But the morality of abortion is itself a philosophical issue, there is no absolute truth here. I think that those on one side of the argument should not be compelled to act by the morality of the other side. Being able to make our own choices about ourselves is what this is really about.
No, it is a starting safe point where I at least feel safe that there is no chance of a “person” (sorry) existing because this should be about extant persons imo not potential ones.
I only try to set a principle here that a human “person” clearly couldn’t exist at least in the earliest stages after conception but I think we can each work out for ourselves when we think there is enough neural functioning going on to make an abortion rather more worrying when balancing it with all the other relevant circumstances and factors around the particular woman.
I don’t really want or need to make specific suppositions for you to tilt at, but if the medical likelihood was of severe congenital dysfunction with all the resulting pain and hardships it would bring to all concerned, not just the child, then yes I could be persuaded that such an abortion was for the best. I’m really not seeking any late term abortions or killings only that responsible choices are made on what is best for each case, not whether it happens to be at odds with a current civil law or not at the time.
Well, if I’m not allowed to use the word “person” then perhaps you will need to define what “a living human” actually is in your terms? Is a piece of my skin say “a living human”?
The law seems to try to allow for individual freedom to choose to be pregnant or not. Once that choice has been made by the woman then the rights of the foetus start to become more urgent. Society has agreed to impose restrictions which seem to work fairly well imo, on a fairly common sense basis but which don’t actually call for a total ban.
I can only speak for my own country’s laws which unlike the USA do not grant abortions on demand at any point but in practice work quite reasonably imo so no I think we have it about right. The law here makes a woman consider her choice carefully with medical guidance but does not interfere ultimately in early term abortion. Maybe I actually think that the USA should also ban abortion on demand, which would be more restrictions not less. But then poorer Americans perhaps can’t always afford to seek medical approval in the early stages. :think:
When you tell me what “a living human” is I’ll think on it.
I wonder if others here prefer to appear more completely opposed to any abortion at all than actually they are? :think:
Not Lighthouse or Stripe obviously.
If the woman has already been given the chance and chose to be pregnant then afaic it’s just tough if there are no medical grounds involved, she will simply have to go through with it since the foetus now has rights too.
I’d still like to know how much value you give to a zygote. Are each of the two out of three that fail living humans, are they all sacred or are they largely expendable at that point? IOW at what point would a law be required iyo, from conception?
alwight
New member
:bang:
Let me guess: you don't understand what I meant by that...