SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[HuskerNation1]

 

My response will be brief as I am typing on my phone so my apologies. I get what you are saying in the first section, so let me ask you this. Lets say Trump gets elected, and names 2 or 3 justices in line with Scalia's views, and Roe v Wade is overturned. Based upon what you just said, you would then feel comfortable stating that women do not have a right to an abortion...is that correct.

Not that it matters what I "feel comfortable" with, or you, or anyone other than the Justices, but yes, that is correct. The odds of that happening are relatively small if whomever is appointed honors the doctrine of stare decisis upon which the Court is based, but it could.

 

As for conflicting scientific evidence, it will continue to conflict as long as there are opposing views on this topic, just as we see in the global warming debate where one side cites science to justify their views, and the other side dismisses it. With that said, I still would like an answer to the question on whether you believe its ok for a woman without exceptions to have an abortion at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks.

To say that the evidence "conflicts" is to say that there is no proof that there is fetal pain at 20 weeks, as I pointed out.

 

Your question is unclear. If you are asking me whether it is legal, then the answer is no - what is legal is what was determined by the Court. If you are asking me what I believe should be the standard, then my first response is to refer you to my answer immediately above - it does not matter. I do believe that the Roe decision utilized a flawed legal reasoning. Not on the issue of a right to abortion, but on the framework for determining the "balancing point" between a woman's right to choose and the state's interest. All rights are finite - they must be weighed in relation to all other rights, and at times the balance falls in favor of one right than another. In the case of abortion, I have no problem with the concept that the state has an interest in regulating abortion. But that regulation should be limited to ensuring that the abortion is performed in a manner that is safe and that uses medically appropriate means, both of which means presenting the woman with the requisite knowledge of the risks of whatever procedure is to be used. So long as those parameters are met, the state's interest should end and the woman's interest should take precedence. If that allows abortions at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks, then that would be fine with me.

 

 

I appreciate your courage in stating that you are ok with a woman aborting a pre-born (and fully capable of surviving on its own) as late as 37 weeks. I personally think that is a horrendous statement but we can agree to disagree.

 

As for evidence conflicting, like I said, this will always exist when we are discussing political topics. Global warming is the greatest example, where environmentalists have claimed in recent years that science shows global warming is man-made and we must push legislation to deal with it. But, just as the left and environmental groups pushed a study by an Illinois grad claiming that 97% of warming is man-made, plenty of other evidence countered that. Regarding the Benghazi hearing, I believe there is plenty of evidence that HIllary knew the attack was a terrorist attack and misled Americans, but others look at her actions and like to see something different.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

 

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

I'd say that in order to start living, a consenting mother is required. To reach a point where there's a "you" who can have rights -- which, if female, should include lifelong agency over her own body -- there has to first be a woman who carries the pregnancy. In any civilized society, she only does this of her own accord, and becomes a mother to have this child for herself -- not for the government, not for an adoption agency, not for anybody else.

 

JMO -- I know it's a difficult, and fraught subject. I'm sure I've expressed myself more eloquently past times this has come up than I am doing currently, also.

 

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a hazy boundary; when can you consider them two separate lives? But impelling women who do not want their pregnancies to go through with them is a non starter for me.

I agree. To not give a woman any choice over her own body, it seems to objectify them and/or render them an unperson, as though they are nothing more than a baby-making machine controlled by others.

This.

 

There are moral, religious and ethical arguments that can go on forever and deserve mutual empathy and understanding.

 

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies. Abortion is also practiced by many species within the natural order, so I don't think it qualifies as unnatural either.

 

Just as outlawing guns won't stop gun violence, outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. Instead we'd get an unregulated black market requiring new governmental oversight and intrusion.

 

I can't believe HuskerBoard hasn't solved the abortion and gun control issues yet.

Could you go into more detail about abortion being practiced by many species within the natural order? Hoping I may learn something today.

Have you learned Google yet?

Googling "infanticide" might be a good place to start. Then maybe try "bruce effect".

If I wanted your advice, I would've asked for it. I don't and didn't. that should've been one clue. You're also on my ignore list. Have you learned what a clue is yet?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

 

 

There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

 

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

 

 

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

 

 

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

 

 

Not quite apples and oranges. Maybe grapefruits and oranges? In it's essence it is a parent not risking their health/life to save a child. Similar to what you want to condemn others for doing when they choose to not go through with a pregnancy. It is a unique situation, and kind of rare, but so is a 37 week abortion that you singled out; that is a rare occurrence as well. You do realize that some women don't find out they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy, don't you? What if they make an "in the moment" decision to abort immediately after they find out at 24 weeks? Would that be okay with you then if they had to make a quick decision? Maybe the gestational age is approaching the moment after which an abortion has been deemed illegal. How much time should they get to decide? This too is a unique situation, and kind of rare, but so is a 37 week abortion that you singled out to chastise AR's opinion as horrendous; that is a rare occurrence as well.

 

And I can't help it if you choose to not see how your question is still ambiguous; it's not as straightforward as you think. But AR gave you the response you were fishing for, so you must feel good about that.

[Enhance]

 

 

Men and women approach life very differently, based on the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.

 

This has been going on forever.

Which is why I'm often times surprised men try to insert such a powerful voice into the abortion debate.

 

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding the topic, but I don't think men put themselves in a woman's shoes near enough during the discussion.

 

 

I don't want to sound like I disagree because I see what you're saying here. But in a democracy, how can we have an issue on which only one part of the populace has a voice?

 

Well, that's why I accept and understand everyone is entitled to their opinion. After all, many of us here are registered, legal voters. My opinion is as impactful as yours, and so on down the list.

 

I'm just a firm believer in putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I don't think a lot of men do that very often in the abortion debate. While yes, we can all have our opinions on pro-life vs pro-choice and similar ilk, I'm very careful about how I approach this debate because I'm not a woman and never will be. I believe they have more weight in this debate than men do.

 

I should also clarify that I'm coming at this more from the rape perspective, a deplorable act. I realize most aborted pregnancies are not because of rapes. But, when I see things like "What's stopping a rape victim from getting Plan B?" when referencing a rape victim... I get a little disgusted. As if that's just an easy solution and there aren't a million other emotions or factors at play.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

 

 

There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf

 

 

It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so?

[JJ Husker]

I have some pretty strong views about abortion being wrong and in most cases akin to murder. I happen to be Catholic but my anti-abortion views are not primarily based on any religious type background. Besides that I think it is hypocritical to be opposed to contraceptive use and abortion as the Catholic church is. I see absolutely no problem with proactively preventing a pregnancy. Notice I said preventing. In my mind, use of plan B is not preventative but rather reactive and is no better in my mind than having an abortion.

 

Where does my view of abortion come from? Some place themselves in the shoes of the woman. I try to do that as well but I also place myself in the baby booties of that completely helpless, unborn child. In my opinion they are the ones who need an advocate the most. They have absolutely no voice. It is my belief that their life starts at the time that egg is fertilized and begins to divide. If nature doesn't cause a miscarriage and no human intervenes, that mass if cells will be born as a human child. I'm guessing that 100% of aborted babies, given the choice, would choose to be born and live. I'm also sure that if every person who is pro-choice were to have been aborted that there would be no pro-choice voice to be heard anywhere. Let that sink in for a moment.

 

Now to clarify, I am not against abortion in cases of rape, incest or the extremely rare occasion when the mother's life may be in danger. Rape is a violent crime and I would never presume to tell a rape victim how to proceed. If they want to terminate that pregancy, I believe that should be their choice to make. I also believe abortions should be safe, clean and rare. I don't want to see them completely outlawed and moved into the proverbial back alley. Some people will choose that route no matter any law so it should be safe even if I don't condone it.

 

But, I also believe that most abortions are performed due to lack of proper planning, care, effort, and responsibility. I feel sorry for the situation some people find themselves in; when you feel your family is complete but that late child shows up, when you're a teen and just haven't fully considered the consequences of your actions, etc. I get it, I understand how these things happen. But I have a very difficult time generating much sympathy for people who place themselves in those types of positions. Use contraception, abstain, don't be promiscuous, there are a lot of better options than killing another life. It is hard for anyone to know how any specific pregnancy came about (and yes, I know about the birds and the bees) and to make judgement on it from the outside. But I also know how many millions of babies are killed every year. That huge number has to be driven primarily by people that just don't give two sh#ts about being responsible and doing what is required to prevent being placed in the position to murder another human being. Not only do I want those to be rare situations, I want them eliminated. Anyway that's my view and my opinion for whatever that's worth.

[Moiraine]

I don't like the rhetoric from either side.

From the pro-life side - calling pro-choicers babykillers and murderers and pro-abortioners (as if anyone really is pro-abortion) and being against abortion even when there's rape involved or the woman's life is in danger. For the most part being against any type of funding that would help those who see abortion as their only option because they can't afford to raise the child. For the most part being against letting gay couples adopt children, at least in the past.

From the pro-choice side - claiming that women's bodies and rights are being violated. Anyone who's pro-choice who has an open mind should realize that to the pro-lifer it's not about the woman it's about the baby she's carrying. Also, men aren't just sperm-donors. The woman is making a choice for herself, the man who impregnated her, and the baby or "potential baby" she's carrying.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

 

 

There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf

 

 

It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so?

 

 

No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf

It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so?

No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase.

 

You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply.

[zoogs]

 

From the pro-choice side - claiming that women's bodies and rights are being violated. Anyone who's pro-choice who has an open mind should realize that to the pro-lifer it's not about the woman it's about the baby she's carrying.

I realize and can understand the discomfort, but to deny a pregnant woman this choice is to commandeer her life. One might argue there are justifications to do so, but nonetheless.

[Moiraine]

 

 

From the pro-choice side - claiming that women's bodies and rights are being violated. Anyone who's pro-choice who has an open mind should realize that to the pro-lifer it's not about the woman it's about the baby she's carrying.

I realize and can understand the discomfort, but to deny a pregnant woman this choice is to commandeer her life. One might argue there are justifications to do so, but nonetheless.

 

 

To someone who's pro-life, the baby isn't getting a choice. It's just getting killed. It's not about the woman. This is why there will never be compromise. One side claims the other abusing pregnant women. One side claims the other is murdering babies.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.

And what is your answer...

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.

Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences?

There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf

It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so?

No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase.

 

You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply.

 

 

Wow, you are like a broken record, and reaching for stretch examples to justify a point that makes no sense at all. The question I am posing to you is at the heart of the late-term abortion ban debate, something that both sides of the aisle should be able to reach consensus on. So in posing this straightforward question, you are coming up with all sorts of scenarios to distract. Taking your scenarios into the gun control debate, it would be like arguing that we should allow individuals to purchase semi-automatic machine guns or bazookas in case a gang or group of terrorists invade their home and try to take out their family.

 

As for the part I bolded, I have repeatedly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, that would qualify for an "exception" so that is not even relevant to the question I have posed. As for bringing up our miscarriage, that was a direct response to your inference that I am not aware of pregnancy and the associated risks. I'm not sure if you have been through the process as a parent, but most parents who live through the entire life cycle understand the process, the risks, etc...

 

If your plan is to continue to dodge this question by reclaiming that its not straightforward then there is no need to respond. If I wanted a broken record I could go buy one and crack it over my leg.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

From the pro-choice side - claiming that women's bodies and rights are being violated. Anyone who's pro-choice who has an open mind should realize that to the pro-lifer it's not about the woman it's about the baby she's carrying.

I realize and can understand the discomfort, but to deny a pregnant woman this choice is to commandeer her life. One might argue there are justifications to do so, but nonetheless.

 

 

To someone who's pro-life, the baby isn't getting a choice. It's just getting killed. It's not about the woman. This is why there will never be compromise. One side claims the other abusing pregnant women. One side claims the other is murdering babies.

 

This is pretty much the abortion debate in a nutshell and the reason it will likely continue forever.

Another key point, and the reason many are so fervent about it is that they do not want to condone the murder or killing of babies. It's not just a claim but rather the heartfelt belief that they should not allow it. The choice for them is causing some undue hardship or strain on some women or rubber stamping murder. Given that choice, I guess many view some discomfort or inconvenience to be more tolerable than killing.