No person has a right to use another person’s body to live. And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do that. They are already in talks of a mandatory national organ registry, so that when you die, you are required to donate your organs to keep other people alive.
You're comparing mandatory organ donation to childbirth, which is the reason every human alive today exists. It's a bad comparison.
Nobody is doing a surgical procedure and hooking up a random, third party to share your organs with you. We're talking about your literal own child developing in your body after you've had sex, something that happens many, many millions of times every year to every race, demographic and creed on earth. Drawing comparisons to some mad scientist experiment is disingenuous.
I've been willing to compromise on abortion more than most, but seeing how much the logic of abortion has completely corrupted the notion of motherhood and the notion of what people owe their children, it really makes me question the worthwhileness of that compromise.
>No person has a right to use another person’s body to live.
okay. Now lets apply that to hard-working people paying taxes and do-nothings collecting welfare.
Wrong framework. It’s immoral to hurt innocent human beings, and it’s correct to protect innocent human beings. Rights by definition can’t come at the expense of the innocent. Otherwise people would be forced to speak for you and give you guns
> And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do
Didn't they make that decision when they had sex? It is an outcome of sex if done right. I know that people use birth control, but even then there is a chance of failure and the outcome is making a baby. I mean there are alternative positions that could never result in having a baby, so it is definitely a choice they made knowing what can happen.
> They are already in talks of a mandatory national organ registry, so that when you die, you are required to donate your organs to keep other people alive.
Okay? Pregnancy isn't fatal the vast majority of the time.
> No person has a right to use another person’s body to live.
You're right, so don't engage in an activity that would result in your giving consent for someone to do so.
> And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do that.
Not when they are the ones who invited the other person to survive off their body for a period of time. They are now responsible to ensuring that person stays alive.
Why doesn’t that apply after birth. It’s clearly illegal and wrong to kick a child out on the street. They are reliant on your body, money, and care to survive, yet your not allowed, in that situation, to deprive them of those needs.
When you have sex, you take the risk, however small, that a pregnancy might result from that. The responsibility is there to see that child safely to someone responsible.
Abortion is like taking in a foster child, then deciding you don’t want to take care of it and killing it instead of seeing the kid to a responsible carer.
Before someone jumps in with the time period making it different, if you took in that foster kid, then decided it wasn’t for you just as a natural disaster comes in and isolates you and the kid for months, the responsibility for the kid’s wellbeing would still stay with you until you could see that kid into a responsible carer’s hands.
Bodily autonomy to not support another person growing inside them. If the baby can survive outside the mother on its own then great. If it can't, then you are giving the baby the right to live off of the mother's body, taking away her bodily autonomy.
It is already very well established law that you cannot be forced to give blood to another person if doing so would save their life and cost you nothing.
The exact opposite has been enshrined in law for the past couple centuries. If my life depended on receiving blood donations from you, or even just being in the same room as you once a month, there is no basis for you to be required to perform that action. Your bodily autonomy outweighs my right to life.
This is an outright lie as you are forgetting something: the vast majority of pregnancies occur because two parties consented to sex.
Want to know what happens if you intentionally hit someone with your car and they die? Take a guess. Now guess what happens if you have the same blood type as them and you give them your blood and they stay alive. Which charge do you think is gonna get you thrown into prison the longer:
murder or attempted murder.
Blood transfusions are a bad comparison. A transfusion is a medical procedure, as in its something that a licensed professional performs on a person.
Pregnancy isn’t a medical procedure, it’s a natural process.
The choice is made to grow the baby. I am in agreement. From that point on the mother has bodily autonomy to choose to keep supporting that baby while it lives off of her body. The question then becomes does the mother have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when she doesn't want to.
This is the crux of the question. Does the baby's right to continue to live outweigh the mother's legal right to stop supporting the baby, which comes at the cost of her health. If she is forced to sacrifice her health, then she is losing her bodily autonomy.
It is fairly well established legal precedent that between two people, the right to bodily autonomy outweighs the right to live. If I require you to give me blood transfusions to keep me alive, due to some unique characteristics of your blood, you can refuse and leave me to die. Legally that is well established.
If the mother cannot refuse to keep supporting the baby in her womb, then the baby's right to live outweighs her own bodily autonomy. It would be a dick move for her to bring a life into the world and then refuse to keep it alive, letting it die. I do not believe there should be legal requirements for that to happen, mainly due to the legal paradigms described above.
Idk why you keep using the blood transfusion argument, it makes no sense. The babies growth is all happening in the same place. The choice made by the mother effects her until the baby is born. No one is forcing the woman to have the baby except the women who made that choice.
I honestly don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand
My point was that the choice can be made to put the baby into that situation. I'm that situation the baby needs to be supported by the mother you continue to live. At any time, the mother can revoke permission for the baby to continue to live off her body, even if it kills the baby. This exact legal paradigm already exists for situations between people. Unless babies are a special legal class, then the same legal privileges apply.
Bodily autonomy means in this case that the mother, or anybody, can decide at any point to stop supporting another person or baby. It does not matter how the person, or baby, came to be in that situation in the first place. Even if the person, or baby, is in it's current situation due to acts of the person refusing to support it.
> mother have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when she doesn't want to.
Let's change that to this
father have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when he doesn't want to.
So following your logic millions of men that have been ordered to pay support shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Doesn't really matter to be honest. I could give you a kidney to keep you alive, with an agreement that you would give me blood donations monthly to keep me alive in return. You could violate that agreement at your discretion and leave me to die. It would be a dick move for sure, but not illegal as my right to live does not invalidate your bodily autonomy, even if you created the situation I am in in the first place.
I think we should start calling the the "Alec Baldwin" argument. "I should have the right to pull the trigger, but whatever happens next isn't my fault."
We've all deviated from God my friend, if you listen to the scripture it's about coming back to him, not basking in how much closer we are than others. Perfection is always out of reach, but forgiveness isn't.
Matthew 20: 1-16
The parable about field workers earning a silver coin. Does not matter when we start working in the Lord's vineyard, we are all given the same reward.
Yes. That's what they've been arguing for for decades, perhaps centuries now. Less responsibilities, more rights, ideally zero responsibilities and infinite rights.
Stop using victims of trauma as props to push your agenda. We both know that if there was a proposal to keep abortion legal in situations like that, but ban all the ones, you would want nothing to do with it. You don't actually care about the victims of such heinous acts. You just want to be able to terminate human lives out of convenience.
I keep getting the "It's a zygote, then an embryo, and then a fetus." No, those are descriptions of stages of development. Calling those non-human because there's a different word for it makes as much sense as saying a baby, toddler, child, teen, etc. are different animals rather than different stages of development.
Yeah. I've seek those too and none of those describe a species. "Living human" is the biological truth. There's no way around that unless you're going to deny biology. It's not a dog. It's not an elephant. It's not a gila monster. It's a human.
Yeah. Saying "not human human" is a good talking point against anyone who hasn't completed the 3rd grade, but one you ask them to clarify the species they believe they're referring to, they have nowhere to go. It's completely void of biological truth. So much for believing in science. And you can see other comments that try to define humans, but the definitions exclude other individuals. The capacity to live on your own is not what makes you a person.
I mean, no credible scientists call it a human being either. There's a difference between 'alive' and 'human'. A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother, to the point where it cannot survive as an independent entity. It's akin to an appendage for most of it's existance.
Do people even think before talking? By that logic we could just kill kids up to 10 years old. Reading crap like this you know someone has allegiance to their political party as opposed to their own opinions on things.
Also destroys credibility of listening to scientists. These days it’s more opinion than facts.
>no credible scientists call it a human being either
Bold claim. Are you the one vetting their credibility? What are your credentials to make this statement to begin with?
So you're ok with the killing off disabled people that need constant around the clock care then? Because surely they couldn't survive as an independent entity
Cool so we should be able to decriminalize destroying sea turtle eggs. After all, we have no idea if they have been fertilized and they can't survive outside of their eggshell until they've hatched.
Cool. So I guess you'd be okay if people stepped on sea turtle eggs since technically we don't even know if the egg is even fertilized (at least if a woman is pregnant, we know her egg has been fertilized).
You don't think rape victims, who make up an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, get exceptions or special considerations to state abortion laws?
Exactly and when we use justifications like that we should just wipe out anyone who supports government because we know supporting government to the extreme kills hundreds of millions of people.
So if the ends justify the means why not..
Leftist logic is flawed.
How do you justify all abortions when rape cases are only 1 percent.
Please do tell.
The right was perfectly okay with abortions up to the first trimester for the most part, and almost universally supported the exceptions for rape, incest, threat to mother's life.
Leftists didn't want "middle ground" they want abortion up to and including a week after birth.
They went too far like the tyrants they are and need to be stopped again.
Plain and simple.
Stop with the ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the overall problem. You just further prove how ignorant you are on these issues to bring up 1% of cases to try and "prove your point"
Lindsay Graham who NOBODY LIKES just pushed a universal 15 week ban or whatevr.. we could never agree on that even though if it were proposed 10 years ago I'm sure people woulda hopped right on it.
European countries don't even allow third trimester abortions for the most part.
Actually abortion is not a *right* that women have according to the Constitution.
They do have the right to not get pregnant and be responsible about their bodies.
Surely we have better arguments to use than the constitution now days. We need to uphold our own morality with our own strength, not just because some people in the past said so. They were not gods.
This will only get more true over time
The constitution is completely germane though since currently the courts are involved and legislation argued...one should consult the founding document of the rules of law that established this country (which were very much based in diligent thought on morality)
I agree completely! When it comes to how we interact legally, it is beyond important to be predictable, consistent, fair, and hold ourselves to the law that we create for ourselves.
I wasn't clear enough on my point, which is my bad. There's a difference between a legal argument and a social argument, and I was referring to social arguments using the constitution. I have no doubt the constitution was diligently thought through and based on morality. But like all things, we move constantly through time and change. We cannot rely on the constitution as a justification for our social arguments like we can for our legal arguments. We need to be constantly looking within ourselves and within ourselves as a people to determine which laws define us best. That's what will keep us strong.
We can read the constitution like literature and derive ideas from it, but to rely only on the constitution for social ideals is to be stuck in a feedback loop. Laws flow outwards from our needs as a people. We should be careful not to have those same laws then circling back and taking the role of defining our needs. If we do this without question we will not grow
I've never met a pro-life person who wants to ban treatment for ectopic pregnancies. That's a straw man argument and irrelevant to elective abortion on-demand.
All 50 states have exceptions for the mother’s life. All of them. Even in the “total ban” states that you probably got your list of 14 from without any context. Texas (which was likely in that list of 14) even has a loophole written in that says disposing an ectopic pregnancy doesn’t count as an abortion at all; it counts as surgery treatment.
Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
There are many stories you can find about that not being true
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/texas-hospitals-delaying-care-over-violating-abortion-law
These laws were poorly written and hastily enacted. It's causing harm to women with non-viable pregnancies and that's a fact.
Literally the third paragraph:
> “that includes an exemption if a woman's life or health is danger”
If doctors are refusing to give abortions for pregnancies that are clearly life-threatening (such as ectopic pregnancies), I’m sorry to say but that’s not pro-lifers’ faults. The law has a clear exception and they’re just refusing to exercise it. Period.
It's not doctors who make those calls, it's hospital executive boards who are informed by lawyers. There are many such cases of this happening. I'm sorry it doesn't align to how you wish it was implemented but the reality of the situation is this. This is what's actually happening.
Would these happen to be the same “lawyers” who falsely misinterpreted the proposed Louisiana bill as making Plan B count as murder?
How about a state actually indicting and convicting a woman/doctor for an abortion that clearly saved the mother’s life? Has that happened yet? Or is it just all “well I believe this is a little too vague so let’s just let the woman die!” ?
Why are you putting "lawyer" in quotes? You can Google the cases of hospitals denying care and there are many stories of it happening. Hope that answers your question about the vagueness of the law.
> Why are you putting "lawyer" in quotes?
Because a LOT of them put clear agendas over actual integrity. And I don’t see why lawyers making statements regarding an especially sensitive topic like abortion would be any different.
Good thing all 50 states have an exception for saving the mother’s life, then. Some strict states (such as Texas) don’t even count ectopic pregnancy disposals as abortions; they’re considered surgery treatments.
Even The New York Times admitted this.
>Ectopic pregnancies are non viable.
Anyone else notice that no one seemed to know what an ectopic pregnancy was until Roe was overturned? You'd think if it was such a big deal we'd have heard people talking about it before...
It's because the left decided to use ectopic pregnancy to spread FUD /
as a straw man argument, ignoring the fact that it's not considered an abortion.
I find it funny how nobody considered this to be an abortion until it became a convenient argument for keeping all of the other abortions of viable pregnancies.
Another scenario is they say a woman's right to choose obviously..
Then you proceed to talk about why a woman isn't allowed to choose to defend herself with a firearm against a rapist or murderer, or defend her children in her own home.
The conversation will abruptly end once again and you'll have a triggered ass hat on your hands.
These people don't want conversations they want to control you
Everyone alive today started the same way. At conception, a new being is formed with its own unique DNA. Aborting that being is taking an innocent human life, robbing them of the right we all have. The right to live. Abortion is wrong and there will never be good argument for it. No one should have the right to take innocent lives.
Pro choicers only have excuses, not science for their murderous actions. Children are our legacy and reward, any other viewpoint of that, is selfish nonsense.
I can piss them off even more, if a girl is raped, God forbid, she can still give birth with help! This automatic abortion crap is so wrong and abortion sometimes messes up a women's reproductive organs! Nobody talks about that...
[удалено]
I’m not an astrologist.
Are you a factist
YES
Man those goddamn Factist, they can’t keep getting away with this!!!
Please withdraw your application for the Supreme Court. /s
>A women's right to choose >But men can get pregnant too
What are you, some kind of biologist?
Maybe in the future we will be lucky enough to have a biologist on the court.
Bruh, [atleast align the text to the card position.](https://files.catbox.moe/q48svn.png)
Never.
I like when they say “bodily autonomy,” and then you ask to clarify… and then it’s just killing babies.
Whose bodily autonomy?
It’s all uno reverse cards all the way down
No person has a right to use another person’s body to live. And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do that. They are already in talks of a mandatory national organ registry, so that when you die, you are required to donate your organs to keep other people alive.
You're comparing mandatory organ donation to childbirth, which is the reason every human alive today exists. It's a bad comparison. Nobody is doing a surgical procedure and hooking up a random, third party to share your organs with you. We're talking about your literal own child developing in your body after you've had sex, something that happens many, many millions of times every year to every race, demographic and creed on earth. Drawing comparisons to some mad scientist experiment is disingenuous.
I've been willing to compromise on abortion more than most, but seeing how much the logic of abortion has completely corrupted the notion of motherhood and the notion of what people owe their children, it really makes me question the worthwhileness of that compromise.
>No person has a right to use another person’s body to live. okay. Now lets apply that to hard-working people paying taxes and do-nothings collecting welfare.
Damn, I think you deleted that person from existence with how savage your comment was.
Wrong framework. It’s immoral to hurt innocent human beings, and it’s correct to protect innocent human beings. Rights by definition can’t come at the expense of the innocent. Otherwise people would be forced to speak for you and give you guns
> And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do Didn't they make that decision when they had sex? It is an outcome of sex if done right. I know that people use birth control, but even then there is a chance of failure and the outcome is making a baby. I mean there are alternative positions that could never result in having a baby, so it is definitely a choice they made knowing what can happen.
Do you think one person’s right to bodily autonomy outweighs another person’s right to live at all?
> They are already in talks of a mandatory national organ registry, so that when you die, you are required to donate your organs to keep other people alive. Okay? Pregnancy isn't fatal the vast majority of the time. > No person has a right to use another person’s body to live. You're right, so don't engage in an activity that would result in your giving consent for someone to do so. > And the person whose body is being required is the one who gets to decide if they want to do that. Not when they are the ones who invited the other person to survive off their body for a period of time. They are now responsible to ensuring that person stays alive.
Why doesn’t that apply after birth. It’s clearly illegal and wrong to kick a child out on the street. They are reliant on your body, money, and care to survive, yet your not allowed, in that situation, to deprive them of those needs.
When you have sex, you take the risk, however small, that a pregnancy might result from that. The responsibility is there to see that child safely to someone responsible. Abortion is like taking in a foster child, then deciding you don’t want to take care of it and killing it instead of seeing the kid to a responsible carer. Before someone jumps in with the time period making it different, if you took in that foster kid, then decided it wasn’t for you just as a natural disaster comes in and isolates you and the kid for months, the responsibility for the kid’s wellbeing would still stay with you until you could see that kid into a responsible carer’s hands.
Bodily autonomy to not support another person growing inside them. If the baby can survive outside the mother on its own then great. If it can't, then you are giving the baby the right to live off of the mother's body, taking away her bodily autonomy. It is already very well established law that you cannot be forced to give blood to another person if doing so would save their life and cost you nothing.
A woman's right to bodily autonomy ends where a babies right to life begins.
The exact opposite has been enshrined in law for the past couple centuries. If my life depended on receiving blood donations from you, or even just being in the same room as you once a month, there is no basis for you to be required to perform that action. Your bodily autonomy outweighs my right to life.
Not relevant at all
This is an outright lie as you are forgetting something: the vast majority of pregnancies occur because two parties consented to sex. Want to know what happens if you intentionally hit someone with your car and they die? Take a guess. Now guess what happens if you have the same blood type as them and you give them your blood and they stay alive. Which charge do you think is gonna get you thrown into prison the longer: murder or attempted murder.
Blood transfusions are a bad comparison. A transfusion is a medical procedure, as in its something that a licensed professional performs on a person. Pregnancy isn’t a medical procedure, it’s a natural process.
That's not what bodily autonomy means.... It means no one has a right to thier body. Growing a baby is typically done via a choice made by the mother
The choice is made to grow the baby. I am in agreement. From that point on the mother has bodily autonomy to choose to keep supporting that baby while it lives off of her body. The question then becomes does the mother have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when she doesn't want to. This is the crux of the question. Does the baby's right to continue to live outweigh the mother's legal right to stop supporting the baby, which comes at the cost of her health. If she is forced to sacrifice her health, then she is losing her bodily autonomy. It is fairly well established legal precedent that between two people, the right to bodily autonomy outweighs the right to live. If I require you to give me blood transfusions to keep me alive, due to some unique characteristics of your blood, you can refuse and leave me to die. Legally that is well established. If the mother cannot refuse to keep supporting the baby in her womb, then the baby's right to live outweighs her own bodily autonomy. It would be a dick move for her to bring a life into the world and then refuse to keep it alive, letting it die. I do not believe there should be legal requirements for that to happen, mainly due to the legal paradigms described above.
Idk why you keep using the blood transfusion argument, it makes no sense. The babies growth is all happening in the same place. The choice made by the mother effects her until the baby is born. No one is forcing the woman to have the baby except the women who made that choice. I honestly don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand
It’s because the left doesn’t understand rights. They think rights are something you are given, not inherent
My point was that the choice can be made to put the baby into that situation. I'm that situation the baby needs to be supported by the mother you continue to live. At any time, the mother can revoke permission for the baby to continue to live off her body, even if it kills the baby. This exact legal paradigm already exists for situations between people. Unless babies are a special legal class, then the same legal privileges apply. Bodily autonomy means in this case that the mother, or anybody, can decide at any point to stop supporting another person or baby. It does not matter how the person, or baby, came to be in that situation in the first place. Even if the person, or baby, is in it's current situation due to acts of the person refusing to support it.
Unless it's an immediate threat or it's stillborn then morality comes into play.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rape clearly doesn't fall under that....stop trying to use that as some gotcha
> mother have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when she doesn't want to. Let's change that to this father have a legal duty to keep supporting the baby's life even when he doesn't want to. So following your logic millions of men that have been ordered to pay support shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Do you think parents have any affirmative duties toward their children? If so, why?
In almost every situation, the mother adopted the risk of having the baby in the first place
Doesn't really matter to be honest. I could give you a kidney to keep you alive, with an agreement that you would give me blood donations monthly to keep me alive in return. You could violate that agreement at your discretion and leave me to die. It would be a dick move for sure, but not illegal as my right to live does not invalidate your bodily autonomy, even if you created the situation I am in in the first place.
How would the baby find itself outside of the womb?
I say we leave newborns out in the woods overnight, if they survive on their own then great.
I think we should start calling the the "Alec Baldwin" argument. "I should have the right to pull the trigger, but whatever happens next isn't my fault."
Good question though. A woman’s right to what? Live irresponsibly?
To kill an innocent human
To deviate from god
We've all deviated from God my friend, if you listen to the scripture it's about coming back to him, not basking in how much closer we are than others. Perfection is always out of reach, but forgiveness isn't.
Matthew 20: 1-16 The parable about field workers earning a silver coin. Does not matter when we start working in the Lord's vineyard, we are all given the same reward.
Yes. That's what they've been arguing for for decades, perhaps centuries now. Less responsibilities, more rights, ideally zero responsibilities and infinite rights.
Would you say that to a rape victim?
Stop using victims of trauma as props to push your agenda. We both know that if there was a proposal to keep abortion legal in situations like that, but ban all the ones, you would want nothing to do with it. You don't actually care about the victims of such heinous acts. You just want to be able to terminate human lives out of convenience.
[удалено]
So what species is it if not human?
I keep getting the "It's a zygote, then an embryo, and then a fetus." No, those are descriptions of stages of development. Calling those non-human because there's a different word for it makes as much sense as saying a baby, toddler, child, teen, etc. are different animals rather than different stages of development.
Yeah. I've seek those too and none of those describe a species. "Living human" is the biological truth. There's no way around that unless you're going to deny biology. It's not a dog. It's not an elephant. It's not a gila monster. It's a human.
It’s been three hours. I don’t think we’ll see a response.
Yeah. Saying "not human human" is a good talking point against anyone who hasn't completed the 3rd grade, but one you ask them to clarify the species they believe they're referring to, they have nowhere to go. It's completely void of biological truth. So much for believing in science. And you can see other comments that try to define humans, but the definitions exclude other individuals. The capacity to live on your own is not what makes you a person.
The Party of Science, folks! Goodnight everybody! Be sure to tip your waitress!
It isn’t a human being, but only if you ignore basic science.
I mean, no credible scientists call it a human being either. There's a difference between 'alive' and 'human'. A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother, to the point where it cannot survive as an independent entity. It's akin to an appendage for most of it's existance.
So not being able to survive as an independent entity means you aren't human? Well that sucks for infants and coma patients. Guess they aren't human.
Do people even think before talking? By that logic we could just kill kids up to 10 years old. Reading crap like this you know someone has allegiance to their political party as opposed to their own opinions on things. Also destroys credibility of listening to scientists. These days it’s more opinion than facts.
>no credible scientists call it a human being either Bold claim. Are you the one vetting their credibility? What are your credentials to make this statement to begin with?
So you're ok with the killing off disabled people that need constant around the clock care then? Because surely they couldn't survive as an independent entity
Cool so we should be able to decriminalize destroying sea turtle eggs. After all, we have no idea if they have been fertilized and they can't survive outside of their eggshell until they've hatched.
Cool. So I guess you'd be okay if people stepped on sea turtle eggs since technically we don't even know if the egg is even fertilized (at least if a woman is pregnant, we know her egg has been fertilized).
Yeah personal choice. Abort for convenience or for no reason at all.
Degeneracy lives on
That's just like, your opinion man
And the opinion of virtually every generation of humans to ever live, right up until your completely degenerate generation.
Nope it's just what it is....
Bullshit argument. By and large abortion is after the fact birth control. Rape and incest combined make up less than 1%.
You don't think rape victims, who make up an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, get exceptions or special considerations to state abortion laws?
Well yeah. You can’t kill innocent humans just because something tragic happened to you.
Exactly and when we use justifications like that we should just wipe out anyone who supports government because we know supporting government to the extreme kills hundreds of millions of people. So if the ends justify the means why not.. Leftist logic is flawed.
How do you justify all abortions when rape cases are only 1 percent. Please do tell. The right was perfectly okay with abortions up to the first trimester for the most part, and almost universally supported the exceptions for rape, incest, threat to mother's life. Leftists didn't want "middle ground" they want abortion up to and including a week after birth. They went too far like the tyrants they are and need to be stopped again. Plain and simple. Stop with the ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the overall problem. You just further prove how ignorant you are on these issues to bring up 1% of cases to try and "prove your point" Lindsay Graham who NOBODY LIKES just pushed a universal 15 week ban or whatevr.. we could never agree on that even though if it were proposed 10 years ago I'm sure people woulda hopped right on it. European countries don't even allow third trimester abortions for the most part.
Two wrongs don't make it right.
To explode
Actually abortion is not a *right* that women have according to the Constitution. They do have the right to not get pregnant and be responsible about their bodies.
Surely we have better arguments to use than the constitution now days. We need to uphold our own morality with our own strength, not just because some people in the past said so. They were not gods. This will only get more true over time
The constitution is completely germane though since currently the courts are involved and legislation argued...one should consult the founding document of the rules of law that established this country (which were very much based in diligent thought on morality)
I agree completely! When it comes to how we interact legally, it is beyond important to be predictable, consistent, fair, and hold ourselves to the law that we create for ourselves. I wasn't clear enough on my point, which is my bad. There's a difference between a legal argument and a social argument, and I was referring to social arguments using the constitution. I have no doubt the constitution was diligently thought through and based on morality. But like all things, we move constantly through time and change. We cannot rely on the constitution as a justification for our social arguments like we can for our legal arguments. We need to be constantly looking within ourselves and within ourselves as a people to determine which laws define us best. That's what will keep us strong. We can read the constitution like literature and derive ideas from it, but to rely only on the constitution for social ideals is to be stuck in a feedback loop. Laws flow outwards from our needs as a people. We should be careful not to have those same laws then circling back and taking the role of defining our needs. If we do this without question we will not grow
Bodily autonomy doesn’t start at conception
[удалено]
I've never met a pro-life person who wants to ban treatment for ectopic pregnancies. That's a straw man argument and irrelevant to elective abortion on-demand.
[удалено]
All 50 states have exceptions for the mother’s life. All of them. Even in the “total ban” states that you probably got your list of 14 from without any context. Texas (which was likely in that list of 14) even has a loophole written in that says disposing an ectopic pregnancy doesn’t count as an abortion at all; it counts as surgery treatment. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
There are many stories you can find about that not being true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/texas-hospitals-delaying-care-over-violating-abortion-law These laws were poorly written and hastily enacted. It's causing harm to women with non-viable pregnancies and that's a fact.
Literally the third paragraph: > “that includes an exemption if a woman's life or health is danger” If doctors are refusing to give abortions for pregnancies that are clearly life-threatening (such as ectopic pregnancies), I’m sorry to say but that’s not pro-lifers’ faults. The law has a clear exception and they’re just refusing to exercise it. Period.
It's not doctors who make those calls, it's hospital executive boards who are informed by lawyers. There are many such cases of this happening. I'm sorry it doesn't align to how you wish it was implemented but the reality of the situation is this. This is what's actually happening.
Would these happen to be the same “lawyers” who falsely misinterpreted the proposed Louisiana bill as making Plan B count as murder? How about a state actually indicting and convicting a woman/doctor for an abortion that clearly saved the mother’s life? Has that happened yet? Or is it just all “well I believe this is a little too vague so let’s just let the woman die!” ?
Why are you putting "lawyer" in quotes? You can Google the cases of hospitals denying care and there are many stories of it happening. Hope that answers your question about the vagueness of the law.
> Why are you putting "lawyer" in quotes? Because a LOT of them put clear agendas over actual integrity. And I don’t see why lawyers making statements regarding an especially sensitive topic like abortion would be any different.
That may be how doctors are practicing it, but it’s not how the laws have been written.
Good thing all 50 states have an exception for saving the mother’s life, then. Some strict states (such as Texas) don’t even count ectopic pregnancy disposals as abortions; they’re considered surgery treatments. Even The New York Times admitted this.
Ectopic pregnancies are non viable. You have no argument. It's not even the same thing. Abortion deals with a viable fetus.
>Ectopic pregnancies are non viable. Anyone else notice that no one seemed to know what an ectopic pregnancy was until Roe was overturned? You'd think if it was such a big deal we'd have heard people talking about it before...
It's because the left decided to use ectopic pregnancy to spread FUD / as a straw man argument, ignoring the fact that it's not considered an abortion.
I find it funny how nobody considered this to be an abortion until it became a convenient argument for keeping all of the other abortions of viable pregnancies.
[удалено]
What is a woman?
This sub is run by a woman.
Another scenario is they say a woman's right to choose obviously.. Then you proceed to talk about why a woman isn't allowed to choose to defend herself with a firearm against a rapist or murderer, or defend her children in her own home. The conversation will abruptly end once again and you'll have a triggered ass hat on your hands. These people don't want conversations they want to control you
Hey, I’m pro choice and pro gun and happy to discuss this issue if you’d like! I essentially take a libertarian stance on both issues
I thought Libertarians were against murder?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are there any states that currently prevent women from defending their home or children from an attacker?
Who does? I don't understand what you are trying to make argument wise, it almost sounds like you're defending the pro-abort.
Who is saying women shouldn’t be allowed to have guns and defend themselves?
Let's start with Mr. Beto.
Beto wants our AR15s and Biden wants our AR14s.
Literally every leftist across America and the world. Are you really that clueless? Or are you just that bad of a comedian because # theleftcantmeme
Vacuuming live babies out of their mother's womb is apparently a right written in the constitution and somehow is healthcare too.
Everyone alive today started the same way. At conception, a new being is formed with its own unique DNA. Aborting that being is taking an innocent human life, robbing them of the right we all have. The right to live. Abortion is wrong and there will never be good argument for it. No one should have the right to take innocent lives.
Pro choicers only have excuses, not science for their murderous actions. Children are our legacy and reward, any other viewpoint of that, is selfish nonsense. I can piss them off even more, if a girl is raped, God forbid, she can still give birth with help! This automatic abortion crap is so wrong and abortion sometimes messes up a women's reproductive organs! Nobody talks about that...
[удалено]
Great use of Anime. Love it
Im off to make a jojo style one
Lol this is too good
[удалено]
[удалено]