Can’t think of one.

Not a one comes to mind.

Subjugation of women.

Weakening the influence of non-white, non-Christian populations (i.e. minorities) that could at5 some point present a threat to the white majorty.

This is all about power and the preservation of white males.

If an unborn baby is killed in an accident or by malpractice, is the unborn baby treated as a person?

I don’t know but stacking the Supreme court in your favor seems to help.

I guess because it’s murder, and some people can’t wrap their heads around the idea that sometimes we as a society have to be ok with the fact that it’s often necessary.

It’s uncomfortable but I’m ok with recognizing it as that. I’m also ok with the idea that something terrible can be the best course of action to avoid other things that are more terrible.

Republican men are rubbing their hands together with glee over the Supreme Court’s decision.

@SquirrelEStuff: Yes.

Oh, yes, the heating up of this wedge issue to an all time high. The politicians love it.

@jca2 That’s where you are wrong. It’s the evangelical, religious and those who never really had to face the choice. It’s absurd to suggest it’s mostly men too. It’s really not.

@Blackwater_Park: You’re right – the Republican women love this, too.

I admit the mentality of that is fascinating. I never had to make that choice. I know a couple who did and how hard it was. Their story and decision process essentially pushed me off the undecided fence into the pro-choice camp. I don’t know why political/religious lines are so strong here. You would think it’s more mixed but it’s not.

There aren’t any.

It may not hold up well to rational scrutiny, but you can’t argue with it’s persuasive power:

“My religious leader told me so. You will never convince me he’s wrong about this.”

The basic argument is that upon conception a fetus is given a soul and is fully human, so an abortion is a form of murder. It is interesting that they label themselves as right to life rather than human right to life. There are all kinds of living things, including mosquitos and houseflies, not all of which have an equal right to life.

@LostInParadise We shed countless living human cells a day—any of which are potential human lives. The only way to treat fetuses as legal agents (i.e. grant them “personhood”) but exclude all of these other cells is to invoke souls—you know, the thing that you can’t see, measure or interact with in any way to prove the existence of.

Can I buy life insurance for an unborn fetus?

@LostInParadise I never understood why that soul couldn’t just go to another body. God (nature) destroys life in the womb all of the time, 20% of known pregnancies, if you put in unknown it’s much higher.

Please note that I approve of abortion. I just gave the basic argument against it. I do not believe in immaterial souls and I do not believe that upon conception a fetus is anything close to being fully human.

@LostInParadise I figured you were just answering the question—as asked and not necessarily offering a personal opinion.

@LostInParadise I know. :)

It’s @98% preventable (minus the 2% incest or rape cases.)

Is there any rational for banning manditory vasectomys for all 12 year old boys?

To keep White Christian Men in control.

@KNOWITALL What about the ones where the fetus has a severe deformity? Also, are you sure that it’s only 2% rape/incest (or is it possible that many women don’t want to report rapes/incest)?

@gorillapaws It’s difficult to say since genetic screening is identifying those earlier now than in previous generations.
Again, hard to guess a realistic percentage if not reported.

@elbanditoroso Not so. Abortion for white women is 38 percent and the rest are from minorities or other races. So in actuality, it will probably increase minorities. It will also increase poverty.

The best argument I can make is babies are great and defenseless. But babies don’t get aborted. Fetuses do.

The best argument I can make for the opposite. I’m not raising them and it’s none of my business
.
Men should automatically be tested for paternity and forced to supplement the cost of care of the child. And victims of rape should be able to give up the child and the rapist should be neutered and thrown in jail for the first 18 years of the child.

Making a Rape ,or Incest victim carry it against her wishes is more of a crime than an abortion.
If the victim wants it gone there should be no question at all, it’s gone,screw the poor little fetus or whatever ,the woman comes first in these cases,anyone who dis agrees can suck it big time.

@Pandora I have no quarrel with anything you wrote.,

A reason for banning abortion? It shows how far down the moral ladder we have slid…how cheap we view life.

With the great amount of people now populating the planet, it’s high time we began to see human life as “cheap.” Continuing to see masses of humanity as extra special in some way is bringing us down.

Human life is not cheap, humans really are special and that realization is not bringing us down. As far as we can tell we are the only species to use technology like we do. Billions of different lifeforms on this planet have not done these things in millions of years. We are likely going to be the progenitors of new inorganic life that does not have the planetary confines that organic life does.

The problem with declaring some ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ is that morality comes from one’s religious upbringing.

Thankfully, not everyone is christian and not everyone share’s the same morality and values. If that were so, we would be walking zombies all thinking alike.

My thinking is that liberty / freedom is more important than life. Didn’t Patrick Henry, in 1775, say “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death?”.

The Supreme Court has yanked away the liberty and freedom of women across America. That is the true immoral act here.

Morality – as used in most arguments – is code for “Imposing My Religion on You”

First off, I think the right to choice should be.
To answer the question asked, I will only offer that it should be up to the States. I don’t agree with that, but it’s the only defense I can think of.

When people refer to the aborted fetus as “life,” please realize that a six week old fetus is about the size of a pea, really like a little blob of jelly (as bones are not yet formed, features are not yet formed). I think people think that an aborted fetus is the size of a baby doll, but it’s not. Read more here:

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/255325-how-big-is-my-unborn-baby-at-6-weeks.html

This harkens back to the religious argument of “when does life begin?” Some say it begins at the moment of conception, but remember at the moment of conception if’s just a few cells, rapidly multiplying, yes, but really just a few cells. Six weeks, the size of a pea. 8 weeks, 10 weeks, yes a little bigger, but looking more like a tadpole than a baby (if you’ve ever seen a sonogram picture, you know what I mean).

@jca2 keep in mind that in some religions, male masturbation (spill seed, wasting semen) is considered a sin, because each little spermatazoan is a potential life.

Never mind that 99.9999% of them die on their way up the woman.

@jca2 I know, I’ve heard all the arguments about how eggs are fertilized and zygotes form and grow and how unviable a fetus is. That’s not what I’m talking about. There is an act that humans perform to start new life. We have taken that and looked at it as the forming life as an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

Should people who perform abortions be tried for first degree murder? Should they be executed or be given a lifetime sentence? That is the logical conclusion of your way of thinking.

@kritiper population is large and continues to grow. How about this, instead of making abortion legal we make sex illegal. Make it so you have to get a permit each time you want to have sex? Failure to do so is a crime against humanity so is punishable by the death of both parties involved? Maybe just start a massive war? Nothing brings down excess population like a war! And if we are looking at humans as being the problem, then aren’t the mass shooters heroes of the species?

@LostInParadise It is not the logical conclusion though if you’d like to look at that we can discuss the inconsistency in the law. If a person attacks a pregnant woman, no matter how pregnant, and kills the unborn baby or fetus if it is still that young, in many places they can be tried for murder of that unborn child. Why? It isn’t viable, it isn’t born, it isn’t really a human life…right? Aren’t those all the reasons given by those in favor of abortion? Murder is the taking of a human life by another. If we say that a fetus is not a human and isn’t alive then how can it be murder? And if we are saying it IS a human and IS alive, then isn’t abortion just medical murder? And by that logic isn’t the consenting mother guilty as well?

So you are saying that it is the logical conclusion, that you would support lifetime imprisonment or execution of doctors and mothers for having abortions.

@LostInParadise I’m saying you can’t have it both ways. If one is murder, they both are. If one isn’t neither is.

Would you support having both cases treated as murder, with the mother equally as culpable as the doctor in the case of abortion?

The young embryo or fetus is dependent on the mother for life. We don’t have the government order people to maintain the life of other people, except for pregnant women now.

If I’m dying in a hospital let’s go round up people to give me blood or a kidney to sustain my life. Why is a fetus more important than any other human being?

I find it interesting that some refer to it as a “moral” issue because they regard a non-viable-extrautero embryo or fetus as a human.
Curious. Who told you? You can’t really cite scripture, because no accepted scripture anywhere gives rights to a non-viable-extrautero embryo or fetus. And after all is said and done, a government that was founded on a separation of church and state should absolutely not be making decrees and decisions based on pseudo-religious precepts anyway.

From @Blackwater_Park _’s post:
”.. because it’s murder, ..” _“It’s uncomfortable……. “something terrible…“_

Best argument: punish women for having sex without intending to procreate. Whether it was consensual or not is not important.

And to piggyback on to what @RocketGuy said, when they even THINK about punishing women who travel to other states to receive an abortion, it’s totally with the sole intent of being punitive and making them learn a lesson. Keep your legs closed, you filthy whore. Totally Christian fundamentalist bullshit thoughts.

But Hey!! Isn’t that the pure Republican way?
They scream the left want to control you,really then what the fuck is this?

@RocketGuy “Whether it was consensual or not is not important.”

Of course it’s not important. What the hell is the woman doing out of the house, without a chaperone and her face exposed in the first place? It’s obvious she’s asking to be raped by enticing men with her existence!

It’s from a pro-abortionist : (@Blackwater_Park)
permalink
.. because it’s murder, ..” “It’s uncomfortable……. “something terrible…“
I was expecting that, (and just that), would have been addressed by the last four posters? (Edited)

@chefl, if you want someone to respond to you, tag them in your post, and express that you want a response, more than just quoting someone else.

So, re. that part of @Blackwater_Park‘s post, (I mentioned about the last four posts but actually anyone from this thread and/or passerby jellies who happen to be pro abortionists, (“pro-choice”, if it weren’t serious it would be funny, makes it sound like the anti-abortionists want to be forced, to have no choice) haven’t posted anything to counter it.

I’m pro-choice or, as I like to say, “in New York we love abortions. ”

@LostInParadise I don’t know. But are you willing to eliminate murder charges if someone attacks a pregnant woman and ends up killing her fetus?

Certainly a crime has been committed, but I would not elevate it to the level of murder.

And yet the woman views it as such. Isn’t it her choice?

If I throw a rock at a window in my house, there is no crime being committed. If someone else throws a rock through a window in my house then it is a crime. Similarly if a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy there is no crime, but if somebody else terminates terminates it then there is a crime.

@LostInParadise but if you decide to break your own window, the window is still broken whether you did it or someone else did it. Does it make the window less broken if you did it? Does it not have to be patched or repaired if you did it instead of someone else?

But unborn children are not windows. And the penalties for ending their life/growth are different. And your argument feeds right back into my statement of how cheaply we view life these days. You are equating an abortion with throwing a rock through a window.

If this question relates to the latest SCOTUS… The court did not ban abortion.

@seawulf575 , What do you mean by life? All life – including insects and amoebas? That gets to the heart of the matter. Not all life is the same. At the time of conception, a fetus much more closely resembles the lower levels of life than it resembles anything remotely human.

Okay, instead of breaking a window, consider chopping down a tree. I could chop a tree down on my property in order to grow a garden. There is no crime. If someone else chops the tree down then it is a crime.

@seawulf575: I would be in favor of it not being a murder charge if a crime is committed and a fetus is so young, so tiny. I’m curious now, if a crime is committed against a pregnant woman but she’s only a few weeks or months pregnant, is it still a murder charge? I know there have been notorious murders (for example Lacey Peterson or the one where the father stuffed the daughters in the oil tank), where the woman being pregnant and killed by the husband brings the husband an additional murder charge, but in those cases, the woman was quite pregnant (like 7 or 8 months pregnant). I wonder if it is still a murder charge if the woman is only a few months pregnant.

I am going to ask some people later who will know and report back.

@seawulf575: My friend asked an attorney she works with, and the attorney said it depends on the state, it doesn’t matter what month the pregnancy is in. She said it’s prohibited in NY state.

@LostInParadise Life in this thread involves human life. And abortion shows a distinct lack of empathy or respect for life. We’ve cheapened it, making it something we can just choose to end. So let’s take your tree analogy. Trees grow for a long time. By your analogy you would be willing to kill an elderly person because they are using resources you want to use for something else. Isn’t that the next obvious thing? After we figure out that we can kill babies before they are born (and continue to push for killing them after they are born by calling it abortion), we can start looking at culling the herd by killing the elderly. They’ve lived their life, right? If you are in a position of not wanting to be bothered by taking care of an elderly relation you should be able to choose their death, right? After all, you have to remove the tree to help your garden grow.

I wonder @seawulf575 would you be this dedicated if this ruling had been done by a left leaning SCOTUS instead of a right one?

@seawulf575 , This conversation is going off track. My final points.

1. You have a disconnect between saying that abortion is murder but are unwilling to have it treated as such and are willing not to have a woman punished in any way for having an abortion,

2. Your belief in the humanness of a newly conceived fetus is theological, not biological. Nothing wrong with that. In your personal life, you can choose not to permit abortions, but don’t impose your theology on others.

@SQUEEKY2 I am amused by the irony of it all. Those in favor of abortion are screaming that the SCOTUS shouldn’t get to decide for them. And that is exactly what their ruling was…that they shouldn’t get to decide for them.

As for the decisions by the SCOTUS, do you really believe there were not rulings they have made that I didn’t agree with? Here’s what bothers me most about the left leaning justice decisions: They are based on things that have nothing to do with rights or the legality they are looking at. Take a look at what Sotomayor had to say about the Coach Kennedy prayer decision. It wasn’t that the coach didn’t have the right to pray or not. It was that the prayer was disrupting school events. What?!?

I was offended by the Obergefell decision. Not because they ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, but because 2 of the liberal justices committed ethical issues by not recusing themselves. It offends me because they see themselves above the rules.

@seawulf575 Oh, man! I can’t stop laughing!

@seawulf575 To your point about elderly. Dr.Ezekiel Emanuel questions whether our consumption is worth our contribution in old age. He says life after 75 y.o. is just not worth
living, he is one of the authors of the Affordable Care Act.

In an ACA town hall with Obama, the discussion turned to treating the elderly past the age
of 75. A woman stands up and tells Obama her spry mother is past 75 but needs a
pacemaker. Obama tells the woman her mother should start making ‘end of life decisions.’
In the end a non committed Obama recommended the women’s mother take some kind of
pain reliever… instead of a pacemaker.

My grandmother was watching this and became livid! She immediately called me.
The point is you are not far off about geronticide.

@WhyNow – I am unable to find the quote where Obama tells a woman to start making ‘end of life decisions’. Are you sure he actually said that?

_“In an ACA town hall with Obama, the discussion turned to treating the elderly past the age of 75. A woman stands up and tells Obama her spry mother is past 75 but needs a
pacemaker. Obama tells the woman her mother should start making ‘end of life decisions.’
In the end a non committed Obama recommended the women’s mother take some kind of
pain reliever… instead of a pacemaker“_

SOURCE please

@WhyNow Source?

-WSJ June 29, 2009 12:01 am ET opinion
-Obama’s Health Care Solution for Elderly – Just take a Pill youtube
-President Obama Talks About Pacemakers Jane 24, 2009 Google

Google- President Obama Talks About End of Life Decisions regarding
rationing health care.

My grandmother, in her late 80s has received numerous awards for holding
elderly dance class, (Israeli line dance) and organizing food runs, house visits etc. etc.
In 2020, 2021

Of course you took the whole thing out of context. And you didn’t even get the story right. The woman needing the pacemaker was 99, which she did, indeed, get the pacemaker.
Pacemaker with Obama

@chyna You are so right! Can I just say oops?

@chyna according to the woman, they worked with their doctors and managed to get them to realize how much joie de vive there was in the elderly woman and they gave her a pacemaker. The question was pointed at Obama and Obamacare since all this was done before Obamacare went live. The question was would that be possible with Obamacare or was it just a blanket decision that at a certain age it no longer was practical.

Obama danced well but basically said that we, as a society, will have to start making the tough decisions and understand that we may not find that is the best solution but that taking pain killers would be the better option. In other words, the option the woman just went through would no longer be an option under Obamacare…that it would be an elective surgery and the family might have to pay for it.

OOPS

False statement – - – intentional

Why didn’t all the pro abortion posters refrain from posting in this thread? It is off topic isn’t it if in General?

_And re. ”“If an unborn baby is killed in an accident or by malpractice, is the unborn baby treated as a person?”_rhetorical Q by @SquirrelEStuff, it’s answered “Yes”, ( the whole answer) by a pro abortion poster. (Edited«0

The point of this question was to ask people who are pro-choice a devil’s advocate position.

I should’ve been more clear in my question.

@rockfan Why didn’t the pro abortion posters present what the reason would be from the anti abortion’s point of view, like @Blackwater_Park did “I guess because it is because it’s murder” Why didn’t you clarify it right after the first answer, or sometime throughout the thread, which lasted amany many (weeks?) Why didn’t one of the pro abortionists post what I posted above?

@chefl several pro choice people have answered, including myself
Noone is “pro abortion.”

I’m pro-abortion availability. I don’t care what they want to call it. The pro-lifers often aren’t pro-life in certain circumstances, it’s just marketing and politics what the groups are called. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion is the point. I’m pro-coloscopies at age 50. If you don’t want to get one, don’t.

How can someone be pro-life and be ok with letting a woman die from infection with a pregnancy going wrong? That’s what will happen. How can someone be pro-life and be ok with a ten year old carrying a fetus that has a high likelihood of harming her? I’m pro-abortion in those cases. Doctors recommending abortion are pro aborting in those cases. I’m fine with saying it. They choose the human being here already on the planet, who has demonstrated they have sustained their own life, while fetus is either likely to fail or failing already and causing harm.

I don’t know why any pro-abortion poster is still against the anti-abortion org. (Most?) of the pro abortionists are saying exactly the same thing the anti-abortionists are. Like @Blackwater_Park, has posted “I refuse to sugar coat it. Abortion is murder.” on one of the threads and on (another post?) “Abortion is murder, on another thread. The only thing is he/she says “but I’m ok with it.” ”*I can’t in good conscience….”, “I’m pro choice”* I can’t follow the thought there.
I tried people to address his/her post and no one is biting.

@rockfan Good for you for asking a devil’s advocate question in the first place. There was nothing for you to have to clarify. It is obvious. But it is against the pro abortion side that most of the posts weren’t removed.

@chefl What don’t you understand about pro-choice? I don’t understand your last post. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. Now, in some states, women will be forced to stay pregnant, go through labor and delivery, and be a mother. Those women have no choice.

Looking at the question, I’ve come up with a good reason for banning abortion. So let’s hear the good reasons for allowing it? Rape? Incest? That makes up an extremely small percentage of pregnancies that go for abortion. Health of the mother? That should be identifiable early on for the most part and if it comes late in the pregnancy the baby could be brought out early and likely would survive. So most of these are identified within 15 weeks. And they still account for a very small percentage of abortions. Most abortions are done for convenience.

So let me ask all the pro-choice folks in the crowd…if the rules were that you could get an abortion within the first 15 weeks in cases of rape or incest or where there was a significant birth defect with the child or where the mother’s life was legitimately at risk from carrying the child to term…would you be okay with it?

^Yes

Wulfie to answer your question, VERY MUCH SO!!
You wouldn’t be?

What? Life of the mother or birth defect should not be limited to the first 15 weeks. Even DeSantis didn’t do that.

@seawulf575 I don’t want the government telling my wife, my mother, my sister, my nieces and maybe daughters one day what they can do with their uteri. You shouldn’t have a say, your minister shouldn’t have a say, the local imam and rabbi shouldn’t have a say, Pelosi shouldn’t have a say nor should Ted Cruz, AOC, Kevin Ranaghan, Alyssa Milano or Clint Eastwood. It’s their bodies and therefore it’s their call.

There are two extreme sides to this question. One side says that a zygote is given a soul and is a full fledged person. The other side says that the fetus is just a part of a woman’s body until it is born.

I take a middle view. At some point, the child becomes a person. Before this point abortion should be permitted and afterwards it should be illegal unless the life of the fetus or mother is in danger. An illegal abortion should be treated as murder on the part of both the person performing it and the woman requesting it.

^^Even if it’s a person, do we require anyone to sustain the life of another by order of the government? Do I have to give you my kidney if you are dying? Do I have to risk my life running into a house on fire to save you? Do I get put in jail if I don’t do those things?

By not having an abortion earlier, the woman has through her own volition chosen to bring the fetus to personhood. Do you think she should also be allowed to hire someone to kill her two year old. What is the difference?

^^Some states are outlawing ALL abortions. Your statement was about life at conception vs other points-of-view. No one in America gets an abortion in the 8th month, that’s just propaganda. They might end the pregnancy and deliver the baby, but not one is killing a self reliant being.

Over 90% of abortion are done in the first 3 months even before this recent Supreme Court ruling. The stat in my state is over 94% in the first 12 weeks and we are an abortion state, people come here to get abortions from other states and countries.

Why does anyone think a woman would prefer to go through a bigger procedure? Women know as the baby grows the procedure is more of an ordeal physically.

Late term abortions by choice alone are propaganda shouted by the anti abortion people they only happen if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and now in states like Texas they won’t even do that if the fetus is alive, which I find horrifying.

Pick an age when a fetus becomes a person. 3 months, 5 months, 6 months? Before that time abortion should be legal; afterwards it is murder. The anti-abortionists say that abortions at any time are murder, but they don’t want to try doctors for murder and they don’t want to punish the mother at all. All I am saying is, determine at what point we apply a uniform standard and stick with it.

Personally I would go 16 weeks, after that only if the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy.

The most laugh out loud thing, _“Wulfie to answer your question, VERY MUCH SO!!
You wouldn’t be?“_ First of alllllll, has there been a pro abortion post that even suggested that limiting abortion to rape and incest and life of a mother would be ok with him/her? Second, asking @seawulf575, , “You wouldn’t be?”. Wew

@chefl would you have your wife or daughter carry a rape fetus to term?

If it were just the pro abortion posts articles etc. that everyone had access to, you would think all abortions are because of rape incest and mother`s life in danger. There is no mention of what percentage of abortion has to do with none of those things.

@SQUEEKY2 Show the posts that suggested that it would be ok with pro abortionists.
@JLeslie “Do you think she should also be allowed to hire someone to kill her two year old. What is the difference?” from @LostInParadise

I don’t care about posts ,I am asking you?^^

@JLeslie parents are obliged to care for their children, (shelter, food ,education and all the rest, or else CPS… ) They have no choice but to protect them from other people Now why would it be ok to not protect them, if they are located inside the mother?

@SQUEEKY2 What came first?

The Rooster!

@chefl Actually, a parent cannot be killed to save their child’s life. If a parent said to a doctor, “kill me and take my heart so my child can live,” the doctor can’t do it under the law, yet you seem to be ok with letting a pregnant woman die for a fetus.

You elevate the fetus above the woman.

If the woman became impure (pregnant), she would be less the fetus, I guess.

@SQUEEKY2 In answer to your question, would I be okay with things like that? Sure. I’m not a fanatic about it. But the point I was making and which was cemented with several of the answers after my posit is that many of the pro-choicers are NOT willing to compromise. They want abortion to be allowed whenever for whatever reason the woman chooses. I have a problem with that because of my initial answer…it shows how cheap life is to some. These same people support the VA proposal of post birth abortions. I cannot support any of that…can you?

What is post birth abortion? Do they birth the baby then choke it to death? Sounds like a fake talking point to me. Who carries for 9 months then suddenly decides NO? Even then, she could just leave it at the hospital and walk away. Who kills the (now) baby?!

From what I have gathered, there are late term abortions but they are a very small percentage of all abortions. They are usually called for when major problems develop in the mother’s and/or fetus’s health. If the mother is going to die, the doctor should save her. If the fetus is going to die, then what more can be done?

@RocketGuy The bill proposed in VA would allow “abortion” after the baby was born. Here is an article about it and the VA governor even explains exactly what it means. Please note that he says the baby would be delivered and kept comfortable until the mother decides what to do. Want another example? Ok, how about this from the British Medical Journal: Journal of Medical Ethics. Yes, they say that post birth abortions should be allowed for whatever reason the mother feels like, whether the baby is viable or not. This is how far abortion has taken us as a civilization…to present as medical professionals that infanticide should be embraced.

I see:
“The paediatric neurologist said the measure allowed termination “in cases where there may be severe deformities” or when there is a “foetus that’s not viable” outside the womb.

“So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he told WTOP’s Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

“The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

=> “severed deformaties or… not viable” ; “resuscitated if desired” = Not killed.

@RocketGuy So is it your belief that a baby can get to the point of delivery and the doctors had no clue it might be deformed until it was delivered? Have you ever have a child?

Additionally you completely ignored the article from the BMJ:JME. A publication for physicians. Want to try tearing that one apart?

It all comes down to when personhood is attained. You claim this occurs at the zygote stage, even though you refuse to try the perpetrators as murderers. If personhood is only attained after birth then that should be the standard, and killing the child before that point should be permitted and afterwards treated as murder.

I personally take a more cautious approach to when personhood is arrived at. I would set the boundary at some time around 15 weeks.

Just listened to a story on TV about a woman who had to decide between traveling 8 hours to terminate her pregnancy or carry until labor and birth a fetus that cannot survive outside of the womb. You could hear her crying as she talked about it. She sounded young. I wonder if she voted pro-life? Sounded Southern, I don’t know which state. I know there are pro-choice white Southerners, but statistically a lot of then vote Republican.

@JLeslie “Just listen to me and epathize with me, don’t give me advice , don’t try to slove the problem.” You kept debating on the side of women who say that. You kept talking about hurracaines in Florida when it wasn’t about hurracaines in Florida.

@LostInParadise Which pro abortion people’s idea of a cut off point is the right one? Is it the 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, .....9 months?
“I personally take a more cautious approach to when personhood is arrived at. I would set the boundary at some time around 15 weeks.” The ones who say it’s 6 weeks, would say the most cautious approach is 6 weeks. So, is it better to be most cautious or not?

Why not ” first breath” as mentioned in the Bible? That would cover Judeo-Christian religions.

@elbanditoroso “Can I buy life insurance for an unborn fetus?” (all the way above.)
Are you saying pro-abortion is the correct position to have because it is not possible to buy insurance for unborn fetus? If tomorrow it becomes possible then you’re switching positions?

I wish people would quit using the term “pro-abortion. No one is Gung ho for abortions.

Totally agree but these nuts have far over reached their goals now in states like Texas it’s illegal to abort a tubul
pregnancy ,the fetus has no chance but they still can not abort after the 6 weeks very much endangering the mother, great law.

And at 4 weeks, they wouldn’t even know it. That leaves 2 weeks to detect pregnancy and try to get an appointment for an abortion.

I knew it at 4 weeks. But the first test came back negative. The nurse was excited for me. I just said “The test is wrong.” And it was.

I knew I was pregnant when I was a few hours late (4 weeks) but plenty of people probably don’t know until 5 or 6 weeks. I was trying to get pregnant.

Rape victims certainly know they might get pregnant, unless they are ten years old. If they go to the hospital, a non-religious hospital gives them pills so they won’t get pregnant. Not all women go to the hospital when they are raped.

@JLeslie “Not all women go to the hospital when they are raped.”

Exactly! Not all rape victims want to report the rape either! They may not want the rapist to go to jail. They may be fearful of retaliation. They may not remember. They may not want to be faced with a society that’s going to question their account of the facts and try to drag them through the mud with victim blaming (“what were you wearing that night?”).

@gorillapaws Yes, exactly right. So many reasons it isn’t reported, and like you said they might not even remember, might not know they were raped. But, women who are aware know the possibility of pregnancy exists.

I saw a woman on a show who was upset to find out she wasn’t given the drugs so she wouldn’t get pregnant. She had gone to the hospital, but that hospital doesn’t give the drug to prevent pregnancy to victims. By the time she realized she was pregnant it was later than she was comfortable with aborting. I don’t remember if she aborted or not. She said she had wished the hospital had told her that there were morning after pills she could take, but she would have to get them elsewhere. I don’t know if she assumed she was given the pills, or if she just didn’t think of the possibility during the trauma of the rape and immediately afterwards. She shouldn’t have to think of it, the doctors should be caring for her. I don’t know if an advocate was sent to the hospital room to help her.