Real simple:

Jerry said:

Free access to abortion through 12 weeks, then only allowed for medical reasons....I would be happy with that and would stop there.

PL activists wouldn’t stop there, but they would have no teeth, so no worries.

Click to expand...

Medical reasons include fetal deformities, woman being underage, MENTAL Health of woman.... Did you mean you would be happy with free access to FREE abortion? PL activists would have the same teeth they have now, many of them don't want to allow abortion even to save the life of the pregnant woman, many of them want to ban hormonal birth control; they aren't going to stop protesting because abortion is banned beyond 12 weeks. How many abortions are going to be prevented if the law changes to ban abortion past 12 weeks?

OKgrannie said:

Medical reasons include fetal deformities, woman being underage, MENTAL Health of woman....

Click to expand...

Those are each their own can of worms.

IMO, fetal deformities being a legal excuse would require clarity on which deformities were permissible and which were not.

Before anyone starts in with the word-war lets just make it clear that there is no such thing as an underage woman. I think it's clear that you meant girl or child so lets just not go there.

Anyway, to that point, IMO if the health risk of the pregnancy falls under the criteria in the abortion regulation, then that's it. If the child can bear the pregnancy to term with no outstanding health risk, then her age obviously manifested no health risk.

Mental health is an easy excuse, as PC seems to claim to be traumatized over anyone who says no to them. I would say that, in general, PC starts with a lower mental health to begin with, which is where their victim mentality comes from, but I'll have to leave the mental health excuse to others.

OKgrannie said:

Did you mean you would be happy with free access to FREE abortion?

Click to expand...

This is yet a 4th can -o- worms.

Abortion will never be free, all we can do is change who pays for it.

But no, I didn't mean to imply no-cost abortion, but access to it with minimal regulation. Certainly there is a discussion to be had on who pays for what, but I didn't mean to go there one way or the other.

OKgrannie said:

PL activists would have the same teeth they have now

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree because they would have to show a "compelling state interest" in the potential life of the pre-viable fetus, which I don't think is an attainable goal.

OKgrannie said:

, many of them don't want to allow abortion even to save the life of the pregnant woman,

Click to expand...

Absolutely there are, but they could never get their case to fly in court because what ever argument they make supporting the life of the fetus goes triple for the mother.

OKgrannie said:

many of them want to ban hormonal birth control;

Click to expand...

I've seen arguments against hormonal birth control which come from health risks, ineffectiveness, and of coarse pure religious conviction.

I don't go down that road, but I would be interested in reading a thread on it.

IMO opposing hormonal birth control is a separate issue because I have not seen h.b.c. regulation in any abortion ban I have read.

OKgrannie said:

they aren't going to stop protesting because abortion is banned beyond 12 weeks.

Click to expand...

So?
Let them protest, they have that right.

OKgrannie said:

How many abortions are going to be prevented if the law changes to ban abortion past 12 weeks?

Click to expand...

Enough to serve my purposes.

The smaller the number the less I understand your opposition to my position.

I know full well that abortion will never be totally banned. I've made my peace with it.

1069 said:

Duh... every country in Europe has free health care?
Women who are too poor to afford a child are often too poor to simply pull five hundred dollars cash out of their arses for an abortion within a month, either.
We won't even go into where I got my abortion money, but I will tell you I'd never held that much cash in my hand all at once in my life.
Also, there are entire states now without abortion providers; women without transportation have to arrange for time off work, arrange for a ride out of state, and arrange for care for their children while they travel to a state that does have a provider.
In Europe, you can't throw a rock without hitting an abortion provider; all women's health care providers perfom abortions there, and Europe is much smaller than America; I mean, the entire UK is small enough to fit inside the state of Texas. There would be far fewer logistical problems with locating a provider, arranging for transportation, etc. And payment would not be an issue.
Entirely different situation, over there.

Click to expand...

Got a source for this? 'Cause everything I've read states that abortion providers are more widely available in the United States than in any European country. We also have the highest number of abortions when compared to other developed countries. I can see how "health care" would be an issue as in much of Western Europe birth control is covered as part of a national health plan. So there are probably less unintended pregnancies due to easy access to free birth control. But the idea that there are tons more abortion providers I think is false.

americanwoman said:

I am pro-choice. The reason is why although I don't agree with abortion I think woman have a right to choose since it is their life. I don't know every simple circumstance and I have no right to judge anyone. I don't know for sure when a fetus becomes a baby but I don't think it happens at conception.

Click to expand...

You have judged the unborn as unfit to live when you choose an abortion.

You have judged someone.

C Foster said:

You have judged the unborn as unfit to live when you choose an abortion.

You have judged someone.

Click to expand...

Disallowing someone to inhabit my body and extract my bodily resources against my will is not the equivalent of "judging someone unfit to live".
I haven't judged you unfit to live, yet I would not allow you to inhabit my body and extract my bodily resources.
Would you allow me to inhabit your body and extract your bodily resources?
What if I told you that I would die otherwise?
Does that mean you don't think I'm fit to live?

Innocent children are languishing on dialysis right this minute, dying of kidney failure. Why aren't you in the hospital donating a kidney to them? Don't you think they're fit to live?
Child-murderer.

RightatNYU said:

Moderator's Warning:

Tone it down a little bit, there's no need to be so combative. Let's all keep this on topic.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify who, precisely, is "off-topic"? And with what?

1069 said:

Could you clarify who, precisely, is "off-topic"? And with what?

Click to expand...

Discussing whether or not someone is a child-murderer does not seem to be conducive to a good discussion.

RightatNYU said:

Discussing whether or not someone is a child-murderer does not seem to be conducive to a good discussion.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I agree.
It looks like you've arrived just in time.
Did you know that every single thread on this entire board is about precisely that?
About "whether or not someone is a child-murderer"?

Let's turn this b!tch around, NYU! :mrgreen:

1069 said:

Absolutely not. I agree.
It looks like you've arrived just in time.
Did you know that every single thread on this entire board is about precisely that?
About "whether or not someone is a child-murderer"?

Let's turn this b!tch around, NYU! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, but I have absolutely no interest in the abortion forum. I avoid this place like the plague.

Hopefully everyone on both sides of the issue refrains from personal attacks so I don't have to come down here ever again.:lol:

RightatNYU said:

Thanks for the offer, but I have absolutely no interest in the abortion forum. I avoid this place like the plague.

Hopefully everyone on both sides of the issue refrains from personal attacks so I don't have to come down here ever again.:lol:

Click to expand...

Nah, see: this is how we play.
They say we're evil, and then we say they're stupid.
They say we lack morals, we say they lack brains.
They say we're baby-murderers, we say they're misogynists.
They say we hate children, we say they hate women.
And so on.

If you go down below the basement, and then you go down below the sewer... then you get to the Abortion board.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

I still say Napalming the entire forum and making way for a nice stretch of cheap fast food joints would be the best way to go. :2wave:

talloulou said:

Unless a woman was raped the new human life she carries is a life she herself helped create.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

So? You can help create fly lives by putting your organic garbage outside in unsealed containers. That doesn't mean either the new human lives or the new fly lives deserve to stay alive. Go ahead! Explain to us why those new human lives deserve to stay alive --and especially explain to us why that argument doesn't apply to those exactly-equally-animal new fly lives.

Click to expand...

talloulou said:

The unborn are homosapiens. Humans. They are not bugs so there is no reason to treat them as such.

Click to expand...

That is not a valid response to the request. The request was "Explain to us why those new humans deserve to stay alive", and you have basically stated, "just because they are humans". This is like saying that "bugs deserve to stay alive just because they are bugs". You have not responded in a way that is valid in a Debate. Try again!

talloulou said:

The government isn't responsible for doing that to her and can't be blamed for taking her resources against her will when in fact her body is using it's resources to nourish the new human that her body helped created.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

Are you saying that "her body" deserves more control over her life than her mind? Shall we use that as an excuse to lobotomize all female pro-lifers, and use them as breeders? In spite of all the precedents that have been set to help grant minds power over Mindless Natural Biology? Don't be so utterly ridiculous, please!

Click to expand...

talloulou said:

Again this would be an example of the government stepping in and taking an action that physically altered a woman's body.

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable response to the second question, but you have entirely ignored the first question (bolded).

talloulou said:

Quite different from outlawing abortion where no one does anything. The woman remains untouched, unmolested, and unaltered.

Click to expand...

FALSE. A woman's physiology is distinctly touched and altered by pregnancy. And the word "molested" might apply too, especially the first definition here, depending on what the woman thinks about it.

talloulou said:

She is denied her requested treatment for her supposed condition which by the way happens all the time.

Click to expand...

And so we should equally deny treatment for other "supposed" conditions, which by the way happen all the time, such as malaria, ringworm, trichinosis, etc? Are you saying that Natural Mindless Biology deserves more control over her life than her mind?

Finally, why are you using a biased definition of "condition"? And how do you expect to get away with the bias not being exposed for the idiocy that it is?

============================
I have now finished responding to Msg #604. Part of this response was in Msg #605 and Msg #679 It appears that despite the many messages between those first two and this last one, you have responded to almost none of it. (I see some blather in #606 where you tout the Law over Science. Do remember that I have always asked that we consider a generic definition of "person", a Scientific way to identify one anywhere, of any type --and despite mere claims and Law, so far nobody, including Felicity, has presented a definition that succeeds at always separating mindless animals from mind-possessing persons, while simultaneously including mindless humans as persons, too. And that is the basis I use, when I say such things as "brain-dead humans on life-support cannot be persons".)

Felicity said:

There you have it. A zygote/totipotent cell is a very young individual human entity (based on your own admission). You discriminate based on his or her age (based on your own admission).

Hence, you are a bigot.

You are a bigot because you discriminate against a certain segment of individual human life based on your arbitrary valuation of their maturity, or rather, their lack of maturity.

Click to expand...

Last I checked, we don't measure age pre-birth. On your first birthday, you aren't a year and 9 months...just a year. Try again and this time, lets not be so weak in our assertions, hmm?

1069 said:

Disallowing someone to inhabit my body and extract my bodily resources against my will is not the equivalent of "judging someone unfit to live".

Click to expand...

Quite right.
The judgment comes before the act, the act itself is not the judgment.

1069 said:

I haven't judged you unfit to live, yet I would not allow you to inhabit my body and extract my bodily resources.

Click to expand...

You're not pregnant with C Foster.

1069 said:

Would you allow me to inhabit your body and extract your bodily resources?

Click to expand...

I would, if I were pregnant with you.

1069 said:

What if I told you that I would die otherwise?

Click to expand...

I would marvel at a fetus's ability to speak.

1069 said:

Does that mean you don't think I'm fit to live?

Click to expand...

Given my decision that I would let you live, no.

1069 said:

Innocent children are languishing on dialysis right this minute, dying of kidney failure.

Click to expand...

No one is pregnant with them, so your off topic.

1069 said:

Why aren't you in the hospital donating a kidney to them?

Click to expand...

Even pregnant mothers are not required to give a kidney to their unborn, so even if I were pregnant with all these children on dialysis all my body would be doing is the function of the dialysis machine which, as you said, the children already have.

1069 said:

Don't you think they're fit to live?

Click to expand...

Well of coarse they are, but your off topic.

1069 said:

Child-murderer.

Click to expand...

....and here you go with the name calling...

jallman said:

Last I checked, we don't measure age pre-birth. On your first birthday, you aren't a year and 9 months...just a year. Try again and this time, lets not be so weak in our assertions, hmm?

Click to expand...

That's just lame, jallman. Can't you do any better?

Felicity said:

That's just lame, jallman. Can't you do any better?

Click to expand...

Tut tut...seems to me that you are a bit frustrated already today.

jallman said:

Tut tut...seems to me that you are a bit frustrated already today.

Click to expand...

You're going in semantic circles to preserve the illusion that your position holds any logical water.:roll: Just fess up that either you're bigoted against human beings of a certain age group or that you are completely satisfied that your subjective criteria for personhood has no logical basis.

Felicity said:

You're going in semantic circles to preserve the illusion that your position holds any logical water.:roll: Just fess up that either you're bigoted against human beings of a certain age group or that you are completely satisfied that your subjective criteria for personhood has no logical basis.

Click to expand...

No I will not admit to a lie just to satisfy your frustrations. We do not determine age prior to birth and until we do, you have no grounds for calling me a bigot. Besides, the definition of bigot is

a person who is intolerant of opinions which differ from his own

Click to expand...

Being that a zygote can't have opinions and a zygote has yet to ever express an opinion, then I don't see where the lack of value I place on a zygote can even qualify me for bigotry. You are just being petty at this point.

jallman said:

Last I checked, we don't measure age pre-birth. On your first birthday, you aren't a year and 9 months...just a year. Try again and this time, lets not be so weak in our assertions, hmm?

Click to expand...

We certainly do measure gestational age. Your birthdate is the day you were born so it makes complete sense to count birthdays with day one starting the day you were born. However gestational age is charted and noted quite often during all prenatal care. Your point was just silly.

talloulou said:

We certainly do measure gestational age. Your birthdate is the day you were born so it makes complete sense to count birthdays with day one starting the day you were born. However gestational age is charted and noted quite often during all prenatal care. Your point was just silly.

Click to expand...

As is the "point", and I do use that descriptor loosely, that I am bigoted against zygotes. Prejudiced, yes, but bigoted...not even close.

So, you go ahead and you start telling everyone your age from your conception and see the looks and eye rolls you get. See, mine are already doing it...:roll:

We measure age by birth date. To assert anything else is being dishonest. But here again, I'm not surprised.

jallman said:

As is the "point", and I do use that descriptor loosely, that I am bigoted against zygotes. Prejudiced, yes, but bigoted...not even close.

So, you go ahead and you start telling everyone your age from your conception and see the looks and eye rolls you get. See, mine are already doing it...:roll:

We measure age by birth date. To assert anything else is being dishonest. But here again, I'm not surprised.

Click to expand...

You judge humans to be unworthy of a right to life based on the developmental stage they have reached.

talloulou said:

You judge humans to be unworthy of a right to life based on the developmental stage they have reached.

Click to expand...

I judge their right to life based on their capacity for certain traits. A zygote cannot exhibit the capacity to even be aware of itself, let alone exhibit cognition, thought, desire, or any other expression nor has it ever been capable of such.

jallman said:

I judge their right to life based on their capacity for certain traits. A zygote cannot exhibit the capacity to even be aware of itself, let alone exhibit cognition, thought, desire, or any other expression nor has it ever been capable of such.

Click to expand...

Yeah and a newborns $hit their pants and can't even hold their head up. Developmental stages are a biatch for sure. :rofl

talloulou said:

Yeah and a newborns $hit their pants and can't even hold their head up. Developmental stages are a biatch for sure. :rofl

Click to expand...

LOL. you are too funny to argue with sometimes. :2wave: