Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

You could give up everything you got but you still aren't going to get any intelligent discussion with a grown up who professes to believe penguins walked from the Antarctica to the Middle East just to get on an ark.

Just sayin'..... :coffeepap

Lursa said:

Both of the first are untrue, as oftentimes they are and the last one can indeed also be the result of choices.

Wow, batting a thousand there!

Click to expand...

Results of choices. Indirectly. Not the direct results of choices. You know what I'm talking about. Don't get cute.

Court Jester said:

...Everything has some degree of risk, but childbirth is a natural process which occurs thousands of times daily. I think you ought to be suggesting some of these women toughen up a bit and stop making excuses for everything. At what point in our society was 'victim status' bestowed up pregnancy?

Click to expand...

It does not matter if pregnancy and childbirth are natural.


Any pregnancy can take a turn at a moments notice and put the woman’s health and even her life at risk, at a point where an abortion once the symptoms are there will be too late to prevent a death of the woman or lifelong major irreparable disability.

That’s why no woman should be forced to take the risk if she wants an early elective abortion it should be her choice not to risk the pregnancy. Some women can sence there is something wrong ahead of time.


Life threatening complications aren't rare up to 8 percent of all pregnancies affected by pre- eclampsia or one of it's variants including HELLP syndrome.

We never know when a pregnancy might take a turn and become life threatening to someone we love.

Another 1 to 2.5 percent of pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies which are also life threatening.

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.

My daughter had HELLP syndrome with her pregnancy and she was very close to death when they performed the emergency
C section.

She went to the ER a few weeks before her due date because she was getting a horrible pain in her back just below her ribs which was caused because her liver was being damaged from the HELLP syndrome.
Usually there is pain the upper right part of the abdomen but her pain was in the back because her liver was swelling and shutting down.
They were worried her liver might fail.


Her OB/GYN was shocked when her test results came back showing she had HELLP syndrome. She had just seen him a couple days before and everything with the pregnancy appeared fine then.

My daughter was one the up to 8 percent of women in the US who every year developes 'preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome." Thankfully she was not one of the roughly 300 US women who do die from the syndrome every year but she was one of the roughly 75,000 women every year who are counted as near misses.

From the following article:

Every year in the U.S., up to 8 percent, or 300,000, of pregnant or postpartum women develop preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome.

Roughly 300 women die, and another 75,000 women experience “near misses”—severe complications and injury such as organ failure, massive blood loss, permanent disability, and premature birth or death of their babies.

Usually, the disease resolves with the birth of the baby and placenta. [bB] But, it can occur postpartum—indeed, most maternal deaths occur after delivery.[/B]

Click to expand...

Beyond Downton Abbey: Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Today - The Daily Beast


A little more about HELLP Syndrome:

HELLP syndrome is a life-threatening pregnancy complication usually considered to be a variant of preeclampsia. Both conditions usually occur during the later stages of pregnancy, or sometimes after childbirth.

HELLP syndrome was named by Dr. Louis Weinstein in 1982 after its characteristics:

H (hemolysis, which is the breaking down of red blood cells)
EL (elevated liver enzymes)
LP (low platelet count)

HELLP syndrome can be difficult to diagnose, especially when high blood pressure and protein in the urine aren't present. Its symptoms are sometimes mistaken for gastritis, flu, acute hepatitis, gall bladder disease, or other conditions.

The global mortality rate of HELLP syndrome has been reported to be as high as 25%.

Click to expand...

HELLP Syndrome: Preeclampsia Foundation

Dayton3 said:

Normally, cancer, heart disease, and miscarriages are not the results of choices.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because war is the result of choice by the soldiers. Sorry, but that chart is just nonsense. The further problem is that the whole premise of the 60 million dead people/babies is also nonsense. It is just a personal view with no value whatsoever.

Court Jester said:

I've always wondered why people use the qualifier "civilized country" the way you just did? What exactly are the rules for "civilized"? Thou shalt not steal, lie, covet--- or kill? Does a country need to be an advanced economic and industrial culture to qualify as "civilized"? Were the Romans "civilized"? Was the Third Reich "civilized"? Was the antebellum south "civilized"?

Sorry, but I don't buy into some idea of an elitist standard for morality the way you do. Some of the most "civilized" people I have encountered are poor, disadvantaged, and uneducated. Yet they are capable of projecting more compassion and humanity than your average citizen of New York City who wouldn't even bend down to help an elderly person who tripped getting off the subway.

So please if you would, define what you mean by "civilized"?

Click to expand...

I meant to say civilized society.

( Discloser: Sorry , I have dyslexia, sometimes I leave a word out or double my words in sentence. Sometimes I post a word when I ment something else. It is really extra frustrating when I leave the not out because of course that completely changes the whole meaning of the sentence. )

Here are a few snips from the following article:

by Joyce Arthur

Copyright © October, 1999

Abstract: This paper outlines some of the harsh realities about the incidence and safety of legal versus illegal abortion in the modern world. Countries where abortion is legal are compared to countries where it is illegal to highlight the shocking injustice being done to women who do not have access to safe, legal abortion. That, and the tragedy of unwanted children, highlights the far-reaching health and social benefits of legalized abortion.
<SNIP>

Some Basic Information about Abortion Around the World

Abortion is probably the world's most common surgical procedure.
About 46 million abortions are performed every year, 20 million of them illegal.
Abortion is practiced widely by women all over the world, across all social classes, and regardless of laws against abortion.
Since the beginning of recorded history, abortion has been commonly practiced by almost all societies, including ancient China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and countless others. In fact, abortion could be called a fundamental aspect of human behaviour.

But because abortion is still illegal or restricted in many countries today, two out of every five abortions in the world are performed unsafely --
by an untrained provider or in an unclean setting.
Every year, about 78,000 women die from unsafe and illegal abortions. For every death caused by unsafe abortion, several women are injured or left infertile.

One-third of the world's women do not have access to legal or safe abortion, and these women die at the rate of 330 deaths per 100,000 abortion procedures.

In contrast, the death rate from legal abortion averages 0.7 deaths per 100,000 procedures.

Over 30% of women who have an unsafe abortion suffer serious complications, such as hemorrhaging, sepsis, or infertility.
In contrast, in countries where abortion is legal and safe, the complication rate is about 1-3%, and most of the complications are of a minor nature and do not require hospitalization.

<snip>

Many women who suffer complications from unsafe, illegal abortion are afraid to come in for medical treatment, so they suffer or die without ever being counted as an abortion statistic.
When they do make it to hospital, they take up to two-thirds of the maternity beds, and up to 50% of the hospital's maternity budget.
Obviously, this seriously compromises other maternity and emergency services.

<snip>
How did the world manage to arrive at this troubling state of affairs? After all, abortion has been generally legal throughout history. By 1986, 36 countries had liberal abortion laws, and as of 1997, an additional 10 developed and 9 developing countries had also eased their laws.

The driving forces behind liberalization, then and now, were the threat to public health of illegal abortion, increasing social support for women's rights, availability of modern contraceptives, concern for the equal treatment of both poor women and rich women, decreasing influence of organized religion, and in some countries, thalidomide babies and epidemics of rubella, which created an awareness of the need for legal abortion.

<SNIP>

Click to expand...

read more:

Legal Abortion: the Sign of a Civilized Society

Legal Abortion: the Sign of a Civilized Society

Dayton3 said:

Results of choices. Indirectly. Not the direct results of choices. You know what I'm talking about. Don't get cute.

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. Because getting accidentally pregnant when using bc and it fails is not a direct choice either.

Captain America said:

You could give up everything you got but you still aren't going to get any intelligent discussion with a grown up who professes to believe penguins walked from the Antarctica to the Middle East just to get on an ark.

Just sayin'..... :coffeepap

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo

Court Jester said:

I avoid using the ampersand key on my laptop because there is a risk that terrorists have rigged it to explode.

Click to expand...

What the ... ?

Everything has some degree of risk, but childbirth is a natural process which occurs thousands of times daily. I think you ought to be suggesting some of these women toughen up a bit and stop making excuses for everything. At what point in our society was 'victim status' bestowed up pregnancy?

Click to expand...

Spoken truly like someone who will never, ever have to go through it.

Here's the result of some men having a labour simulator put on them - if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner:

YouTube

Court Jester said:

...


I avoid using the ampersand key on my laptop because there is a risk that terrorists have rigged it to explode.

Click to expand...

& how many terrorists have acess to your keyboard?

I am going to post a video of something that happened yesterday that tells a story.

Below is a video of a person that the Virginia House of Delegates which the Democratic majority rules was invited to give the opening prayer. His name is Dr. Robert Grant Jr. He is black and his prayer reflected his personal beliefs about abortion and same sex marriage. It was reported that Democrats walked out during the prayer. This is a state that has ushered in abortion laws many across this country call infanticide.

VA House Democrats Storm Out As Black Pastor Prays Against Abortion and Gay Marriage | MRCTV





In watching the video it is obvious those in charge were not happy with his prayer. They cut his mic and the speaker used her gavel to end it and proceed immediately to the Pledge of Allegiance.

So to the OP, no there will not be middle ground on this issue. The reason is because the left has gone so far extreme on this issue that a baby that survives a botched abortion they are to leave the baby to die. Dr. Robert Grant Jr. said a prayer that triggered the Virginia House of Delegates so they cut him off. Not even the House in VA show any tolerance of the pastor's beliefs.

Scrabaholic said:

Spoken truly like someone who will never, ever have to go through it.

Click to expand...

Right or wrong are not limited to gender. My mother never had to experience being drafted into the military and serving in a combat zone like my father did. But that did not mean she was not entitled to have an opinion or comment on the draft.

Scrabaholic said:

Here's the result of some men having a labour simulator put on them - if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner:

Click to expand...

Pain is also not limited to gender. Child birth may or not be more painful than other physiological pain events. When I was a younger man I fractured my tibia while on a week long backpacking trip in the Rockies after a fall. This was long before cell phones or satellite phones. And since we were in a remote wilderness area far from any normal traveled route late in the fall--- I had to hike out... there was no other reasonable options, and each day threatened the coming of snow.

Trip took 3 days walking on a makeshift crutch while my buddy carried all the supplies we couldn't do without. I don't know what a birth a pang feels like, but I still remember each throbbing step I took over many miles and for several days. The pain was like someone taking a sledge hammer to my leg. If I could have traded that for giving birth in a hospital bed-- I would have taken that deal in a second.

Lursa said:

Every single pregnancy is a risk and deaths are not predictable nor all preventable.

So then who has the right to impose that risk on "people?" And I write people because people are protected by the Const.

Click to expand...

I don't know, how was it that the government was able to draft men to serve in the military and then send them off to war? Wasn't that a risk imposed on people?

Lursa said:

In following the Const, the govt recognizes that it may not do so. Esp. when considering that abortion is the much safer option, 14 times safer:

Click to expand...

Actually Roe provides that the state can in fact act to protect the life of the fetus during the 3rd trimester by preventing an abortion... other than in cases where the mother's life is at risk. So in essence this so called "right" is not absolute according the current law.

Lursa said:

In recognizing this, how can you explain how the govt could legally justify forcing women to remain pregnant?

Click to expand...

Again, I refer you to Roe V Wade. As already stated, the right to an abortion is not unlimited.

Lursa said:

Your opinion is exceedingly disrespectful of women, you just take it for granted the risks every woman CHOOSES to take when she decides to have a child. It's significant, every single time and horrifically painful every single time...you treat it like ripping off a bandaid.

Click to expand...

Actually I never said "ripping off a bandaid". What I said was reproduction and pregnancy was natural and NECESSARY---- obviously necessary to nature and the continuation of life. You act as if it is some unnatural and/or heroic occurrence for a woman to bear children. And speaking of "disrespectful"--- your opinions on the ease in which a human being can just suddenly be obliterated are in my view disrespectful to all people or both genders. Killing innocents is the most horrific disrespect I can think of.

Court Jester said:

I don't know, how was it that the government was able to draft men to serve in the military and then send them off to war? Wasn't that a risk imposed on people?

Click to expand...

Yes and I believe that's wrong too. But I believe that was done for public safety reasons, to protect the country.

It has been examined by the courts, I dont know the justifications but I do know that there are no similar reasons to end abortion that would justify violating women's rights that way. There are no negative effects of abortion on society at all...if there are, please list some?

Actually Roe provides that the state can in fact act to protect the life of the fetus during the 3rd trimester by preventing an abortion... other than in cases where the mother's life is at risk. So in essence this so called "right" is not absolute according the current law.

Click to expand...

No rights are absolute. No elective abortions take place of healthy, viable fetuses, so it's not an issue anyway.

And not all states do so.

Again, I refer you to Roe V Wade. As already stated, the right to an abortion is not unlimited.

Click to expand...

That's not an answer...no right is unlimited...now can you please tell me how the govt would justify it? It requires some legal foundation. Any other right that's violated requires due process first.

Actually I never said "ripping off a bandaid". What I said was reproduction and pregnancy was natural and NECESSARY---- obviously necessary to nature and the continuation of life. You act as if it is some unnatural and/or heroic occurrence for a woman to bear children. And speaking of "disrespectful"--- your opinions on the ease in which a human being can just suddenly be obliterated are in my view disrespectful to all people or both genders. Killing innocents is the most horrific disrespect I can think of.

Click to expand...

No, I dont act as if it's unnatural, you are making stuff up. I just said you 'treated it like ripping off a bandaid.' Why are you making stuff up?

It is always horrifically painful and does damage to a woman. You again just take it for granted. Every single woman who chooses to get pregnant is very brave. It is indeed a significant risk tho, and one that I have not seen you justify forcing on women. It's not predictable...so how do you justify placing the life of the unborn over hers without her consent? The govt is tasked with protecting her life by the Const...not the unborn's. When abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth...how do you justify forcing her to take the higher risk to her life? (Still waiting for that answer) A life for a life? Why do you pick the unborn over women?

IMO much more immoral to disrespect someone who actually suffers from that disrespect...the unborn suffer nothing from my opinion that they are less valuable than born people. And even that isnt disrespect...just a lower priority than all born people.

To be honest, being concerned about 'respecting' the life of something that cant recognize it OVER women that would suffer the social and physical repercussions of the disrespect of being forced to remain pregnant against our will like slaves is a joke.

Lursa said:

Yes and I believe that's wrong too. But I believe that was done for public safety reasons, to protect the country.

Click to expand...

The government routinely requires people to do what they may not wish to do. NOBODY who lives under any social contract has 100% autonomy or liberty. Bottom line is the state CAN and may prohibit a late term abortion just as Roe V Wade indicates in order... TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE FETUS.

Lursa said:

It has been examined by the courts, I dont know the justifications but I do know that there are no similar reasons to end abortion that would justify violating women's rights that way. There are no negative effects of abortion on society at all...if there are, please list some?

Click to expand...

You mean other than the negative effect of killing an innocent viable human fetus?????

Lursa said:

No rights are absolute. No elective abortions take place of healthy, viable fetuses, so it's not an issue anyway.

Click to expand...

What do you mean none take place? But it doesn't matter, your position is that if a woman should want to abort a viable healthy fetus you would demand she should have the right to make that choice.

Lursa said:

That's not an answer...no right is unlimited...now can you please tell me how the govt would justify it? It requires some legal foundation. Any other right that's violated requires due process first.

Click to expand...

The reason there are few abortions on demand in some states is because some states do enforce laws to protect a viable fetus.

Lursa said:

No, I dont act as if it's unnatural, you are making stuff up. I just said you 'treated it like ripping off a bandaid.' Why are you making stuff up?

Click to expand...

I said child birth/reproduction is natural--- and necessary. Bearing a child is not something that needs to be looked at as a tragedy. Even accidental pregnancies between consenting adults is not the end of the world. It is actually the beginning of the world for another.

Lursa said:

Every single woman who chooses to get pregnant is very brave.

Click to expand...

You have an odd perspective on one of the most common and natural biologic processes in nature. It is part of what humans do, and it is what the female of the species is naturally designed to do.

Lursa said:

It is indeed a significant risk tho, and one that I have not seen you justify forcing on women.

Click to expand...

There is always a risk. It is not a "significant" risk to a healthy woman.

Lursa said:

It's not predictable...so how do you justify placing the life of the unborn over hers without her consent?[

Click to expand...

How does society demand any adult parent provide for the health and safety of child under their care or control? How does 'the law' demand punishment for acts and/or omissions upon parents who fail to provide for the safety and care of their children---even over their "consent" to agree to that legal requirement?

Lursa said:

The govt is tasked with protecting her life by the Const...not the unborn's. When abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth...how do you justify forcing her to take the higher risk to her life? (Still waiting for that answer) A life for a life? Why do you pick the unborn over women?

Click to expand...

In our lifetime Roe V Wade WILL BE OVERTURNED by the Scotus. When Roe is overturned the law on this will then go back to the states for the people of each state to decide what works for their states. Ironic how the pro choice/democrat party abortion platform is as close to the antebellum plantation South in terms of crimes against humanity. Worse than anything we have seen since Germany in WW2. MILLIONS of slaughtered innocents. Millions!

Lursa said:

IMO much more immoral to disrespect someone who actually suffers from that disrespect...the unborn suffer nothing from my opinion that they are less valuable than born people. And even that isnt disrespect...just a lower priority than all born people.

Click to expand...

Yes, a "lower priority" based on people attaching a "lower humanity" to an unborn fetus. Doesn't any of that sound familiar to you? Does it not trigger any recollection of things we have heard before?

Lursa said:

To be honest, being concerned about 'respecting' the life of something that cant recognize it OVER women that would suffer the social and physical repercussions of the disrespect of being forced to remain pregnant against our will like slaves is a joke.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question: How much can a newborn infant "recognize" about it's own humanity, condition, surroundings, etc? Human development is a PROCESS. One that begins BEFORE birth, and continues after one is born. How you can pinpoint a spot on that scale of human progression and development-- and then apply more or less worth to that human over another-- is in my opinion quite frightening.

vesper said:

In watching the video it is obvious those in charge were not happy with his prayer. They cut his mic and the speaker used her gavel to end it and proceed immediately to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Click to expand...

In terms of moral questions, today's Democratic party acts like the witch in the Wizard of Oz when a "bucket of truth" is poured on them. They either melt or turn their backs and run away.

I predict a vast exodus of more Democrats from the party this year. Maybe not many on the issue of abortion, but many on the issue of "medicare for all" and other far left/progressive/socialist positions. There is only so far you can bend a branch before it either breaks or snaps back.

vesper said:

So to the OP, no there will not be middle ground on this issue. The reason is because the left has gone so far extreme on this issue that a baby that survives a botched abortion they are to leave the baby to die. Dr. Robert Grant Jr. said a prayer that triggered the Virginia House of Delegates so they cut him off. Not even the House in VA show any tolerance of the pastor's beliefs.

Click to expand...

I was particularly surprised during the 2012 election that democrat candidates (including Hillary) refused to admonish anyone on the subject of late term/partial birth abortions on viable healthy fetuses. A far departure from where the so called "moderate" democrats used to be. In their effort to chase after every single vote--- including those in the wacky Bernie and AOC/squad and Antifa factions--- they have left MANY Americans out of the so called "big tent" which the DNC created.

Court Jester said:

The government routinely requires people to do what they may not wish to do. NOBODY who lives under any social contract has 100% autonomy or liberty. Bottom line is the state CAN and may prohibit a late term abortion just as Roe V Wade indicates in order... TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE FETUS.

Click to expand...

Except for the draft, there is no other time the govt forces citizens to risk their lives.

And the state can but the feds cant. It states also cannot ban medical abortion that would risk the mother's life...her life is still protected by the Const. The unborn's never is. (We've discussed this...at the fed level it is not).

And women can always go to another state or elsewhere for an abortion...the govt cannot stop that.

You mean other than the negative effect of killing an innocent viable human fetus?????

Click to expand...

Please answer the question. There are no negative effects of abortion on society...you purposely ignored the blue and avoided the question. If there are negative effects on society, list some? There are none. And thus in context with that particular conversation, the govt has no justification to ban abortion.

What do you mean none take place? But it doesn't matter, your position is that if a woman should want to abort a viable healthy fetus you would demand she should have the right to make that choice.

Click to expand...

None occur, what was unclear about that? And I dont believe in useless, feelgood laws, they waste legislator time and taxpayer $. Do you support useless, feelgood laws?

The reason there are few abortions on demand in some states is because some states do enforce laws to protect a viable fetus.
Prove it... provide sources from states or Canada that have no limits on when abortions take place that show how many healthy viable fetuses are aborted.

It's none in *any* state but go ahead. Otherwise, that argument fails.

I said child birth/reproduction is natural--- and necessary. Bearing a child is not something that needs to be looked at as a tragedy. Even accidental pregnancies between consenting adults is not the end of the world. It is actually the beginning of the world for another.

Click to expand...

That's not remotely up to you or anyone else to decide for other women. Who cares how you feel about it? It doesnt matter how I feel about it either. I believe in 'choice'.

You have an odd perspective on one of the most common and natural biologic processes in nature. It is part of what humans do, and it is what the female of the species is naturally designed to do.

Click to expand...

So what? We are living under a Const. that protects personal liberty and prevents slavery. It protects women from being forced to remain pregnant against our will.

There is always a risk. It is not a "significant" risk to a healthy woman.

Click to expand...

Still wrong. I know 3 'healthy' women who died in childbirth...3 in this modern era...no predictions. Unpreventable.

It is always a significant risk and that's what the numbers show. 86,700 women in the US die or nearly die (stroke, aneurysm, kidney failure, pre-eclampsia, etc) every year.

Every single time a woman goes into labor, her husband, her family, her friends, are out in the waiting room praying or hoping that she and the baby survive...because we all know that it's not remotely guaranteed. It's reality.

How does society demand any adult parent provide for the health and safety of child under their care or control? How does 'the law' demand punishment for acts and/or omissions upon parents who fail to provide for the safety and care of their children---even over their "consent" to agree to that legal requirement?

Click to expand...

Nope, please answer my questions first. I've posted that answer in plenty of other threads...I"m happy to do so after you do.

In our lifetime Roe V Wade WILL BE OVERTURNED by the Scotus. When Roe is overturned the law on this will then go back to the states for the people of each state to decide what works for their states. Ironic how the pro choice/democrat party abortion platform is as close to the antebellum plantation South in terms of crimes against humanity. Worse than anything we have seen since Germany in WW2. MILLIONS of slaughtered innocents. Millions!

Click to expand...

It cannot be. It's not possible under the Const to criminalize abortion for women. No states will be able to criminalize abortion, Alabama and a couple of others tried last yr and they were blocked, determined unConstitutional, and overturned. Not one was enacted. The COnst. protects women's rights to due process, medical and reproductive privacy, bodily autonomy, liberty, and life. No state can make laws that over rule federal law. (We've covered this already).

Please explain why those laws were blocked and so far, all overturned (I dont think all have been examined in higher courts yet but all were blocked.)

Alabama abortion ban blocked in court, like other near-total bans - Vox

Near-total bans on abortion have swept the country this year, with state after state banning the procedure six weeks into pregnancy or even earlier. The laws inspired protests across the country and comparisons with Margaret Atwood’s dystopian The Handmaid’s Tale. But one by one, those laws have been blocked by courts.

Click to expand...

Yes, a "lower priority" based on people attaching a "lower humanity" to an unborn fetus. Doesn't any of that sound familiar to you? Does it not trigger any recollection of things we have heard before?

Click to expand...

Yup, lower in value, lower in priority. Their human DNA is the same...but again, science is objective, it applies no value. What 'recollections' of humans are you thinking of that were 'dehumanized' that were completely unable to exercise a single right independently? Please list some? The unborn cannot, they are wholly and completely physiologically intertwined with the systems of the woman...it clearly demonstrates that the unborn is not equal to born humans who breath (live) independently the moment they are born.

It's ridiculous to sacrifice the lives of women, already present, contributing to society, loved by family and friends, fulfilling obligations and responsibilities to dependents, church, employer, community, society, in order to protect only the potential for that in the unborn. It may not survive to birth, it may be born severely defective.

And of course, the govt and the majority of society recognize that.

Let me ask you a question: How much can a newborn infant "recognize" about it's own humanity, condition, surroundings, etc? Human development is a PROCESS. One that begins BEFORE birth, and continues after one is born. How you can pinpoint a spot on that scale of human progression and development-- and then apply more or less worth to that human over another-- is in my opinion quite frightening.

Click to expand...

Happy to answer when you answer all the questions you avoided in the post you responded to, like, how legally do you (would the courts) justify superseding and violating the rights of women to protect the (non-existent) right to life of the unborn? Come on, do you have any education on this issue at all?

Court Jester said:

The government routinely requires people to do what they may not wish to do. NOBODY who lives under any social contract has 100% autonomy or liberty. Bottom line is the state CAN and may prohibit a late term abortion just as Roe V Wade indicates in order... TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE FETUS.

.

Click to expand...

And the woman can also choose to have an abortion to protect her life or because of the condition of the fetus.

You mean other than the negative effect of killing an innocent viable human fetus?????

Click to expand...

What negative effect does this have on society?

here is always a risk. It is not a "significant" risk to a healthy woman.

Click to expand...

Actually that's not medically true. Particularly as the mother ages.

In our lifetime Roe V Wade WILL BE OVERTURNED by the Scotus

Click to expand...

Possible but it will be wrong and will bring about way more suffering. And so eventually it will get reinstated.
There is a saying that "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it". And if Roe V wade is overturned... then the situation will go back to what things were like before Roe V wade... and people will yet again realize how stupid anti abortion advocates are..

How you can pinpoint a spot on that scale of human progression and development-- and then apply more or less worth to that human over another-- is in my opinion quite frightening.

Click to expand...

As a medical professional.. the fact you see no difference between a fertilized egg and the life of my 14 year old patient is what's quite frightening.

Court Jester said:

I was particularly surprised during the 2012 election that democrat candidates (including Hillary) refused to admonish anyone on the subject of late term/partial birth abortions on viable healthy fetuses. A far departure from where the so called "moderate" democrats used to be. In their effort to chase after every single vote--- including those in the wacky Bernie and AOC/squad and Antifa factions--- they have left MANY Americans out of the so called "big tent" which the DNC created.

Click to expand...

Partial birth abortions are already illegal and no such late term abortions take place on healthy viable fetuses...so why would any candidate waste time on those? Obiviously they are better educated on the topic than you are.

If you disagree with the bold, prove it...find the data.

Lursa said:

Partial birth abortions are already illegal and no such late term abortions take place on healthy viable fetuses...so why would any candidate waste time on those? Obiviously they are better educated on the topic than you are.

If you disagree with the bold, prove it...find the data.

Click to expand...

My position is that all abortions are barbaric, from the first hours of conception to the ninth month. Killing innocent human beings is not exactly in my opinion is not anything anyone should be proud of.

Court Jester said:

My position is that all abortions are barbaric, from the first hours of conception to the ninth month. Killing innocent human beings is not exactly in my opinion is not anything anyone should be proud of.

Click to expand...

Opinion noted and dismissed

Court Jester said:

My position is that all abortions are barbaric, from the first hours of conception to the ninth month. Killing innocent human beings is not exactly in my opinion is not anything anyone should be proud of.

Click to expand...

You've brought it up twice now and now that you cant back up your 'fears and disgust,' you are backpeddling.

Sure.

And no one is proud of abortions. No one promotes them. THere are just some people that value women more than the unborn, and so we want to ensure that women always have choice.

Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will...which banning abortion would do...is the height of barbarism.

vegas giants said:

Opinion noted and dismissed

Click to expand...

Brilliant.

jaeger19 said:

As a medical professional.. the fact you see no difference between a fertilized egg and the life of my 14 year old patient is what's quite frightening.

Click to expand...

Since you are a "medical professional" I would assume you at some point had classes in basic biology and physiology so you should have some concept about when human life begins at conception (the combination of two stands of DNA which becomes the 'blueprint' for an individual developing human being)--- which at full gestation becomes the person it was imprinted to be from that individual and unique DNA programming.

YOU do not get to decide when and where to apply humanity to anyone. A 14 second human in development is no less human than your 14 year old patient--- it just doesn't have a voice, and in our culture today it has no value to those who would kill it. "Frightening" is the ease in which people like yourself can justify obliterating other human beings.

BTW, "medical professional" is a pretty vague term. What is your "professional medical" specialty--- I'm curious since you throw it out there as an "appeal to authority" claim?

Lursa said:

And no one is proud of abortions. No one promotes them. THere are just some people that value women more than the unborn, and so we want to ensure that women always have choice.

Click to expand...

That's fine, I understand your philosophy--- it isn't exactly a new concept.... the "valuing" of some over others; we have seen this many times:

'value Europeans more than Africans...'

'value Anglos more than Native Americans..'

'value Protestants more than Catholics (or visa versa)..'

'value Germans more than Jews...'

All that is required is the willingness to apply a lesser humanity to another human being and then the sky is the limit as to how far you will go after that to diminish some in favor of others. Whether one is proud to do it or not doesn't matter--- as long as they are willing to do it. Eventually you do it enough, allow it enough, turn your back to it enough--- and then you eventually don't even see it as barbaric any more.