Banning abortion after 20 weeks passed by the House

[Daisy]

no they are not.

Person and human have different meanings. One is biologically-based and the other has a legal definition.

They are not the same. All persons are human, but not all humans are persons (meaning the unborn).

lol...keep on deceiving yourself...

 

[Lursa]

lol...keep on deceiving yourself...

No, and what I wrote is clearly documented in every biology text and in the US Legal Code.

I'll dispense with the biological definitions which are ubiquitous and clear except to say that human is Homo sapiens, having human DNA.

For person, I can offer this:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

So clearly I am dealing in facts and reality.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

I dont really understand your response.

Parents make healthcare decisions for their kids all the time.

In the case of abortion, those decisions are completely up to the woman carrying.

But as a man or woman, unless you give consent to someone else legally (or it's decided by the courts), you have the complete wherewithal to make your own healthcare decisions.

I dont understand what this has to do with abortion, can you explain?

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, those decisions aren't whether or not you get to live.

The response was I don't want a woman making healthcare decisions for me since I could have been aborted and not existed if my mother decided it was too much of a drag to have me after she and my father were the sole reason I initially existed. The parents are at fault, no logical reason to punish the child and cease their life by ripping apart their body with either tongs or a vacuum.

 

[Lursa]

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, those decisions aren't whether or not you get to live.

The response was I don't want a woman making healthcare decisions for me since I could have been aborted and not existed if my mother decided it was too much of a drag to have me after she and my father were the sole reason I initially existed. The parents are at fault, no logical reason to punish the child and cease their life by ripping apart their body with either tongs or a vacuum.

Yes, parents actually can decide to terminate life support for their children. But the circumstances are limited.

As for a pregnancy 'being a drag,' what do you mean? Do you mean that her finishing high school, or going to college, or getting a good job instead of a minimum wage job are not important? I would say it's more than a drag if having another kid meant that I'd have to take taxpayer $$ and go on welfare, and could no longer afford a decent place to live in a good neighborhood for my other kids.

If so, it seems you are placing the potential future of the unborn ahead of the potential future of women. I'm not sure how you justify that?

I'll be honest, altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more and thus would see them enabled to fulfill their potentials.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, those decisions aren't whether or not you get to live.

The response was I don't want a woman making healthcare decisions for me since I could have been aborted and not existed if my mother decided it was too much of a drag to have me after she and my father were the sole reason I initially existed. The parents are at fault, no logical reason to punish the child and cease their life by ripping apart their body with either tongs or a vacuum.

Yes, parents actually can decide to terminate life support for their children. But the circumstances are limited.

As for a pregnancy 'being a drag,' what do you mean? Do you mean that her finishing high school, or going to college, or getting a good job instead of a minimum wage job are not important? I would say it's more than a drag if having another kid meant that I'd have to take taxpayer $$ and go on welfare, and could no longer afford a decent place to live in a good neighborhood for my other kids.

If so, it seems you are placing the potential future of the unborn ahead of the potential future of women. I'm not sure how you justify that?

I'll be honest, altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more and thus would see them enabled to fulfill their potentials.

Ugh, this stuff is really complicated. My initial view is to insure the baby doesn't get killed before it has been allowed to experience our world. The question then becomes, would the potential financial trouble of the parent's outweigh the death of a baby? My current position is no, but it is something that could definitely be argued. It would probably be best to set it up with a foster family as soon as possible.

 

[Lursa]

Ugh, this stuff is really complicated. My initial view is to insure the baby doesn't get killed before it has been allowed to experience our world. The question then becomes, would the potential financial trouble of the parent's outweigh the death of a baby? My current position is no, but it is something that could definitely be argued. It would probably be best to set it up with a foster family as soon as possible.

IMO, quality of life is more important than quantity.

Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous to women, in the US, 86,700 women die or suffer extreme health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every year. It's not predictable or preventable. And those women have families and friends that love them.

We dont need more kids in foster care. There are more than 100,000 available for adoption now, waiting for homes.

As I wrote, I value the potential future of a woman more than that of the unborn. It's not a pleasant choice, but one that I think is right.

The only other way would be to severely violate women's rights in order to force them to remain pregnant. What moral High Ground is that?

 

[Daisy]

IMO, quality of life is more important than quantity.

Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous to women, in the US, 86,700 women die or suffer extreme health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every year. It's not predictable or preventable. And those women have families and friends that love them.

We dont need more kids in foster care. There are more than 100,000 available for adoption now, waiting for homes.

As I wrote, I value the potential future of a woman more than that of the unborn. It's not a pleasant choice, but one that I think is right.

And who set you up as judge and jury?

 

[Cable_Extreme]

IMO, quality of life is more important than quantity.

Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous to women, in the US, 86,700 women die or suffer extreme health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every year. It's not predictable or preventable. And those women have families and friends that love them.

We dont need more kids in foster care. There are more than 100,000 available for adoption now, waiting for homes.

As I wrote, I value the potential future of a woman more than that of the unborn. It's not a pleasant choice, but one that I think is right.

The only other way would be to severely violate women's rights in order to force them to remain pregnant. What moral High Ground is that?

You know more than 4 million women give birth, there are always potential problems with childbirth. However this is a result of the parent's choice to have sex.

You act as if the mother is completely innocent and was forced to become pregnant...

 

[Lursa]

And who set you up as judge and jury?

No one. That's the point and thank you for making it.

That is why I am pro-choice. The individual woman is the only one that can make that choice. Only she knows what is in her best interests and the best interests of her family, current and future.

 

[Lursa]

You know more than 4 million women give birth, there are always potential problems with childbirth. However this is a result of the parent's choice to have sex.

You act as if the mother is completely innocent and was forced to become pregnant...

Yes, it is a risk of pregnancy. And women know that. Women also know that they have the choice of the safer option of abortion if they dont want to have a child.

Who are you to force those risks on her?

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...than-giving-birth-study-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

Women know the risks before having sex and they know their choices. The govt recognizes it doesnt have the right to force her to remain pregnant against her will.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

Yes, it is a risk of pregnancy. And women know that. Women also know that they have the choice of the safer option of abortion if they dont want to have a child.

Who are you to force those risks on her?

Women know the risks before having sex and they know their choices. The govt recognizes it doesnt have the right to force her to remain pregnant against her will.

The women forced it upon themselves. People are held responsible for anything they do in society. Why stop here?

 

[Daisy]

The women forced it upon themselves. People are held responsible for anything they do in society. Why stop here?

Exactly...you spread your legs...you accept the consequences of your actions...

 

[Lursa]

The women forced it upon themselves. People are held responsible for anything they do in society. Why stop here?

Ok but she has a choice...she can have an abortion. That's a consequence. She can end up sterile, she can even die altho it's less likely than pregnancy and childbirth.

But why did you ignore the greater risk of pregnancy and childbirth that I posted? Does the woman not matter at all?

I admit that altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more.

Will you admit then, that you value the unborn more than women?

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

 

[Lursa]

Exactly...you spread your legs...you accept the consequences of your actions...

Same to you:

Ok but she has a choice...she can have an abortion. That's a consequence. She can end up sterile, she can even die altho it's less likely than pregnancy and childbirth.

But why did you ignore the greater risk of pregnancy and childbirth that I posted? Does the woman not matter at all?

I admit that altho I value the unborn, I value all born people more.

Will you admit then, that you value the unborn more than women?

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

 

[year2late]

Do I want a woman to make healthcare decisions for me? No hence why I support Pro-life.

So you only want men to have a say in a woman's personal health care decisions?

Please clarify.

 

[year2late]

You know more than 4 million women give birth, there are always potential problems with childbirth. However this is a result of the parent's choice to have sex.

You act as if the mother is completely innocent and was forced to become pregnant...

And yet another slut shamer has emerged from the ranks.

 

[year2late]

Exactly...you spread your legs...you accept the consequences of your actions...

And yet another slut shamer emerges.

 

[Lursa]

And yet another slut shamer has emerged from the ranks.

Keep reading

Edit: ah, you got there first!

 

[year2late]

You do realize those two statements are in complete contradiction of themselves? No surprise with the pro abortionists though...

A zygote is human. Period.

Is it a person? Nope.

What is contradictory?

 

[Cable_Extreme]

So you only want men to have a say in a woman's personal health care decisions?

Please clarify.

No, i don't want anyone to be able to kill babies. The reason why is that the process to justify abortion is not one that goes along with a biological basis, but an attempt at wordplay. It ignores facts like the baby having a heart, brain, metabolism etc...

I think the women's health should be monitored, but the health of the baby is just as important.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

And yet another slut shamer has emerged from the ranks.

Not a slut shamer, never said anything about multiple sex partners.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

A zygote is human. Period.

Is it a person? Nope.

What is contradictory?

Person is literally defined as a human being....

 

[year2late]

No, i don't want anyone to be able to kill babies. The reason why is that the process to justify abortion is not one that goes along with a biological basis, but an attempt at wordplay. It ignores facts like the baby having a heart, brain, metabolism etc...

I think the women's health should be monitored, but the health of the baby is just as important.

I was EXPECTED to have an "easy pregnancy". I ended up having several very serious complications. Because I had great access to healthcare, a top notch MD, and multiple major medical centers within my grasp, I felt comfortable continuing my pregnancy. I had a stable social situation and a financial buffer that could take me through hard times. My doctor reminded me I was not in immediate danger, but my condition could change overnight. He was letting me know that continuing the pregnancy was a risk and if I waited until things turned bad, it was a distinct possibility I would die.

In fact, we heard in another thread where abortion was not allowed (Ireland) because the woman essentially was not in the "throws of death"....and she died.

I am a critical care RN (35 years) and the one thing I can tell you is that if you wait until someone is near dead to treat a situation...you should not expect a positive outcome. The earlier the treatment the better. Yet most pro-lifers here seem to advocate the "throws of death" for the woman - putting the fetus over the mother.

Your opinion clearly puts the life of the fetus over the mother.

A legal person having less rights

 

[year2late]

Person is literally defined as a human being....

Human an adjective. Human being is a noun.

 

[Cable_Extreme]

I was EXPECTED to have an "easy pregnancy". I ended up having several very serious complications. Because I had great access to healthcare, a top notch MD, and multiple major medical centers within my grasp, I felt comfortable continuing my pregnancy. I had a stable social situation and a financial buffer that could take me through hard times. My doctor reminded me I was not in immediate danger, but my condition could change overnight. He was letting me know that continuing the pregnancy was a risk and if I waited until things turned bad, it was a distinct possibility I would die.

In fact, we heard in another thread where abortion was not allowed (Ireland) because the woman essentially was not in the "throws of death"....and she died.

I am a critical care RN (35 years) and the one thing I can tell you is that if you wait until someone is near dead to treat a situation...you should not expect a positive outcome. The earlier the treatment the better. Yet most pro-lifers here seem to advocate the "throws of death" for the woman - putting the fetus over the mother.

Your opinion clearly puts the life of the fetus over the mother.

A legal person having less rights

The life of a fetus is just as important as the life of a mother. The reason is the mother was not innocent in it's creation and it is in fact a human. Medical problems with pregnancy are better explained by doctors. A doctors opinion on the health of a woman and whether she can give birth without dying is important.