Exactly. Who decides when the unborn becomes a person? If there isn't some objective standard, then it's up to each individual, and the law is going to come down to a popularity contest.
So you're saying you can't convince enough people that ripping a child out of their mom's womb is a humane practice. Got it.
Yea. That’s no longer the way things work. Our government no longer works for the people. The pendulum will only swing in the direction the oligarchy wants it to swing. They have fooled you. And everyone on the right. Until the people fight back, will the pendulum again swing left and right.
No, I believe she's saying that our system of government gives a disproportionate amount of power to a minority that happens to be made up largely of religious nutters.
Steve Shives goes off I won't lie, I thought he was more centralist leaning, but I'm glad he called out the Dem's five decades of complacency for what it is
Give me an objective, reliable, accurate, humane criterion for determining when a fetus becomes a human being, and I'll support abortion as a right up until that point. Failing that, democracy's all you got. The question remains even if you don't want to answer it.
LINK On whether Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, should be completely overturned, CNN’s most recent poll conducted by SSRS showed that 66% did not want it to be overturned. This closely matches a recent CBS News/YouGov poll, which indicated that 64% of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade as is. So by that standard shouldn't Roe v Wade stand?
Of course, then we go back to the "Republic" versus "Democracy" argument...which is really convenient when your busybody instinct (when it comes to abortion) is less popular than your Libertarian inclination to mind your own business.
there is and "objective standard", it's been explained 100 times before here it is again for perspective
Paladin is talking about an "objective" standard that matches his opinion. Any other conclusion, no matter how arrived at (in other words no matter how scientifically sound the reasoning) will be dismissed.
I jsut figured that he'd appreciate that they'd be useless as child labour at that lack of development.
More like I missed two words in that sentence - Most extremists I know do not believe it begins at birth. I don’t scour the internet trying to find opinions of people I don’t know so I can be assured my opinion is solid.
If a premature baby were not able to survive without medical intervention, would it be okay to kill it? It's not viable, after all. Viability is far too late a standard.
If you're unaware that a great many abortion advocates are supporting abortion up to birth, then you need to look beyond just people you know.
I like how you quoted a post that predicted exactly how you would respond to a well defined objective standard that's been in place for quite a while. No one wants to have an abortion on the "eve" of viability. Why the fuck would they knowingly carry the fetus around for so long and go through all the bad symptoms of pregnancy? They often have no choice medically at that point.
I appreciate the efforts you put into this, but it's the same information we've been explaining to the regressives at this board for 20 years. They're aware of this information, they just don't care because they refuse to incorporate new information because it would mean having to change their worldview. They stopped being capable of that type of learning as kids.
And the individuals who think there is another individual involved are free not to get an abortion. You already admitted there is no objective test, so all that is left is a subjective test (i.e., leaving it up to the individual to decide).
