Looks like the U.S. Supreme Court (now with extra wackaloons!) will take up the Mississippi abortion ban case in its next term, which I believe is October 2021. Discuss.
It's a shame you guys are going to revert to the sexual slavery of women in the stupid states. I very much feel bad for the women who will lose their bodily autonomy and those who will needlessly die from back alley abortions. Of course, that's just going to change the political fortunes in the country, because you'll make millions of new democratic converts over the next decade or two.
Anyway, I'm off to walk the dogs, so if someone wants to post what's actually terrible about the MS ban (I'm sure there's something) I can point out I support the legality of abortion in certain circumstances, e.g. rape or actual threat to the mother's life. What's "What the Republicans say every time someone tries to restrain gun violence even a teensy bit?", Alex?
It took five posts on an abortion thread to trot out the phrase, "baby killer"? Wrodforge, you're slipping.
So is the term "baby-killer". A baby isn't a baby until AFTER it's born. Until then, it's a fetus. and a fetus between 9 and 12 weeks isn't even recognizable as a human; can't survive outside a human host; and is the time most abortions - voluntary or involuntary (miscarriage) happens. Prior to that, it's not even in the realm of "baby".
Oooh, a technical definition to exclude "people I want to kill". Just like the classic argument of defining "marriage" to exclude "relationships I want to kill". Boy that one held water didn't it? Obviously not to you. But it is human. It certainly isn't any other species. Also, 12 weeks is just 3 months. You okay with abortion after that? Because I'm not, once the brain starts to fire off messages. Suppose technology advances so that it can. Would you still be okay with unrestricted abortion in that case? Okay, didn't know that, thank you. But it's wholly within the realm of "human".
Uhm. No. But, if you can't stick to science and must resort to terms specifically designed to evoke and emotional response, then there's no room for discussion. Do you want to discuss? or not? Looks like it's your argument that isn't holding water. Only the genetic material. There's a shit load of that in dead skin cells in my 10 year old mattress that needs to be replaced. why? Penalty: Moving the goalposts. Start a new thread or different conversation in this thread. But, it's not part of this discussion. Well, the first step to enlightenment is acknowledging a previous lack of knowledge Sure. Why not. But, as any woman who has ever suffered a miscarriage or even stillbirth will tell you, it's not a baby until you can hold it in your arms. This is why the bible says the soul enters the body when it takes it's first breath of life - birth. Because prior to that, it's just genetic material. Yes, humans get attached and anticipate the birth and make all kinds of plans and hope for the future and all that, but in the end..., it's not a baby until it's born.
I guess I was gone long enough to not expect NAHTMMM to be on this particular side. Where do you stand on comprehensive sex education?
Congratulations! You've just admitted that you don't really believe abortion is murder. After all, we don't give rape victims a free pass to go out and shoot someone, particularly not a third party who didn't commit the rape. So what's your reason?
It’s worth noting with the Mississippi law the women it affects are barely considered. I found it interesting these women are referred to as “maternal patients.” SCOTUS deciding to take up the Mississippi case is a huge win for conservative men all over the country. This has become their cause.
An unborn baby is a thing. And there are moral complexities in this area, which reasonable people can disagree on. That's precisely why women should have a choice. You don't need to present it as being this clearcut for that to be the case.
No. "unborn baby" is not a thing. Moral complexity .... sure, I'll give you that. But, not unborn baby.
Yes, "unborn baby" is most definitely a Thing. A fetus doesn't magically become a person at the moment it pops out of the womb. I think someone already said, as soon as the brain begins organized and recognizable neurological activity, that fetus is a person. End of line.
End of line in your mind, perhaps. But, it definitely is not the end of the line scientifically. Show me the scientific definition for "unborn baby". Is it ... FETUS?!?!?
Pretty much. But scientific definitions are not particularly helpful when dealing with discontinuous phenomenon. They are somewhat arbitrary. There is no moment when personhood is magically obtained, in order that our consciences might be clear when dealing with issues like this.
The term "unborn baby" was coined specifically to elicit an emotional response. If you want to talk about abortion in scientific terms, use scientific terms. If you want to talk about abortion in emotional terms, then fuck off. Cuz as far as I'm concerned, if men were truly concerned about "unborn babies", there wouldn't be so goddam many single mothers. When you've resolved that issue with all the other men on the planet, then come to us women and THEN and only then do you get to talk about "unborn babies".
I'm sure you have evidence of anything else? If not, then deductive reasoning will tell you what you need to know.
Did you bother to click on any of the links in that search? The term goes back centuries. I'm on your side here, but this sloppy reasoning won't do.
I did. and, most are quick to state the term is "fetus". and a couple even say the term "unborn baby" is a misnomer as a baby is a fetus until it's born. Those are the definitions. The reasoning is a psychological attempt to separate the fetus from the mother pitting the two into adversarial corners. They are not. A fetus is still part of a woman's body. A baby is a separate individual.
I remember the first argument I ever had with Dayton back on TrekBBS. I pointed out, the only way you could ever 100% criminalize abortion is to strap the woman down, and force her to have the kid. He was fine with it. Because, y'know, Dayton. The one handy use his existence had, was he always said the quiet part out loud. So, y'know, try to sleep tonight knowing they didn't break the mold with Dayton, there's millions of him in this turd nugget of a country. Just some of them hold the quiet part in.
I would call it more like alimony than child support, but yes. The baby daddy should be contributing. Is that child automatically a US citizen? Isn't this a point of contention right now? Probably needs to be defined conclusively. If you want to insure your 6-week fetus and can find a carrier to write the policy (and I'm sure there'd be at least one) then knock yourself out.
Arguing over this definition is what pro-lifers want you to spend your time on. If we go back to the beginning: Q What is the problem? A Women are having abortions (whatever that means to you, whether it's a fetus or a baby) Q What solutions might we have to this? A1 Tell women they can't have abortions (including passing laws to prevent it) A2 Help women not have abortions (including education, birth control, financial support) Which of these answers (A1 or A2) is better for the woman? Which is better for the fetus? Which is better for society? Which answer doesn't involve moral judgement of the woman?
