Abortion... yeah or nah?

[bbgun]

So the answer is to just kill them?

How... convenient.

Um, no. You just need to plan for a glut of kids you didn't have before, and the societal fallout of kids raised by dysfunctional families or mothers who didn't want them in the first place. It's not married women from stable homes who have abortions.

 

[Cotton]

It's not married women from stable homes who have abortions.

I don't believe this to be 100% true.

 

[Angrymesscan]

I don't believe this to be 100% true.

Would you agree that they're not the majority?

 

[Cotton]

Would you agree that they're not the majority?

Yep.

 

[bbgun]

 

[boozeman]

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cotton]

 

[bbgun]

She gave up sex years ago.

 

[shoop]

But that is what you're doing if you shoot them, you're being judge, jury and executioner.

If we are using that broad of a brush. In the same sentence, you are requesting that they use their judgment and telling them that they shouldn't use their judgment.
If someone were to break into my home I don't know why they are there. If they are there just to steal my tv, I'm not shooting them. I will beat the ever-loving snot out of them though. Without stated intent, if you break into my house I will assume the worst and respond with lethal intent. Which is my right under the law. This would happen regardless of my access to firearms. I have bladed weapons and other means of protecting myself.

I always found this argument disingenuous. There is always some choice involved with a pregnancy. If rape was involved some form of contraception is available. So, the old tired, abortion should be allowed for rape victims argument is silly. There are choices that prevent the unwanted pregnancy. There is and always has been options for orphaned children. I would rather fund those than abortion clinics.

 

[shoop]

Increased. the odds of Texas being high on the list if I ever leave Ohio.

 

[Smitty]

Really?

Yes, science can determine when a heartbeat begins in a fetus/embryo, it can also roughly nail down the timeline for viability. Of course that is a moving target as our healthcare improves - a baby born weeks early in 1950 had a way different chance of survival than a baby born weeks early in 2021.

Not trying to troll either, just have no idea what the age of viability is nor what Abe abortion laws allow. I must say that 6 Weeks seems a bit of a low number, I mean if a girl is one week late with her period she'd better get to the clinic asap, check she might be to late already. Also I just don't agree with treating rape victims the same as your basic unwanted pregnancy.

6 weeks does seem like a "bit of a low number," in terms of practicality, but if you are going to "follow the science," then by 6-8 weeks an embryo has many of the characteristics of a human baby. It certainly has a heartbeat by that time. By 10-12 weeks a fetus is almost entirely formed, it just has growing and maturation of organs to do.

 

[Smitty]

Doesn't mental health count? And you talk like pregnancy is easy, like just carrying a backpack for a couple of months. My wife and I wanted our children very much, and still you can't say the pregnancy was a blast, the women's bodies get put through the ringer in most pregnancies. What about it affecting a whole household, imagine it's your wife who got raped, how would you feel about seeing that reminder of what probably would be one of the worst memories of your live every day? Imagine you have a child old enough to understand what happened? How are you going to expect a 12 year old to treat that child that came to be from something that caused their mom to cry and be miserable for days on end?

Those are all terrible, hard questions, but if you were the product of rape, would you rather be dead? And even if you would, isn't that kind of a prerogative of each individual to decide that?

This is where the abortion debate gets convoluted because of course limited-government people do not want the government making medical decisions for women. The problem is the lack of acknowledgement that the woman is making a medical decision for another entity.

 

[Smitty]

Some here think it's appalling that the government or employer demand that people get vaccinated, how dare they make put something into my body that I don't want, But cheer that they force you to keep something that was put in your body forcibly and against your will, I really don't get that. I mean try to really put yourself in those shoes. How can you deny a person who has been through such a traumatic experience (and I can think of few more traumatic) any options, or tell them you've got 6 weeks to get over this and make a life altering decision.

Because the vaccine doesn't involve putting a living human embryo into your body.

And keep in mind I'm merely presenting counting arguments here. I'm not coming down necessarily on one side or the other.

But come on, that's the reason why it's different than "anti vax," arguments. Duh.

 

[Smitty]

Viability, when it's two bodies that can live independently of each other. Where would you?

Ok, and what is your rationale for drawing the line at viability? So if a baby can survive on it's own, it is entitled to trump the "my body my choice," theory of abortion regulation, but if it's a week before that, it has no such rights?

How would you address the discrepancy that some babies are more viable than others at, say, 24 weeks? How would you address the ever-improving field of post-natal care that by the year gets better at keeping premature babies alive? Is this a sliding scale and the legislation gets changed every time there is a development?

You catch my drift?

Maybe that answers your question of "but why 6 weeks?"

How about when someone develops a perfect artificial womb and any embryo can be viably transplanted and brought to term?

 

[Smitty]

I've never been to fond of human kind, I do believe we act like a virus.

Oh boy.

 

[Smitty]

But that is what you're doing if you shoot them, you're being judge, jury and executioner.

Actually the Judge was being the judge, and the jury was being the jury, and the executioner was being the executioner.

 

[Smitty]

And what is the "consequence" if we allow these unfettered abortions to continue to happen?

The Democrats lose out on their voter base?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Ok, and what is your rationale for drawing the line at viability? So if a baby can survive on it's own, it is entitled to trump the "my body my choice," theory of abortion regulation, but if it's a week before that, it has no such rights?

How would you address the discrepancy that some babies are more viable than others at, say, 24 weeks? How would you address the ever-improving field of post-natal care that by the year gets better at keeping premature babies alive? Is this a sliding scale and the legislation gets changed every time there is a development?

You catch my drift?

Maybe that answers your question of "but why 6 weeks?"

How about when someone develops a perfect artificial womb and any embryo can be viably transplanted and brought to term?

Quick research tells me a baby has survived at 21 weeks before.

 

[Smitty]

Interesting, that's kind of the whole point of what the evangelicals backing this law are saying.