SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

#402
#402
Rasputin_Vol said:
In the second trimester and beyond, why in the hell does the baby need to be aborted/killed when it could be possibly saved outside of the womb? If the technology advances enough, we may even be able to salvage a birth in the weeks leading up to the second trimester (which would fall in the window of the "heartbeat" law) if it isn't already able to be done right now.

Explain to me why the baby has to be killed in one of these extreme situations?
Click to expand...

I refer back to my "as determined by a MD/DO" qualifier. Let the certified, credentialed expert in the field keep up with the science and possibilities.
 
#404
#404
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok you know I was just using sound bites to represent forcing the one extreme of unrestricted abortion resulted in the poor blow back of needlessly restrictive abortion approvals on providers right?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about you. You're one of the reasonable ones. Even when you do have to call me down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#406
#406
AshG said:
I refer back to my "as determined by a MD/DO" qualifier. Let the certified, credentialed expert in the field keep up with the science and possibilities.
Click to expand...
That still doesn't answer the question about why the baby has to be killed, especially in the second trimester when it is possible to have the baby grow to maturity with medical intervention.
 
#412
#412
I get why it's a hot button issue, especially for religious people, but I don't get the rabble-rousing and politicizing of it. I'm not a fan of abortion, it's not something I could ever see myself recommending to a loved one, but I'm also pro-choice. It's a woman's body, she's the host, and she should be able to make the best decision for herself within ethical reason. I know the bold is what's up for interpretation and is where 99% of the debate is, but I've always thought Roe v. Wade was a perfectly reasonable compromise (viability, basically banned late-term abortion except in dire circumstances) and has been settled law for 50 years. I don't know. I just don't get why this is still even a big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and hog88
#414
#414
orangepridenation said:
I get why it's a hot button issue, especially for religious people, but I don't get the rabble-rousing and politicizing of it. I'm not a fan of abortion, it's not something it could ever see myself recommending to a loved one, but I'm also pro-choice. It's a woman's body, she's the host, and she should be able to make the best decision for herself within ethical reason. I know the bold is what's up for interpretation and is where 99% of the debate is, but I've always thought Roe v. Wade was a perfectly reasonable compromise (viability, basically banned late-term abortion except in dire circumstances) and has been settled law for 50 years. I don't know. I just don't get why this is still even a big deal.
Click to expand...
Viability based on 1973 technology. I'm sure "late term"/third trimester was the limits of medical intervention back then, but that is not the case today.

The very fact that people would defend killing a baby when it could be saved with medical intervention outside the womb is what I do not understand. If the mother is rid of the baby and is made healthy with its removal, why is it a big deal to at least make an effort to salvage the life outside of the womb?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#416
#416
DinkinFlicka said:
I mean, if we're talking disingenuous... you're comparing a militaristic insurgency of religious fanaticism that spans 40 years of war-driven existence to a country that has less than 1000 military conflict-related casualties in 70 years.

In an all-out war with no allies, I would have put ALL my money on the Taliban if the Aussies were their opponents, and I'd do the same BEFORE the past month.
Click to expand...
Nice deflection. Noted that you have no response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#417
#417
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, the have equal right to life.

If the baby can be saved saved outside of the womb, why is it necessary to kill it?
Click to expand...

If you force the female to carry the fetus against her will, you are giving the fetus superior rights.

Who will bear the cost of life saving measures?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#420
#420
ClearwaterVol said:
If you force the female to carry the fetus against her will, you are giving the fetus superior rights.
Click to expand...
The baby will be removed instead of aborted. I'm not sure what you are talking about. No one is saying she needs to carry it to term.

ClearwaterVol said:
Who will bear the cost of life saving measures?
Click to expand...
We print money everyday. Why is money a concern with regards to this?
 
#421
#421
Rasputin_Vol said:
In the second trimester and beyond, why in the hell does the baby need to be aborted/killed when it could be possibly saved outside of the womb? If the technology advances enough, we may even be able to salvage a birth in the weeks leading up to the second trimester (which would fall in the window of the "heartbeat" law) if it isn't already able to be done right now.

Explain to me why the baby has to be killed in one of these extreme situations?
Click to expand...

Because you're not carrying it and you shouldn't have a say.

This draconian **** is so weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#423
#423
ClearwaterVol said:
So, your position is the fetus upon detecting a heartbeat is given a bundle of rights superior to that of the person carrying it?
Click to expand...

how is it "superior" rights - at best they are equal as they are between another other persons. If the fetus threatens the life of the mother she has the right to preserve her own life

BTW - I don't consider heartbeat = viability
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top