SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

#426
#426
hog88 said:
In most if not all states it does considering you can be charged with murder if you kill a fetus during a criminal act.
Click to expand...

Legally, sure. I was asking in a more philosophical sense.

Don't necessarily agree with those laws either.
 
#429
#429
DinkinFlicka said:
Because you're not carrying it and you shouldn't have a say.

This draconian **** is so weak.
Click to expand...

Isn't it draconian to adopt an it's the woman's right to terminate at anytime up to birth position for any reason?

If you don't accept that position then you are acknowledging there are limits to choice and the BIG question is what are the limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, theFallGuy, Matt2496 and 1 other person
#430
#430
volinbham said:
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
Click to expand...
OK, then where do you draw the line?
 
#433
#433
Rasputin_Vol said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hence the debate. I'm not an expert on fetal development. I don't know the precise point in pregnancy at which a fetus becomes perfectly "viable" or not, and I'm sure every pregnancy is different. The heart of the abortion debate seems to be whether you believe that a woman should have total agency over her own body which, up until birth, includes the fetus. I believe she should. It really is that simple. I don't blame you or anyone else who wants to protect the unborn child. As I said, I am not a fan of abortion. I just happen to believe the mother's rights supersede that of the fetus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#435
#435
ClearwaterVol said:
How so?
Click to expand...
A baby in the womb is just as dependent on others as they are 7 months post natural birth. Choosing to stop the care and nutrients required for it's survival at 7 months post natural birth or 3 months post conception is one in the same. Neither can survive. It's child negligence at best for the mother, murder 1 at worst in our agreement. The test of viability is wildly flawed and inconsistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and Rasputin_Vol
#436
#436
DinkinFlicka said:
You responded to be with no quantifiable contradiction to my point. I was just waving it off in lieu of being a dick and calling you lazy.
Click to expand...

We're discussing the amount of w weapons your fearless leader left the taliban not who would win in a war.
 
#437
#437
orangepridenation said:
Hence the debate. I'm not an expert on fetal development. I don't know the precise point in pregnancy at which a fetus becomes perfectly "viable" or not, and I'm sure every pregnancy is different. The heart of the abortion debate seems to be whether you believe that a woman should have total agency over her own body which, up until birth, includes the fetus. I believe she should. It really is that simple. I don't blame you or anyone else who wants to protect the unborn child. As I said, I am not a fan of abortion. I just happen to believe the mother's rights supersede that of the fetus.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the bolded - I disagree and consider the rights to evolve to become balanced where late stage termination is acceptable when it's threat to life of the mother; otherwise the right of the mother to relieve herself from a feeling obligation doesn't supersede the right of the viable fetus to life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#439
#439
volinbham said:
this raises some interesting questions about child support
Click to expand...
Don't even get me started on that.

By not killing the baby, however, it does open up a portal for men to have paternal rights if the bay can be medically maintained and saved.

At the very least, if women are allowed to drop of children at fire stations and hospitals for adoption, the same consideration should be given to these children. The optimum answer, would be for the father to have a say (assuming we find who the correct father is) and give them the right so claim it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#440
#440
ClearwaterVol said:
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?
Click to expand...


Would it be superior rights, or would it be equal rights? Just playing devil's advocate on this question, if both have life, wouldn't that be equal?

As for the second question....Obamacare? :)
 
#441
#441
Rasputin_Vol said:
Don't even get me started on that.

By not killing the baby, however, it does open up a portal for men to have paternal rights if the bay can be medically maintained and saved.

At the very least, if women are allowed to drop of children at fire stations and hospitals for adoption, the same consideration should be given to these children. The optimum answer, would be for the father to have a say (assuming we find who the correct father is) and give them the right so claim it.
Click to expand...
Or if said father doesn't want to claim it, we should rid of child support. Can't have it both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#442
#442
orangepridenation said:
Hence the debate. I'm not an expert on fetal development. I don't know the precise point in pregnancy at which a fetus becomes perfectly "viable" or not, and I'm sure every pregnancy is different. The heart of the abortion debate seems to be whether you believe that a woman should have total agency over her own body which, up until birth, includes the fetus. I believe she should. It really is that simple. I don't blame you or anyone else who wants to protect the unborn child. As I said, I am not a fan of abortion. I just happen to believe the mother's rights supersede that of the fetus.
Click to expand...
How is the mother's rights violated if the baby is removed from her in a safe manner so that medical interventions can be made?
 
#443
#443
volinbham said:
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
Click to expand...

The female does not consent to carrying the fetus yet you would force her to against her will. You are giving the fetus greater rights.
 
#444
#444
volinbham said:
Fair enough on the bolded - I disagree and consider the rights to evolve to become balanced where late stage termination is acceptable when it's threat to life of the mother; otherwise the right of the mother to relieve herself from a feeling obligation doesn't supersede the right of the viable fetus to life.
Click to expand...

I think we agree. I believe there is a massive ethical dilemma in play when it comes to late term abortion. It's why I actually like the "viability" compromise. I also believe 20-22 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to make a sound decision. Just my opinion.
 
#445
#445
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 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.
Click to expand...
I always considered Roe v. Wade to be a brilliant compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CardsNVols
#446
#446
ClearwaterVol said:
The female does not consent to carrying the fetus yet you would force her to against her will. You are giving the fetus greater rights.
Click to expand...
No, if you remove the fetus at her desired time, she is no longer carrying it. No one is saying she needs to carry it any longer than she has to in order to save her life or maintain her lifestyle.
 
#447
#447
utvols88 said:
A baby in the womb is just as dependent on others as they are 7 months post natural birth. Choosing to stop the care and nutrients required for it's survival at 7 months post natural birth or 3 months post conception is one in the same. Neither can survive. It's child negligence at best for the mother, murder 1 at worst in our agreement. The test of viability is wildly flawed and inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Once the baby is born there is absolutely no forcing the mother to care for it. She can give it up at any time. Child neglect is a different story because she has chosen to care for the child.
 
#449
#449
ClearwaterVol said:
The female does not consent to carrying the fetus yet you would force her to against her will. You are giving the fetus greater rights.
Click to expand...

If a man doesn't consent to supporting a child he didn't want aren't we giving the child greater rights than the man by forcing him to support it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#450
#450
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, if you remove the fetus at her desired time, she is no longer carrying it. No one is saying she needs to carry it any longer than she has to in order to save her life or maintain her lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Who will bear the medical costs for trying to save babies that 25 weeks premature? In those cases, they have never been successful, so this would be a massive waste of money.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top