I Have Been Saying

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-08-2016, 09:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There's always exceptions. No need to get all Fred about it.

Most women that I have talked to are fine with compromising at the first trimester. Usually anyone that makes it that far is playing for keeps (with the exceptions being medical complications to the mother or the child). 

It's about finding the middle ground dippy. Half want it one way, the other half wants it the opposite.

Why wouldn't you want to find a common middle ground that would make everyone feel like they got a victory out of it?

Im not intetested in a middle ground really. Its not my body its not my kid. 

If a fetus is viable outside the womb no abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. Is that middle ground? 

[Griever]

(12-08-2016, 10:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Life cycle of each human starts once the egg is fertilized, this is science. What you're trying to do is skip steps and it's not possible. You can't skip the fertilization part and jump straight to brain activity as the beginning of a life. Even once you are brain dead, cells are still growing.

a fetus isnt a baby

a fetus is basically a parasite, therefore has no rights

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2016, 09:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There's always exceptions. No need to get all Fred about it.

Most women that I have talked to are fine with compromising at the first trimester. Usually anyone that makes it that far is playing for keeps (with the exceptions being medical complications to the mother or the child). 

It's about finding the middle ground dippy. Half want it one way, the other half wants it the opposite.

Why wouldn't you want to find a common middle ground that would make everyone feel like they got a victory out of it?

Isn't the middle ground allowing individuals to make their own decision on a case by case basis based upon their morals, values, beliefs, and medical advice and not other's morals values, and beliefs?

[Griever]

(12-09-2016, 12:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Isn't the middle ground allowing individuals to make their own decision on a case by case basis based upon their morals, values, beliefs, and medical advice and not other's morals values, and beliefs?

well the right and the religious zealots need a way to control people

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 12:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Isn't the middle ground allowing individuals to make their own decision on a case by case basis based upon their morals, values, beliefs, and medical advice and not other's morals values, and beliefs?

Unless the "other" makes up half of the fetus.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2016, 10:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Life cycle of each human starts once the egg is fertilized, this is science. What you're trying to do is skip steps and it's not possible. You can't skip the fertilization part and jump straight to brain activity as the beginning of a life. Even once you are brain dead, cells are still growing.

Layman doesn't understand "cycle."

A cycle such as a life cycle or biochemical pathway is circular. Where does a circle begin or end?  In the case of a cycle, we pick an arbitrary point which then becomes the starting point by convention when enough sources agree upon using the same arbitrary starting point as the starting point. 

In your example, human life begins at fertilization. However,  oogenesis needs to occur before fertilization. 

Long story short, which came first in the life cycle of the chicken; the chicken or the egg?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-09-2016, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless the "other" makes up half of the fetus.

You just agreed that if both the mother and father agree to an abortion they should be able to make that decision without outside interference. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 12:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You just agreed that if both the mother and father agree to an abortion they should be able to make that decision without outside interference. 

...and this is not a new stance on my part (see that is truely middle-ground). Although I hate the idea of abortion and think history will judge us on it; I understand the reality.

But if the father wants the child and can show he has the means to provide for it, then he shouldbe allowed to be a father.

EDIT: History has shown me that I must include this disclaimer (because folks are silly): If the pregnancy is the result of crime or incest, risks the mother's health (other that otherwise pregnant), or the baby; then the father's right is revolked.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-09-2016, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and this is not a new stance on my part (see that is truely middle-ground). Although I hate the idea of abortion and think history will judge us on it; I understand the reality.

But if the father wants the child and can show he has the means to provide for it, then he shouldbe allowed to be a father.

EDIT: History has shown me that I must include this disclaimer (because folks are silly): If the pregnancy is the result of crime or incest, risks the mother's health (other that otherwise pregnant), or the baby; then the father's right is revolked.

If the father could become a father without forcing the mother to do something with her body against her wishes (carry a pregnancy to term and give birth) then you, I, and the Supreme Court would all be in agreement.

[Aquapod770]

Someone wants to protect the right to life of what they believe to be a human life? Dear god the horror!!!!! Don't they know the bill of rights states everyone has the right to "choice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"???????

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2016, 01:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If the father could become a father without forcing the mother to do something with her body against her wishes (carry a pregnancy to term and give birth) then you, I, and the Supreme Court would all be in agreement.

When technology reaches the point where the fertilized egg can be removed from the mother so she does not have to carry it then the law should be changed the way Bfine wants it to be.

I would even be in favor of forcing the mother to be financially responsible for half the cost of raising the child just the way a father can be forced to under the current law.

[Mike M (the other one)]

What I have noticed about most Pro-Choice people, is that your biggest argument is for those that are raped or incest was involved.

Do you know that less that 1% of all abortions involved rape victims?
I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed if someone was raped.

Well technically, Incest can be consensual, and if it's between consensual 2 adults then why do you care? What they do in their bed is their business is it not? That's the message you've been telling right wingers for years about same-sex marriage, but that's another argument for another thread.

Now if it was incest was not consensual then it would fall under rape. Which again, I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed.

I'm sure that most right wingers are fine with abortion due to rape. So it's really not a valid part of your argument anymore.

2012 is the latest information for me to pull from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

A total of 699,202 abortions were reported to CDC for 2012


Seems to me that this is the normal ratio of abortions for several years running:
95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems.

95% 664,242 from Birth Control
3% 20,976 from mother's health problems
1% 6,992 Rape/incest
1% 6,992 fetal abnormalities

Now of that, I am fine with aborting for the 5% reasons. No problems there for me or most right wingers either, so toss them out.

How do we deal with the 95%.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 01:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If the father could become a father without forcing the mother to do something with her body against her wishes (carry a pregnancy to term and give birth) then you, I, and the Supreme Court would all be in agreement.

As to the Supreme Court we will see how that plays out in the future, but if they change; I assume you will admit my stance is correct.

He didn't force her against her will to participate in the activity that can lead to life.

I've always found the assertion that the woman has the say simply because of her sex to be discriminatory; but, perhaps you are more open to "middle ground" than I.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 03:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When technology reaches the point where the fertilized egg can be removed from the mother so she does not have to carry it then the law should be changed the way Bfine wants it to be.

I would even be in favor of forcing the mother to be financially responsible for half the cost of raising the child just the way a father can be forced to under the current law.

..and when technology reaches the point where a male can fertilize a womans egg inside her womb without her consent; then I'm with you. As it stands; if she gives consent for the activity that can lead to fertalization; then she has lost the T-Shirt defense of Her body-her choice.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2016, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and when technology reaches the point where a male can fertilize a womans egg inside her womb without her consent; then I'm with you. As it stands; if she gives consent for the activity that can lead to fertalization; then she has lost the T-Shirt defense of Her body-her choice.

Is consenting to have the sex the same as agreeing to get pregnant?

I mean if someone uses precautions and still gets pregnant is that to say she agreed to it even if she and/or he tried to prevent it?

Because I get where you are coming from...but I think it's not that black and white.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is consenting to have the sex the same as agreeing to get pregnant?

I mean if someone uses precautions and still gets pregnant is that to say she agreed to it even if she and/or he tried to prevent it?

Because I get where you are coming from...but I think it's not that black and white.

It is saying that you assume the risk.

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2016, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: she has lost the T-Shirt defense of Her body-her choice.

You mean the defense accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States

This is ridiculous.  I am thinking about taking an oath to not even take part in any more abortion debates.  It is the one argument that has no resolution.  People just define "human" differently.  If you can't agree on a definition of a word then there is no way to have a real debate.

I don't believe that a fetus that can not survive without being attached to another human is an "individual" that deserves "individual rights" greater than the rights of the individual it is attached to.  That is the legal argument in its most simple form.   And it leaves the law subject to change when technology advances.  But right now the law is correct.  

[fredtoast]

(12-09-2016, 03:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is saying that you assume the risk.

No it is not.

If you drive on a public street does that mean you assume the risk of getting struck by another car and lose all your rights?

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean the defense accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States

This is ridiculous.  I am thinking about taking an oath to not even take part in any more abortion debates.  It is the one argument that has no resolution.  People just define "human" differently.  If you can't agree on a definition of a word then there is no way to have a real debate.

I don't believe that a fetus that can not survive without being attached to another human is an "individual" that deserves "individual rights" greater than the rights of the individual it is attached to.  That is the legal argument in its most simple form.   And it leaves the law subject to change when technology advances.  But right now the law is correct.  

You don't need to take an oath, you can just not respond.

As to the Supreme Court as I said' we'll see how they move going forward. In the case I provided I'm not talking about the rights of the fetus; I'm talking about the rights of the parent that attached it.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2016, 03:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it is not.

If you drive on a public street does that mean you assume the risk of getting struck by another car and lose all your rights?

Hyperbole at its finest. Who mentioned anything about losing "all" rights. But if you drive you assume the risk in being in an accident.

Or is this more of your Her car, her choice defense.