Question For Fred & Other Pro-Choice People

[BFritz21]

How far along into the pregnancy should it be legal to get an abortion?

[CKwi88]

Personally? At any time. Of course the sensationalist argument will be "z0mg you're pro tearing apart full term babies!!!11!!1!" But the facts are that those are extraordinarily rare.

If we have to draw an imaginary line in the imaginary sand somewhere? I would say at whatever point the fetus can come to term independent of the mother. Usually around 24 weeks or so I think?

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2021, 09:10 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I would say at whatever point the fetus can come to term independent of the mother. 

Agreed. Over 90% occur before week 14. Less than 1% occur after week 20. We don't need a line, but if we had one then, yea, around 24 weeks? The rare ones occurring then are likely not without reason.

[treee]

I don't think there is a precise time since there is still so little we know how the brain works. Hypothetically I'd say a fetus becomes a person once their brain has developed to a certain point. Certainly much later than when you can first detect a "heartbeat". I think viability outside the womb is a strong alternate viewpoint though and a good stand-in while we continue to discover more.

[Belsnickel]

My answer has already been stated. I'm with Pat and CK.

[CJD]

(09-09-2021, 09:10 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Personally? At any time. Of course the sensationalist argument will be "z0mg you're pro tearing apart full term babies!!!11!!1!" But the facts are that those are extraordinarily rare.

If we have to draw an imaginary line in the imaginary sand somewhere? I would say at whatever point the fetus can come to term independent of the mother. Usually around 24 weeks or so I think?

(09-09-2021, 09:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Agreed. Over 90% occur before week 14. Less than 1% occur after week 20. We don't need a line, but if we had one then, yea, around 24 weeks? The rare ones occurring then are likely not without reason.

(09-10-2021, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: My answer has already been stated. I'm with Pat and CK.

Open and shut case, Johnson.

[BFritz21]

(09-09-2021, 09:10 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Personally? At any time. Of course the sensationalist argument will be "z0mg you're pro tearing apart full term babies!!!11!!1!" But the facts are that those are extraordinarily rare.

If we have to draw an imaginary line in the imaginary sand somewhere? I would say at whatever point the fetus can come to term independent of the mother. Usually around 24 weeks or so I think?

(09-09-2021, 09:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Agreed. Over 90% occur before week 14. Less than 1% occur after week 20. We don't need a line, but if we had one then, yea, around 24 weeks? The rare ones occurring then are likely not without reason.

(09-09-2021, 10:15 PM)treee Wrote: I don't think there is a precise time since there is still so little we know how the brain works. Hypothetically I'd say a fetus becomes a person once their brain has developed to a certain point. Certainly much later than when you can first detect a "heartbeat". I think viability outside the womb is a strong alternate viewpoint though and a good stand-in while we continue to discover more.

(09-10-2021, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: My answer has already been stated. I'm with Pat and CK.

(09-10-2021, 09:23 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Open and shut case, Johnson.

Ok.  

For a woman that has normal bodily features, does she have two hearts?  Does she have 20 fingers and 20 toes?  

I could go on with body parts, but a baby has those body parts by week 24, so, if the answer to either of the above question is no, how can you argue that it's "her body, her choice"?

If the answer is yes, show me how every mother has 20 fingers and 20 toes, or two hearts, etc.

[CJD]

(09-10-2021, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok.  

For a woman that has normal bodily features, does she have two hearts?  Does she have 20 fingers and 20 toes?  

I could go on with body parts, but a baby has those body parts by week 24, so, if the answer to either of the above question is no, how can you argue that it's "her body, her choice"?

If the answer is yes, show me how every mother has 20 fingers and 20 toes, or two hearts, etc.

Her body is her body and she wants to remove the unwanted fingers, hearts and toes (that are not her body) from her body. 

[BFritz21]

(09-10-2021, 02:50 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Her body is her body and she wants to remove the unwanted fingers, hearts and toes (that are not her body) from her body. 

So you're saying that every pregnant woman has 10 fingers, 10 toes, two hearts, two brains, etc?

[CJD]

(09-10-2021, 02:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you're saying that every pregnant woman has 10 fingers, 10 toes, two hearts, two brains, etc?

Are you drunk? 

[CKwi88]

(09-10-2021, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok.  

For a woman that has normal bodily features, does she have two hearts?  Does she have 20 fingers and 20 toes?  

I could go on with body parts, but a baby has those body parts by week 24, so, if the answer to either of the above question is no, how can you argue that it's "her body, her choice"?

If the answer is yes, show me how every mother has 20 fingers and 20 toes, or two hearts, etc.

Bels can probably help more with exactly what logical fallacy this argument (?) is, but I'll call it the "what the f*** are you even talking about?" fallacy.

Number of body parts has no bearing on the question at hand.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2021, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok.  

For a woman that has normal bodily features, does she have two hearts?  Does she have 20 fingers and 20 toes?  

I could go on with body parts, but a baby has those body parts by week 24, so, if the answer to either of the above question is no, how can you argue that it's "her body, her choice"?

If the answer is yes, show me how every mother has 20 fingers and 20 toes, or two hearts, etc.

Because she has a right to her bodily autonomy. The unborn is not a person. They are not a citizen with rights. The pregnant woman is and the government cannot restrict the rights of a citizen without due process of the law.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-10-2021, 02:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok.  

For a woman that has normal bodily features, does she have two hearts?  Does she have 20 fingers and 20 toes?  

I could go on with body parts, but a baby has those body parts by week 24, so, if the answer to either of the above question is no, how can you argue that it's "her body, her choice"?

If the answer is yes, show me how every mother has 20 fingers and 20 toes, or two hearts, etc.

Do you kill mosquitos when they're on you? How about ticks? Do you take medicine for ringworm?

The reason I ask this question is because they're about as helpful to the human body as a growing fetus is.

If an organism relies on another for all of it's nutrients, it's a parasite and - as a whole - we're good with killing parasites.

[*Nately120*]

If a fetus is a person we should see to it that pregnant women get paid double for any job they do while pregnant since their employer is technically employing two people...one of which isn't even born yet which is a clear violation of child labor laws.

[Dill]

(09-10-2021, 03:23 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Bels can probably help more with exactly what logical fallacy this argument (?) is, but I'll call it the "what the f*** are you even talking about?" fallacy.

Number of body parts has no bearing on the question at hand.

Not really a "fallacy."

I think he is trying to make the point that TWO SEPARATE bodies are involved.

So a woman with a right to HER body is also claiming a right to someone else's body,

namely the one growing inside her.

Hence the claim of pro-lifers to represent the rights of that "someone else," the fetus.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-10-2021, 04:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Hence the claim of pro-lifers to represent the rights of that "someone else," the fetus.

Which of course is bullshit; you can't have rights unless you have a SS card according to the (far) right. So then they try and use the Bible as a reason, which is also bullshit because the Bible says life begins at birth and has pretty good instructions on terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

They're actually just really bad at the whole argument.

[Dill]

(09-10-2021, 04:36 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Which of course is bullshit; you can't have rights unless you have a SS card according to the (far) right. So then they try and use the Bible as a reason, which is also bullshit because the Bible says life begins at birth and has pretty good instructions on terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

They're actually just really bad at the whole argument.

What I find interesting is the history of Protestant "pro-life" movements.

Even Evangelicals were indifferent to the topic--until the Civil Rights movement.

Jerry Falwell et. al. came down hard on the pro-life side after Roe vs Wade,
but before that that they seemed to think, Clinton style, that abortions should be
legal and rare. And of course allowable in cases of rape or incest. 

I'm risking a post hoc here, but I find it odd that the religious right became so INTENSE about
abortion in the post-Nixon re-alignment of Southern politics. 

I'm wondering if it was a way to create a new moral high ground, after support for segregation collapsed.

[BFritz21]

(09-10-2021, 02:55 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Are you drunk? 

A “fetus” has those body parts, so, unless you’re saying that a woman has 20 fingers, 20 toes, etc, it’s not her body.

(09-10-2021, 03:23 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Bels can probably help more with exactly what logical fallacy this argument (?) is, but I'll call it the "what the f*** are you even talking about?" fallacy.

Number of body parts has no bearing on the question at hand.

Read above. Unless she has 20 fingers, toes, etc, it’s not her body.

(09-10-2021, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because she has a right to her bodily autonomy. The unborn is not a person. They are not a citizen with rights. The pregnant woman is and the government cannot restrict the rights of a citizen without due process of the law.

But it’s not her body unless she has 20 fingers, toes, etc, it’s not her body.

(09-10-2021, 04:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If a fetus is a person we should see to it that pregnant women get paid double for any job they do while pregnant since their employer is technically employing two people...one of which isn't even born yet which is a clear violation of child labor laws.

Is the fetus doing the work?

[CJD]

(09-10-2021, 06:09 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A “fetus” has those body parts, so, unless you’re saying that a woman has 20 fingers, 20 toes, etc, it’s not her body.

 
Oh okay. So you can't read. Got it 

[NATI BENGALS]

Probably kindergarten