Are you #Prolife or #Prochoice?

[Von]

Pro-choice before 3 months and pro-life after that period

 

[Steamdevolopment]

3) Right, but abortions are legal way past its embriyo stage. It's a fetus until its born, why is it unethical to abort a fetus at 28 weeks and not at 24? It can survive outside the womb and has developed all critical organs. Your argument of the 'organic lifeform' not being able to feel or reflect over it is nonsensical because the same logic can be applied at a much later stage.

2) They already do, and that's okay. They ban consumption of harmful substances and dangerous activities all the time and everyone seems to be content with it. Besides, they're intervening on behalf of the fetus. Why shouldn't its life trump bodily autonomy (with exceptions of course)? This seems like an even more rational position to hold if you consider that the fetus is a direct consequence of the woman's actions. Contraception is beautiful in the sense that either partner can prevent pregnancy.

1) That's the only valid point imho, people will abort regardless, but the idea is to discourage as many people as possible. Perhaps re-focus on educating people and addressing the issue rather than treating the symptom

1: You fundamentally do not understand the phases that a fetus goes trough. A fetus can feel pain from the 27th week, therefore abortion is limited to the early phase to avoid painful and inhumane treatment of the living organism.

Source: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ""The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester".

2: There is a difference between banning substances and limiting bodily autonomy for adult human beings. Under your scenario the opposite could be made reality, where women could be forced to have an abortion, once the precedent it set that bodily autonomy does not belong to the individual. This is what happens in China with an unsual strong state with no concept of individual rights.

3:You're conflicting two things. Preventing abortion can be done through education, but it only reduces the rate, not the need for abortion. They'll be women who will seek it out and their deaths will be as a result of abortion bans. Furthermore regimes that ban abortion don't have comprehensive sexual education, so what you are suggesting is an oxymoron.

4th and lastly, calling your position on abortion logical cannot be left un-
contradicted. It is hinged on an emotional response combined with religious superstition and that is not a rational basis for any policy.

 

[Slickback]

1: You fundamentally do not understand the phases that a fetus goes trough. A fetus can feel pain from the 27th week, therefore abortion is limited to the early phase to avoid painful and inhumane treatment of the living organism.

Source: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ""The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester".

2: There is a difference between banning substances and limiting bodily autonomy for adult human beings. Under your scenario the opposite could be made reality, where women could be forced to have an abortion, once the precedent it set that bodily autonomy does not belong to the individual. This is what happens in China with an unsual strong state with no concept of individual rights.

3:You're conflicting two things. Preventing abortion can be done through education, but it only reduces the rate, not the need for abortion. They'll be women who will seek it out and their deaths will be as a result of abortion bans. Furthermore regimes that ban abortion don't have comprehensive sexual education, so what you are suggesting is an oxymoron.

4th and lastly, calling your position on abortion logical cannot be left un-
contradicted. It is hinged on an emotional response combined with religious superstition and that is not a rational basis for any policy.

So do you believe receptiveness to pain is indication of life? Why is it so illogical to believe it starts at brain activity, heartbeat or self-sustenance outside the womb? Quite frankly they all sound like a more concrete metric than pain. A fetus has no concept of consciousness or awareness, and a non-painful extraction is definitely possible at a later stage.

Thr government deciding what you can and cannot do with your body is the very definition of violating bodily autonomy. Restrictive abortion laws do not set a precedence for state-enforced abortions. China is vastly different from the West and there are a multitude of factors at play that just aren't present in the West. Belgium and most European countries cap it at 12 weeks which is considered restrictive. Ireland has completely outlawed abortion, and there are no state-enforced abortions in any of these countries. So I'm sorry, but that's just a bs argument.

Yes, which is why I said that the idea is to discourage as many people as possible... And, no. It's not at all an oxymoron. States with restrictive abortion laws tend to not promote sexual education, but that doesn't make them contradictory at all.

Lastly, saying my stance is an emotional and religious position when you don't know anything about my religious views is just a cheap copout.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

So do you believe receptiveness to pain is indication of life? Why is it so illogical to believe it starts at brain activity, heartbeat or self-sustenance outside the womb? Quite frankly they all sound like a more concrete metric than pain. A fetus has no concept of consciousness or awareness, and a non-painful extraction is definitely possible at a later stage.

Thr government deciding what you can and cannot do with your body is the very definition of violating bodily autonomy. Restrictive abortion laws do not set a precedence for state-enforced abortions. China is vastly different from the West and there are a multitude of factors at play that just aren't present in the West. Belgium and most European countries cap it at 12 weeks which is considered restrictive. Ireland has completely outlawed abortion, and there are no state-enforced abortions in any of these countries. So I'm sorry, but that's just a bs argument.

Yes, which is why I said that the idea is to discourage as many people as possible... And, no. It's not at all an oxymoron. States with restrictive abortion laws tend to not promote sexual education, but that doesn't make them contradictory at all.

Lastly, saying my stance is an emotional and religious position when you don't know anything about my religious views is just a cheap copout.

1. Your first point, if it can even be characterized as coherent writing, cannot dispute medical facts, which is that a fetus first have the sensory ability to feel pain at 27th week. Your own thinking does not substitute medical consensus, perhaps difficult to see in your own hubris.


2. Bodily autonomy is not the same as autonomy to buy certain substances. Restrictive abortion laws are distinct from abortion ban, which is what you are advocating, and the ban is not complete in Ireland as medical exceptions are allowed. Once you're factually wrong, as always.

China and the West differs in their adherence to the indvidual rights, as the latter seeks to uphold and have ratified the European convention of human rights. Bodily autonomy is but an important component in that regard. Most contries that have abortion ban do not have such regard for individual rights. Exemplified by south American countries where women can be jailed for miscarriages.


3. A state that adheres to one religious ideology and imposes such ideas tend not to be socially liberal enough to promote comprehensive sexual education. That is fact, that you cannot dispute, as evidence look at any muslim majority country.

Secondly to this point, don't you think the US prior to Roe v. Wade tried to discourage abortion? Women were jailed for attempting it, but nevertheless it continued as the factors that lead to abortion are unrelated to whatever judicial or moral teaching you want them to be discouraged by. In essence you see these women's death as collateral damage.

Your arguments are illogical at best and reek of non-secular thought.

 

[Slickback]

1. Your first point, if it can even be characterized as coherent writing, cannot dispute medical facts, which is that a fetus first have the sensory ability to feel pain at 27th week. Your own thinking does not substitute medical consensus, perhaps difficult to see in your own hubris.


2. Bodily autonomy is not the same as autonomy to buy certain substances. Restrictive abortion laws are distinct from abortion ban, which is what you are advocating, and the ban is not complete in Ireland as medical exceptions are allowed. Once you're factually wrong, as always.

China and the West differs in their adherence to the indvidual rights, as the latter seeks to uphold and have ratified the European convention of human rights. Bodily autonomy is but an important component in that regard. Most contries that have abortion ban do not have such regard for individual rights. Exemplified by south American countries where women can be jailed for miscarriages.


3. A state that adheres to one religious ideology and imposes such ideas tend not to be socially liberal enough to promote comprehensive sexual education. That is fact, that you cannot dispute, as evidence look at any muslim majority country.

Secondly to this point, don't you think the US prior to Roe v. Wade tried to discourage abortion? Women were jailed for attempting it, but nevertheless it continued as the factors that lead to abortion are unrelated to whatever judicial or moral teaching you want them to be discouraged by. In essence you see these women's death as collateral damage.

Your arguments are illogical at best and reek of non-secular thought.

This is just dribble. All of it. You haven't addressed any of my questions. Did you even read my post before quoting me? I did not dispute your 27 week statement. I said an abortion CAN be made virtually painless for a fetus with appropriate drug administration.

Secondly, I thought that medical exceptions would've been obvious by now. I didn't think you needed me to spell it out every time.

YOU said that promoting sexual health and education are an oxymoron when it is categorically untrue. There's absolutely no reason why they're mutually exclusive. I agreed that countries with restrictive abortion rights likely weren't interested in promoting sexual health (for obvious religious affiliations). That does not have to remain so.

Imprisoning women to discourage abortion is not at all the same as providing worthwhile sex ed, teaching responsibility and providing the resources to safely go about having sex. None of which America does.

Maybe try addressing my post next time.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

This is just dribble. All of it. You haven't addressed any of my questions. Did you even read my post before quoting me? I did not dispute your 27 week statement. I said an abortion CAN be made virtually painless for a fetus with appropriate drug administration.

Secondly, I thought that medical exceptions would've been obvious by now. I didn't think you needed me to spell it out every time.

YOU said that promoting sexual health and education are an oxymoron when it is categorically untrue. There's absolutely no reason why they're mutually exclusive. I agreed that countries with restrictive abortion rights likely weren't interested in promoting sexual health (for obvious religious affiliations). That does not have to remain so.

Imprisoning women to discourage abortion is not at all the same as providing worthwhile sex ed, teaching responsibility and providing the resources to safely go about having sex. None of which America does.

Maybe try addressing my post next time.

1: Such drug administration could put the mother's life in danger and would be unethical in many regards. I do not see the need for it beyond saving the mother, nor the benefit of such speculation.
The fetus has no pain and as such removing the parasite until 20th week can be done with little harm.


2: It doesn't have to be, but the policy that underpins such countries is that a woman's body can be the property of the state or her man/father. It remains an oxymoron if you're promoting comprehensive sexual education, which has root in a human being's natural autonomy and how to make reasonable choices using that autonomy with an abortion ban that denies such autonomy and enforces illogical punishments that does nothing to help women.

3: That is already done in most places with abortion and it is has decreased the rates of abortion. However if you have an abortion ban, it is inevitable that the social sanctions for having it won't lead women to back ally abortion as in the past. Furthermore such a system would most likely punish caretakers such doctors for offering abortion and thus diminish women's acces to safe abortions, which in turn leads to more death. Worthwhile sex ed won't change that dynamic.

I did address your ramblings.

 

[Slickback]

1: Such drug administration could put the mother's life in danger and would be unethical in many regards. I do not see the need for it beyond saving the mother, nor the benefit of such speculation.
The fetus has no pain and as such removing the parasite until 20th week can be done with little harm.


2: It doesn't have to be, but the policy that underpins such countries is that a woman's body can be the property of the state or her man/father. It remains an oxymoron if you're promoting comprehensive sexual education, which has root in a human being's natural autonomy and how to make reasonable choices using that autonomy with an abortion ban that denies such autonomy and enforces illogical punishments that does nothing to help women.

3: That is already done in most places with abortion and it is has decreased the rates of abortion. However if you have an abortion ban, it is inevitable that the social sanctions for having it won't lead women to back ally abortion as in the past. Furthermore such a system would most likely punish caretakers such doctors for offering abortion and thus diminish women's acces to safe abortions, which in turn leads to more death. Worthwhile sex ed won't change that dynamic.

It is routinely administered during fetal surgery and even during regular late stage abortions (depending on your location). It has proven to be reasonably safe for women. I'm not quite sure why you think it's unethical if the woman is consenting to it? I'm not advocating for it at all.

You've kind of lost me on your second point. I'm not sure how a woman's father or partner come into play. The underlying logic of pro-life is that the fetus is prioritised over a woman's autonomy. **with exceptions of course. Not so much that a man owns a woman's body.

Before we go in circles, at what stage does it become unethical to abort a fetus? When does the fetus' 'rights' trump a woman's autonomy?

 

[Steamdevolopment]

It is routinely administered during fetal surgery and even during regular late stage abortions (depending on your location). It has proven to be reasonably safe for women. I'm not quite sure why you think it's unethical if the woman is consenting to it? I'm not advocating for it at all.

You've kind of lost me on your second point. I'm not sure how a woman's father or partner come into play. The underlying logic of pro-life is that the fetus is prioritised over a woman's autonomy. **with exceptions of course. Not so much that a man owns a woman's body.

Before we go in circles, at what stage does it become unethical to abort a fetus? When does the fetus' 'rights' trump a woman's autonomy?

1: Any anesthesia, especially strong ones needed to avoid a painful abortion carries significant risk to a person's health regardless.

2: In doing so you devalue the autonomy of a woman and most societies with that attitude have laws subjactating women with few exceptions including Ireland which is moving away from that thinking.

3: A fetus gain innumerable rights once it exits the woman's body and can live on its own.

 

[Slickback]

1: Any anesthesia, especially strong ones needed to avoid a painful abortion carries significant risk to a person's health regardless.

2: In doing so you devalue the autonomy of a woman and most societies with that attitude have laws subjactating women with few exceptions including Ireland which is moving away from that thinking.

3: A fetus gain innumerable rights once it exits the woman's body and can live on its own.

There's risks to all medical procedures, but in context it is a safe procedure. Regardless, that's not what I'm getting at. Following your initial reasoning, it should be deemed ethical for a woman that consented to get an abortion at 28 weeks provided the fetus doesn't feel pain. No?

But don't current laws already devalue a woman's autonomy since at some point she does in fact lose autonomy over her body? Again, at what point does the fetus' life trump the woman's autonomy?

And lastly, that's called a baby

You still haven't answered me.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

There's risks to all medical procedures, but in context it is a safe procedure. Regardless, that's not what I'm getting at. Following your initial reasoning, it should be deemed ethical for a woman that consented to get an abortion at 28 weeks provided the fetus doesn't feel pain. No?

But don't current laws already devalue a woman's autonomy since at some point she does in fact lose autonomy over her body? Again, at what point does the fetus' life trump the woman's autonomy?

And lastly, that's called a baby

You still haven't answered me.

1: If fetus feels no pain, yes abortion should be legal at 29 weeks.

2: Those laws are problematic, and at no point does the fetus trump the women's right. Only a new born outside the womb can have rights.

It is not baby until it leaves the women's body.

 

[Suárez]

In the hukm of abortion it is permissible if the doctor says if child birth will kill you.

The answer for awareness in fetuses is:
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration.

Meaning that fetuses are aware in nuerological side but not phsyically.

Some fetuses become aware earlier more than others, some babies are born in the 7th month but the ful term is 8 to 9 months any higher than that is over development which is bad for the baby.

@Steamdevolopment and @Slickback

Abortions ethically should not be done after 24th week

 

[Slickback]

1: If fetus feels no pain, yes abortion should be legal at 29 weeks.

2: Those laws are problematic, and at no point does the fetus trump the women's right. Only a new born outside the womb can have rights.

It is not baby until it leaves the women's body.

Interesting. As terrible as I think it is, you're consistent in your view. Damn. That's a pretty extreme stance to hold, even among the pro-choice crowd.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

In the hukm of abortion it is permissible if the doctor says if child birth will kill you.

The answer for awareness in fetuses is:
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration.

Meaning that fetuses are aware in nuerological side but not phsyically.

Some fetuses become aware earlier more than others, some babies are born in the 7th month but the ful term is 8 to 9 months any higher than that is over development which is bad for the baby.

@Steamdevolopment and @Slickback

Abortions ethically should not be done after 24th week

Most research indicates that such awareness is first available at 27th week, but the cut-off is 20th week, meaning a week before.

Interesting. As terrible as I think it is, you're consistent in your view. Damn. That's a pretty extreme stance to hold, even among the pro-choice crowd.

Not really, the rights of the living supercede the rights of the yet to live. Until birth it is but a cherished parasite.

I like babies though.

 

[Slickback]

Most research indicates that such awareness is first available at 27th week, but the cut-off is 20th week, meaning a week before.


Not really, the rights of the living supercede the rights of the yet to live. Until birth it is but a cherished parasite.

I like babies though.

I mean... at 7 months it's unborn, but very much alive. The mother's life takes precedence over everything else. And the fetus' life (after development) over bodily autonomy.

Big difference between a fetus and a parasite. Scientific classification aside, one of 'em never chose to be there.

I honestly thought I didn't give a f*ck about abortions, but the more I think about it, the more morbid and uglier it seems. It can be anything from removing a clump of cells to [[[[pro lyf intensifies]]]] baby murder



My aabo was prematurely born in the bloody desert many, many decades ago. Imagine ayeeyo macaan was a progressive in the year 2000+10+8 that changed her mind

 

[Steamdevolopment]

I mean... at 7 months it's unborn, but very much alive. The mother's life takes precedence over everything else. And the fetus' life (after development) over bodily autonomy.

Big difference between a fetus and a parasite. Scientific classification aside, one of 'em never chose to be there.

I honestly thought I didn't give a f*ck about abortions, but the more I think about it, the more morbid and uglier it seems. It can be anything from removing a clump of cells to [[[[pro lyf intensifies]]]] baby murder



My aabo was prematurely born in the bloody desert many, many decades ago. Imagine ayeeyo macaan was a progressive in the year 2000+10+8 that changed her mind

Many parasite don't chose their host either, some are even born in them, making it comparable.

It was your ayeeyo decision not to abort him, though she had no choice in the matter if we're being honest.

 

[Slickback]

Many parasite don't chose their host either, some are even born in them, making it comparable.

It was your ayeeyo decision not to abort him, though she had no choice in the matter if we're being honest.

And if I'm also being honest, I'm happy she didn't have a choice.

A fetus can scientifically not be classified as parasite. Not to mention that fetus' are embraced by the body and non-harmful (without complications). It's not the fetus' fault she believed a guy in some dusty af1's and two different socks would pull out because he said he would.

 

[Sophisticate]

Prolife.

The idea of a half-born being being dismembered doesn't quite appeal to me. That's why I could never be a preemie axe murderer.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

And if I'm also being honest, I'm happy she didn't have a choice.

A fetus can scientifically not be classified as parasite. Not to mention that fetus' are embraced by the body and non-harmful (without complications). It's not the fetus' fault she believed a guy in some dusty af1's and two different socks would pull out because he said he would.

Of course you are, you wouldn't be born otherwise, it is called self-preservation.


It does create complications but your point is noted.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

Prolife.

The idea of a half-born being being dismembered doesn't quite appeal to me. That's why I could never be a preemie axe murderer.

The only thing you murder is the English language and the gene pool.

 

[Sophisticate]

The only thing you murder is the English language and the gene pool.

:siilaanyolaugh: Why must radical feminists look all the same? - Multicolour skrillex that's pixie length with a septum piercing.