This is just the kind of simplistic thinking that distorts the great complexity of this issue; not everyone swallows.
I believe it should be brought to term once it gets to viability. You do ignore every single party except the fetus. Attempting to claim otherwise is simply dishonest.
The only way to attend the other party to your thinking is to side with them. I've said a thousand times and freely admit that I am far less concerned about the problems some woman or some couple face with an unwanted pregnancy than I am concerned about the baby's right to life. Stop calling me dishonest. I've always admitted that. You have not answered my question here.... again.
Yes, I did, sorry you ignored it. I give consideration to the fetus once it could viably survive outside the uterus. Until then, it exists at the mother's discretion. And it isn't that you are "far less concerned" about anything. You don't give a whit about what the woman wants, you would actually remove her ability to choose at all, which is the reason I don't take your opinion seriously. Until you can comprehend the concept of competing interests and actually give some consideration to the woman's interest, your opinion is worth less than nothing as far as I'm concerned.
wait---so you can't take the fact that somebody would square you away in a nice category, and shame you---while you mass pall over all abortions, refuse to give practical details, give no sense of what legislative framework is required, take a very complex issue and render it to the lowest common denominator of moral shaming? Shaming women will get you nowhere FYI. Imprisoning them neither. The answer to lower abortion rates and ratios is much more nuanced then that. If you take issue with my "attitude", consider changing yours. It adds nothing to the discussion beyond moral shame for a group you don't seem comfortable bringing into the discussion.
Has science become religion for you? Have faith Texxx. have it. Your opinion is not reflected in the literature or thoughts of leading experts. But I'm sure you think there will be changes because after citing nothing, well, "science!". You know that thing where people rely on evidence, and findings, rather than unexplained faith and logical fallacies (this century was REALLY good for neonatal science. Even though the trend has stopped, it might restart again because-------------) AGAIN, as you have not addressed this point (which tells me you cannot at all). When those new technologies come, the framework of Roe v. Wade is perfectly suited to encompass them. In the meanwhile, I want to hear you admit that science is your THING---and that you will never again disparage the efforts of scientists to build a better world. Because, you know---science can do amazing things. This includes climatologists, and all sorts of people affected by your reluctance to have government finance the public purse. The original research funds for fracking as well, coming from the federal government. Ensure it stays well-funded, if you can't yourself contribute to scientific knowledge.
My question was about the aborted fetus not the one you "allowed" to live. Stop trying to speak for me. I realize what I am doing in assuming this position. Just doing less harm I am.... yours is fatal.
Keep f***ing that chicken, just realize you are not having any positive impact whatsoever, where if you actually chose to work WITH pro-choice people, we might be able to reduce the root case of abortions rather than just paying lip service and playing politics, as you are.
It's not about moral shaming as much as getting beyond self-centeredness and recognizing the true stakes of this decision. I want women to love their babies-- love them enough to give them life and give them away if that is the best solution. Your category is not "nice." It is dismissive and alien to me. It makes you feel superior though so have at it.
I seem to have hit a nerve.... And what makes you think that only pro-Choice people want to work at the root cause of abortions? I've gone on and on and sexual responsibility--even to the point of abstinence if someone chooses that, and that is a good choice for young people. There is no more root cause for prevention of unwanted pregnancy than carefully considered non-participation. In the meantime, babies are dying at an alarming rate.
Oh, because women don't realize the stakes of this decision? They don't feel for their unborn child as you do? They don't recognize the situation---they don't know the shame a male-dominated society will put on THEM but not the male---they don't know a society that constantly looks to slash funds away from single mothers, and their children, and treats them as if they are a "burden"---only allowed to subsist on the edge. They don't know how to love a child. I don't feel superior at all, but I'm tired of this "shame game". It is telling that in your guise of playing "father-figure" and "shamer"---you seem to pick up strands of moral superiority. Telling because this is the position you continually embrace. It is easy for you to sit there, and talk about what a terrible thing abortion is. What's harder are the actual details, relating with the people behind it, and getting off of your moral high horse to actually talk practical, implementable solutions to make sure mothers and their children have better lives.
Then why choose to abort? Adoption is available. They can even profit from it if they wish through a private adoption. Quit playing the shame card. I've clearly outlined my goal there. Not sure where you are going with the "father-figure" crap. I'm male so I can only address this as a male, but more importantly I am a human and simply address it from that vantage. The only detail I'm fearful of is a dead baby.
NO ONE ANSWERED THIS: women can be convicted for various kinds of fetal abuse during pregnancy (drugs and alcohol for example). Why is that? Is it not HER body and, according to the "logic", THAT baby is hers to do with as she pleases. Funny that the law doesn't side with that view... until it comes to Choice. So the truth would appear to be that this one aspect runs counter to the way that the rest of the laws treat that innocent child in utero. Why is that?
No, you have given up on reasonable discussion. Because all that people like you seem to want to do is take away choices. There is also no more unrealistic goal to strive for than abstinence. This is one of the reasons that abortion went up when Bush was in office, when they were pushing abstinence-only "education" and why it has gone down under Obama, who ended the federal support for such lunacy. ROFL, if you don't even use the appropriate words, you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion. You care about lip service, I care about people.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/may/16/pregnancy_south_carolina_supreme why don't we criminalize food deserts, and lack of prenatal care? Criminalize all of the things.
Your answer was failing. Something about they only get charged after the pregnancy... of course, that is LIKELY when the damage done is known. Even so charging them with a crime in retrospect indicates that it wasn't really "my body, my baby" to do with as I please. Is that about right? If not, clarify for us...
You are yet again assuming that the "my body" assumption is an absolute. You don't even have the ability to UNDERSTAND the opinions of another person on this topic, as such, you are too biased to be taken seriously.
Then put your money where your mouth is, and discuss ideas related to medical research and science, or legislative frameworks, or practical, implementable solutions. You're like the equivalent of a disaster tourist who presumes and judges all at once, and adds nothing to the building but gawking. Your arguments are not needed. They add nothing of rational value. They seek the easiest way out, the lowest common denominator, appealing to a male-dominated society to dominate women. If you're a big sticker for adoption, stand up for it. http://www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43
As far as I can tell, I'm about taking away a single choice-- the final, big, fatal one. I've given up on reasonable discussion? I find you distorting all of my positions and name-calling. In the original Latin, fetus means "little one" not "clump of cells." That shows intimacy, so "baby" really does work quite well.
