Fetal rights are one of those legal quandries---what you are referring to is passed in many states, but has received scrutiny and overturns on the state Supreme Court level, and has never seen federal review.
I believe I asked and it was not answered: Why would the mother ever lose rights to terminate the pregnancy just because the baby is viable even though it might still be gestating in the mother's body?
I can't recall so much as a single instance where I engaged in "name calling." You don't even have the ability to use the right words and when I paraphrase your pro-life speak into English, you call it "distorting" your position, as if you have accurately interpreted even one of my statements. Too biased to be taken seriously, and it is truly sad because with all of that fervor, we might actually be able to make a dent in unwanted pregnancies (in fact, we have, in spite of you), if you weren't fighting for a ban.
Because the fetus is viable and doesn't require the woman's uterus to continue developing. Again, a case of balancing competing interests, which you absolutely refuse to do. To you, there is only ONE interest that deserves consideration. Reality disagrees.
1. Medical research is the avenue to justify abortion. Why would I feel the need to go there? 2. I've thrown in on practical solutions. I'm all for sexual education. Birth control is abundantly available. Saying "NO" is a good option. 3. Roe V. Wade led to a significant rise in the abortion rate for about 10 years followed by a leveling off (higher than before Roe V. Wade by a significant percentage) for 15 years or so, followed by a slight dip and another settling at a rate still higher than pre-1973 (IIRC). 4. I've trumpeted for adoption all along the way. That does nothing for an aborted baby though. 5. However unpopular, my argument is entirely rational. Every conception if allowed to mature results in a human being. It doesn't make it more "rational' to vote for your place along the continuum of development where humanity actually arises. Occam's Razor baby!
But that is generally when she loses her right-- third trimester approximately. Seems like that is just the time and the place where she should gain it rather as then there is no fatal victim if the baby can truly survive outside the womb. The baby doesn't need the uterus anymore (necessarily) so we are going to strip away the right of the woman to reclaim her uterus... In sum, you are all for protecting the baby when it really doesn't need it but not protecting it when it really does need it. Where is the sense in that?
The sense is that until then, the fetus is utterly dependent on that particular uterus and the woman deserves to be able to make that choice. After then, it is just too late, the choice should have been made sooner.
How is it too late? That is when the fetus became viable. If you are wanting to be fair ALL-AROUND, the third trimester would seem to be a better place to offer choice-- NOT THAT I AM SUGGESTING THAT! Promoting choice because the fetus needs the uterus is kind of antagonistic.
For somebody who feels so passionately about this topic, your complete wilful ignorance of scientific and legal concepts, and your inability to go beyond buzzwords indicates to me that the majority of your thought is placed on over-blasting a very nuanced topic with an overly simplistic argument. You can "trumpet" adoption, while knowing nothing of the conditions of the adoption system, or how to make it better with more funding. You can "IIRC" some of the most important stats in the deliberation (I've even posted the abortion ratio for God's sake). It must be easy for you to deploy buzzwords, without any thought as to their meaning, or any action to support the words you say. You'll have to be more methodical, and think more if you actually want to fight for women and their children---and their fetuses.
I'm relentlessly methodical. My method is simple, yes, but so is the matter of life and death. All other options have other solutions that avoid death for one of the parties. Only one solution insures death for one of the parties. Buzzwords?
No, for very good medical reasons. *ignore science and medical research that is responsible for saving/extending billions of lives*
Did you read my CAPS commentary? Of course, I'm not in favor of it but scientifically and medically speaking the only chance babies really have is to be born in the third trimester. Premature babies are born every day but not from the first trimester and likely not the second unless it would be near the end. Definitely a trend there.
I trumpet sex ed! I trumpet adoption! I trumpet this and that. No meaning. You toss these words as if they're candy, with no research, or method behind introducing them other than to distract from your one-track mind. And no, life and death isn't simple, it's why we have the most complex legal debates over euthanasia, abortion and etc. Debates full of reasoning, legal principles, scientific research and not one-word expressions.
What I said is that the matter of life and death is simple. The only people we "legally" take it away from are warring enemies, convicted capital offenders and unwanted babies. http://youtu.be/GWwIABZRTgQ This is a place for quick discussion and bantering. What research is necessary to do to think that babies in utero deserve protection? On a side note, actually I am for euthanasia. That is about an adult making a quality decision over their OWN life.
