Roe v Wade at 40

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by leadarrows

What a sad screwed up human you are. A parasite that's mother let live.

Yep. Just like you and everyone else in here.

[leadarrows]

OK fine..you teach me proper grammar and I will teach you how to be a decent human being.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by leadarrows

OK fine..you teach me proper grammar and I will teach you how to be a decent human being.

I've asked about that on numerous occasions. Is it acceptable for a woman to request life-saving chemotherapy, radiation therapy, etc, even though such treatments will terminate a pregnancy? When the fetus is clearly not viable and will likely never become viable due to the imminent death of the mother, is it acceptable to terminate the pregnancy? Without treatment, neither can survive. With treatment, one can survive. Clearly, the answer here is "Yes".

Is it acceptable for a woman to use emergency contraception to prevent an egg from being released and fertilized following a rape? The moral answer here is, again, yes.

Is it acceptable for a woman to use an emergency contraceptive that may also function as an abortifacient following a rape? Yes again.

Is it acceptable for a woman to have a hormonal or surgical abortion in the weeks following a rape? Again, yes. There's no serious argument to be made on any of these points.

With "personhood" laws, the answer in every one of these is "No". To even bring them close to the public consensus would require exceptions so broad as to allow anyone who requested one, and at that point, it's nothing but harassment.

Go back to the first case. The people who should be making this decision are the patient and her doctor. The government has ZERO authority to prohibit this decision. If anything, they should be telling the doctor that in this case, he should err on the side of his patient's survival, rather than considering the moral implications of destroying a fetus that will never live.

Virtually all of the ~1% of all abortions that are conducted after 9 weeks gestational age are of this type, by the way, where either the patient or the fetus is incapable of survival

No, I'm sorry, but decent human beings must recognize that "Personhood" endangers lives. It's already killed a hell of a lot of people around the world. The pragmatic "viability" standard creates the fewest moral issues.

[leadarrows]

You always use the example of times it might be the only choice to prove it should all be OK. That's not how REAL works.

Most abortions are to avoid the responsibility of foolishness. The times when it must be done is not an excuse for open season on killing children.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by leadarrows

Most abortions are to avoid the responsibility of foolishness. The times when it must be done is not an excuse for open season on killing children.

excellent observation!!!

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by leadarrows

You always use the example of times it might be the only choice to prove it should all be OK. That's not how REAL works.

Let's start with those circumstances. To prohibit abortion in general but allow it on a case-by-case basis, we would force patients and doctors to either obtain a court order to allow it, or claim an affirmative defense to criminal charges for having conducted one. Every miscarriage would have to be treated as a potential homicide. What interest does society have in forcing victims and those suffering a potentially life-threatening condition to endure a trial?

None. This is not society's decision. This decision should be made by the patient and her doctor. Society doesn't get a say until the fetus is viable, which is ~70 to 90 days after virtually all elective abortions are conducted.

Most abortions are to avoid the responsibility of foolishness. The times when it must be done is not an excuse for open season on killing children.

Most STDs are cured to avoid the responsibility of foolishness. By your argument, STDs should not be cured.

[YelloJeep]

Originally Posted by rivalarrival

Most STDs are cured to avoid the responsibility of foolishness. By your argument, STDs should not be cured.

Treating a disease is totally different than killing a fetus. Your comparison is ridiculous.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by YelloJeep

Treating a disease is totally different than killing a fetus. Your comparison is ridiculous.

It's supposed to be. It shows how ridiculous the initial argument actually is.

[YelloJeep]

Originally Posted by rivalarrival

It's supposed to be. It shows how ridiculous the initial argument actually is.

I don't think so. You are trying to treat the two as being the same and they simply are not. Arguing in the favor of life is not ridiculous.

Also, I am willing to bet that getting a VD treated is not as "quick and easy" as getting an abortion.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by YelloJeep

I don't think so. You are trying to treat the two as being the same and they simply are not. Arguing in the favor of life is not ridiculous.

Also, I am willing to bet that getting a VD treated is not as "quick and easy" as getting an abortion.

Depends on the disease and the type of abortion. A penicillin shot aches for a couple days, that's about it. (No, I've never had VD. They stabbed everyone in my basic training flight after someone brought some bug or another with them from home. Incidentally, 60 guys marching, each with the same limp, is hilarious.)

Arguing in favor of compelling a woman to raise an unwanted child, rather than stopping an early, unintended pregnancy long before the fetus could ever be rationally considered a person, is ridiculous.