21 minutes ago, Procus said:

 

And this means what exactly? Because it's the first one that pops up it must be accurate?

That image comes from a playful pregnancy tracker app aimed at informing pregnant women about their fetus. Not exactly NEJM and clearly anthropomorphized.  Plus if that's the prompt you used to look up those images there are actual pictures of 19 and 20 week old fetuses a few lines down you could have used if your goal was accuracy. 

But it wasn't. As always.

45 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

And this means what exactly? Because it's the first one that pops up it must be accurate?

That image comes from a playful pregnancy tracker app aimed at informing pregnant women about their fetus. Not exactly NEJM and clearly anthropomorphized.  Plus if that's the prompt you used to look up those images there are actual pictures of 19 and 20 week old fetuses a few lines down you could have used if your goal was accuracy. 

But it wasn't. As always.

Oh, you're a bore.  Look at the photo you posted.  Look at the other photos in the graphic.  I guess that's inhuman enough for you to be callous about this.

Abortion is a serious decision.  That fetus will feel intense pain and suffering if the pregnancy is aborted, and of course will never get to experience life outside the womb.

4 hours ago, caesar said:

No, your slippery slope is insane.   No one is trying to justify "any killing" of just average others.  We are talking about things physically connected to a woman and inside her - who requires that women to grow and be eventually (maybe) be born (almost parasitic like).  The normal rules don't apply and never have in that situation.  

You can say its life -- you can say its immoral.  I say, it makes logical sense in many situations.  1. rape  2. incest  3.  poverty  4.  incompetence  5.  too young  6. not fit to be a parent   7.  hopelessly diseased and/or deformed   8. not right for the mother's situation for whatever reason   9. etc. etc.

You don't like it.  It makes you feel bad.  It goes against your religion (superstition) - so you think.     Who cares.  Not your business.   Don't have your own abortion then -- don't worry so much about others.  We fetuses don't need your help.  Thanks anyway.    You are such a good person though -- here's a pat on your back.  You are very special.

The entire purpose of a state is definitely NOT ensuring every pregnant woman is forced to carry to term. That's insane.   And we do have laws about abortion (to regulate it - not ban it, like TX does).       But good luck in your candy cane and butterfly dream world of the state protecting every innocent person.  Nice fairy tale though.  Those of us who  live in the real world realize abortion is an unfortunate fact of life/necessity even some times.   

 

It’s not a slippery slope. It’s not a straw man. These terms have meaning, and neither of them are applicable to this discussion.

You’ve presented several arguments. These arguments have logical consequences. If laws can justify killing innocent people, and laws are arbitrary whims of men, and the point of life is irrelevant, and laws can be made to extinguish life for reasons including poverty, disease, deformity, and inconvenience, then there are literally tens of millions of people that could be liquidated under these parameters. That YOU have the arbitrary cut off of birth is irrelevant according to your own arguments about the nature of the laws of men.

13 minutes ago, TEW said:

It’s not a slippery slope. It’s not a straw man. These terms have meaning, and neither of them are applicable to this discussion.

You’ve presented several arguments. These arguments have logical consequences. If laws can justify killing innocent people, and laws are arbitrary whims of men, and the point of life is irrelevant, and laws can be made to extinguish life for reasons including poverty, disease, deformity, and inconvenience, then there are literally tens of millions of people that could be liquidated under these parameters. That YOU have the arbitrary cut off of birth is irrelevant according to your own arguments about the nature of the laws of men.

I wonder how many of those dismissive of calls for restrictions on abortions would like it if they were aborted.  Most of us know some pretty impressive people who were adopted, or raised by unwed/unattached moms.

One thing is for sure - whatever side of the argument you are on, the legal justification for the Roe v Wade decision is considerably flawed. 

29 minutes ago, Procus said:

Oh, you're a bore.  Look at the photo you posted.  Look at the other photos in the graphic.  I guess that's inhuman enough for you to be callous about this.

Abortion is a serious decision.  That fetus will feel intense pain and suffering if the pregnancy is aborted, and of course will never get to experience life outside the womb.

If your "side" of this issue is so clearly in the right morally you shouldn't have to make crap up  🤷‍♂️

I'm likely the only one in here who has seen newborns delivered <25 weeks. My lowest weight was 440 grams. Watched several die in front of their parents. Given chest compressions with 2 fingers. I assure you I am far from "callous" when it comes to this subject.

Don't get defensive just because you got caught in a lie.  Again.

34 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

If your "side" of this issue is so clearly in the right morally you shouldn't have to make crap up  🤷‍♂️

I'm likely the only one in here who has seen newborns delivered <25 weeks. My lowest weight was 440 grams. Watched several die in front of their parents. Given chest compressions with 2 fingers. I assure you I am far from "callous" when it comes to this subject.

Don't get defensive just because you got caught in a lie.  Again.

A "lie"?  LMAO.  You just can't handle it when somebody calls you out on your hypocrisy.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

A "lie"?  LMAO.  You just can't handle it when somebody calls you out on your hypocrisy.

Yes a lie. You said "This is a baby at 20 weeks after conception." and posted...not what a 20 week old fetus looks like. How else would you define that?

8 hours ago, Boogyman said:

Is there a reason you are so thirsty to see other peoples wives all the time lately? Just go get laid already, it's not that hard.

😄 standard WU reply where I spent too much time years ago, I’m good 

7 hours ago, Procus said:

I wonder how many of those dismissive of calls for restrictions on abortions would like it if they were aborted.  Most of us know some pretty impressive people who were adopted, or raised by unwed/unattached moms.

One thing is for sure - whatever side of the argument you are on, the legal justification for the Roe v Wade decision is considerably flawed. 

Outliers

and no

10 hours ago, TEW said:

It’s not a slippery slope. It’s not a straw man. These terms have meaning, and neither of them are applicable to this discussion.

You’ve presented several arguments. These arguments have logical consequences. If laws can justify killing innocent people, and laws are arbitrary whims of men, and the point of life is irrelevant, and laws can be made to extinguish life for reasons including poverty, disease, deformity, and inconvenience, then there are literally tens of millions of people that could be liquidated under these parameters. That YOU have the arbitrary cut off of birth is irrelevant according to your own arguments about the nature of the laws of men.

Dude we can make one law (because we want to) that says fetuses up to 6 months can be aborted without question.  What does that have to do with millions of other already born people?   It doesn't change the laws for them.   Your extrapolation to millions of others makes no sense.  It would still be illegal to kill others who were not in someone's womb.   

That's where you are on a "slippery slope".  Or lets call it argumentum ad absurdum .

 

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Outliers

and no

I'm all for retroactive abortions for some folks!

10 hours ago, Procus said:

I wonder how many of those dismissive of calls for restrictions on abortions would like it if they were aborted.  Most of us know some pretty impressive people who were adopted, or raised by unwed/unattached moms.

One thing is for sure - whatever side of the argument you are on, the legal justification for the Roe v Wade decision is considerably flawed. 

It works both ways.  Most of us know some pretty unimpressive people were were adopted or raised by unwed/unattached moms.   The OMG we need to keep every potential human alive is absurd. 

The legal justification is that abortion has and will happen.  So we can either regulate it or make "bans" that simply drive it underground or cause only those who are in poverty to not have abortions.    

Ban it all you want.  I can fly anyone anywhere if I needed to, so it doesn't bother me.  But you are just creating worse conditions for the people who are already poor and suffering.     I would think red states would want to have abortion on demand up to 9 months, so there would be less democrats born.

What gets lost in all these arguments is the lack of personal responsibility and accountability.

Society/government tell people all the time to try and prevent sickness or to live healthier by eating right, exercising....regular check ups...limit alcohol or smoking.   All the new organic products and healthy powders and supplements......get childhood vaccines, get the COVID vaccine.  All these things to avoid developing a condition or sickness down the road that could severely impact your quality of life.  Wellness and prevention.  There are literally thousands of products to do just that.

Everybody knows how women get pregnant.  If children are not wanted, why the hell would you take such an enormous risk when there are numerous birth control methods to prevent it?  

That's personal responsibility.   And it's not the cost of birth control that causes women to ignore it......many poor women have cell phones, internet, cable, they smoke and drink....I've worked with the poor for 20+ years and I've seen it, among other things.  Besides, abortions aren't cheap.  

Morality is interpreted based on one's faith or beliefs and/or what is convenient.  The Bible and the Constitution gets bastardized all the time, twisted to what interpreter wants to get out of it.  So using morality as an argument will be fruitless.  

Women have been convinced that abortion is a "right".  But what many have ignored is that a privilege has also been bestowed on them, long before Roe vs Wade.  Whether you believe it was EVOLUTION or GOD, the privilege was to be able to bear children to provide for the survival of the human race.  That privilege should always come with the responsibility of knowing that, and managing the possibilities.    Society is demanding that we combat privilege blindness when it comes to race, gender, education and economic status among others.....we're expected to not only acknowledge any privilege, but to take RESPONSIBILITY for how that privilege affected our lives.  So why not reproduction privilege?

Abortion will never go away as a dividing issue.  It's a big business and a vote buyer.  Rape, incest and severe issues should not be bunched up with irresponsibility of behavior. 

I think abortion is sin against God and a crime against nature.......and regardless of where you stand morally, it should be reduced as much as possible.  But when each side takes radical and uncompromising positions, it just becomes a political f------- rugby game. 

 

 

  

13 minutes ago, birdman#12 said:

What gets lost in all these arguments is the lack of personal responsibility and accountability.

Society/government tell people all the time to try and prevent sickness or to live healthier by eating right, exercising....regular check ups...limit alcohol or smoking.   All the new organic products and healthy powders and supplements......get childhood vaccines, get the COVID vaccine.  All these things to avoid developing a condition or sickness down the road that could severely impact your quality of life.  Wellness and prevention.  There are literally thousands of products to do just that.

Everybody knows how women get pregnant.  If children are not wanted, why the hell would you take such an enormous risk when there are numerous birth control methods to prevent it?  

That's personal responsibility.   And it's not the cost of birth control that causes women to ignore it......many poor women have cell phones, internet, cable, they smoke and drink....I've worked with the poor for 20+ years and I've seen it, among other things.  Besides, abortions aren't cheap.  

Morality is interpreted based on one's faith or beliefs and/or what is convenient.  The Bible and the Constitution gets bastardized all the time, twisted to what interpreter wants to get out of it.  So using morality as an argument will be fruitless.  

Women have been convinced that abortion is a "right".  But what many have ignored is that a privilege has also been bestowed on them, long before Roe vs Wade.  Whether you believe it was EVOLUTION or GOD, the privilege was to be able to bear children to provide for the survival of the human race.  That privilege should always come with the responsibility of knowing that, and managing the possibilities.    Society is demanding that we combat privilege blindness when it comes to race, gender, education and economic status among others.....we're expected to not only acknowledge any privilege, but to take RESPONSIBILITY for how that privilege affected our lives.  So why not reproduction privilege?

Abortion will never go away as a dividing issue.  It's a big business and a vote buyer.  Rape, incest and severe issues should not be bunched up with irresponsibility of behavior. 

I think abortion is sin against God and a crime against nature.......and regardless of where you stand morally, it should be reduced as much as possible.  But when each side takes radical and uncompromising positions, it just becomes a political f------- rugby game.  

 

Agree that we should behave responsibly with our bodies.  But the truth is that in the heat of passion, sometimes people are not thinking.  It happens.  I'm not for abortion - and I suspect a large chunk of the pro-choice crowd would never have one, but if a woman is going to have an abortion, do it as soon as possible - it's the only humane thing to do.  But better yet, don't get knocked up when you can prevent it, and if you do, there are plenty of eager prospective adoptive parents, most of whom desperately want kids but for whatever reason, are unable to.

5 hours ago, caesar said:

Dude we can make one law (because we want to) that says fetuses up to 6 months can be aborted without question.  What does that have to do with millions of other already born people?   It doesn't change the laws for them.   Your extrapolation to millions of others makes no sense.  It would still be illegal to kill others who were not in someone's womb.   

That's where you are on a "slippery slope".  Or lets call it argumentum ad absurdum .

 

I'm all for retroactive abortions for some folks!

We can make a law for anything. That’s your argument as to why the point of life is irrelevant. So again, we can make a law that people can be aborted 50 years after conception if we wanted.

And no, it’s not a slippery slope. Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, FYI. It’s a completely legitimate form of argument. If you don’t like the potentiality of your own arguments, then make better arguments. As of now, your argument rests on arbitrary whims, and arbitrary whims can be set wherever the arbiter decides.

I also found it interesting that you embraced abortion for eugenics purposes. Why stop at deformity? Why not for people with degenerative conditions? Or high cancer risk? These people will surely place an extreme burden on both their parents and society. But why stop there? We could get rid of the poor metabolism group as well considering how much of a medical burden the fat population is.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

 

Agree that we should behave responsibly with our bodies.  But the truth is that in the heat of passion, sometimes people are not thinking.  It happens.  I'm not for abortion - and I suspect a large chunk of the pro-choice crowd would never have one, but if a woman is going to have an abortion, do it as soon as possible - it's the only humane thing to do.  But better yet, don't get knocked up when you can prevent it, and if you do, there are plenty of eager prospective adoptive parents, most of whom desperately want kids but for whatever reason, are unable to.

The heat of passion obviously implies an unexpected encounter......but as I said, there are a number of methods to prevent it.  

It's true that it's going to happen, and that's a dangerous thing to not be thinking.  And as you said, do it as soon as possible.....just learn from that experience.

16 hours ago, TEW said:

We can make a law for anything. That’s your argument as to why the point of life is irrelevant. So again, we can make a law that people can be aborted 50 years after conception if we wanted.

And no, it’s not a slippery slope. Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, FYI. It’s a completely legitimate form of argument. If you don’t like the potentiality of your own arguments, then make better arguments. As of now, your argument rests on arbitrary whims, and arbitrary whims can be set wherever the arbiter decides.

I also found it interesting that you embraced abortion for eugenics purposes. Why stop at deformity? Why not for people with degenerative conditions? Or high cancer risk? These people will surely place an extreme burden on both their parents and society. But why stop there? We could get rid of the poor metabolism group as well considering how much of a medical burden the fat population is.

So what's your proposal -- just ban abortion completely under all circumstances?    All you do then is F over poor folks who can't fly elsewhere.  

 

I'm not confident that I am, can be, or even should be the self-appointed infallible arbiter of the reproductive rights of others. I recognize that a State may have an general interest in preserving the life of an unborn child who may be viable outside the womb. I also recognize that every person has a right to privacy as implicitly stated at several points in our Constitution, including under the mantle of "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. I recognize the important question of when "personhood" is achieved by a developing fetus vs. an individual who has already been born and is therefore wholly recognized as a person under the law. The circumstances creates a simultaneous dual conflict of interests between the potential rights of a fetus v. the mother's rights and power over her body, and the State's power  v. the mother's right to privacy and rights and power over her body. 

These competing interests require a balanced resolution. I think Roe v. Wade offers that in allowing States to regulate abortions but limiting that authority according to a reasonable fetal developmental timeline. Personally, and based on my morality, I would advise against an abortion in most instances, especially as the term of pregnancy grows later, but I don't think it's properly within my, our, or the State's power to ban the procedure completely in all instances. 

In short, the status quo is uncomfortably acceptable to me. 

On 9/10/2021 at 9:05 AM, caesar said:

So what's your proposal -- just ban abortion completely under all circumstances?    All you do then is F over poor folks who can't fly elsewhere.  

Democrats increased minimum wage schemes, and covid mandates, f over poor folks, and you're fine with it.  You don't care about poor folks, you just care that they vote Democrat, and that it be as cheap and easy as possible for them to kill their children.

43 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I'm not confident that I am, can be, or even should be the self-appointed infallible arbiter of the reproductive rights of others. I recognize that a State may have an general interest in preserving the life of an unborn child who may be viable outside the womb. I also recognize that every person has a right to privacy as implicitly stated at several points in our Constitution, including under the mantle of "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. I recognize the important question of when "personhood" is achieved by a developing fetus vs. an individual who has already been born and is therefore wholly recognized as a person under the law. The circumstances creates a simultaneous dual conflict of interests between the potential rights of a fetus v. the mother's rights and power over her body, and the State's power  v. the mother's right to privacy and rights and power over her body. 

These competing interests require a balanced resolution. I think Roe v. Wade offers that in allowing States to regulate abortions but limiting that authority according to a reasonable fetal developmental timeline. Personally, and based on my morality, I would advise against an abortion in most instances, especially as the term of pregnancy grows later, but I don't think it's properly within my, our, or the State's power to ban the procedure completely in all instances. 

In short, the status quo is uncomfortably acceptable to me. 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Agreed on all points.

On 9/13/2021 at 10:27 AM, The_Omega said:

Democrats increased minimum wage schemes, and covid mandates, f over poor folks, and you're fine with it.  You don't care about poor folks, you just care that they vote Democrat, and that it be as cheap and easy as possible for them to kill their children.

You didn't answer the question -- which was:  So what's your proposal -- just ban abortion completely under all circumstances?   

Clearly banning abortion is like prohibition of alcohol.  Won't work and is stupid.

On 9/13/2021 at 10:22 AM, PoconoDon said:

I'm not confident that I am, can be, or even should be the self-appointed infallible arbiter of the reproductive rights of others. I recognize that a State may have an general interest in preserving the life of an unborn child who may be viable outside the womb. I also recognize that every person has a right to privacy as implicitly stated at several points in our Constitution, including under the mantle of "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. I recognize the important question of when "personhood" is achieved by a developing fetus vs. an individual who has already been born and is therefore wholly recognized as a person under the law. The circumstances creates a simultaneous dual conflict of interests between the potential rights of a fetus v. the mother's rights and power over her body, and the State's power  v. the mother's right to privacy and rights and power over her body. 

These competing interests require a balanced resolution. I think Roe v. Wade offers that in allowing States to regulate abortions but limiting that authority according to a reasonable fetal developmental timeline. Personally, and based on my morality, I would advise against an abortion in most instances, especially as the term of pregnancy grows later, but I don't think it's properly within my, our, or the State's power to ban the procedure completely in all instances. 

In short, the status quo is uncomfortably acceptable to me. 

Well said.  And banning it won't stop it.  Abortions have existed as long as humans have been pregnant.  So the clear and logical solution is to regulate it so it is not done up until 8 months and 29 days.  As you point out, Roe does that - even if imperfectly.  

On 9/13/2021 at 8:50 AM, Dave Moss said:

 

Trying to cover her Catholic ass.   I don't buy it.

On 9/13/2021 at 10:27 AM, The_Omega said:

Democrats increased minimum wage schemes, and covid mandates, f over poor folks, and you're fine with it.  You don't care about poor folks, you just care that they vote Democrat, and that it be as cheap and easy as possible for them to kill their children.

Why are you arguing with a 12 year old kid?

On 9/13/2021 at 10:27 AM, The_Omega said:

Democrats increased minimum wage schemes, and covid mandates, f over poor folks, and you're fine with it.  You don't care about poor folks, you just care that they vote Democrat, and that it be as cheap and easy as possible for them to kill their children.

Seriously, you dont' see abortion bans as only impacting poor folks.  What other dems (not me) may do or say about poor people is not the issue.   We are talking about abortion.   Abortion restrictions generally affect those who can't travel elsewhere (ie. the poor).   So what's the point -- more people being born into poverty or single harried mothers?  Is that the goal?    Cause ain't no rich Texas 15 year oil company executive daughter having her kid in highschool.   Hell, Ted Cruz would fly his daughter to Mexico if he had to to get her an abotion.

Abortion laws are "feel good" legislation.  Its like -- look what I'm for and what I did -- I'm holier than thou.   But in the end, it just screws over people who can't afford to have kids in the first place.