Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How fortunate that we do not rely solely upon narrow scientific descriptions to frame our attitudes and our laws towards murder.
It's no different than if someone dies because the kidney match decided not to donate. And sometimes, abortion is done as a mercy.Our laws have legalized the killing of another human being without trial or even basic tribunal.
I meant in regards to the law. A woman choosing for herself that she won't drink or smoke during pregnancy is a pro-choice action. The pro-life position would be to treat it as child abuse, or murder if it results in miscarriage.
It's wonderful that you offer to help them, by the way.
What a country, in which people actually still want this in the 21st century. Thank goodness it will never happen. Women would never go in for medical care after miscarriages.
Not a valid argument
The life in the mother's womb is a distinct human being.
And the fetus by determination of embyologists is at conception a distinct human being.
So applying your definition abortion is the termination and expelling of a human being.
More precisely abortion kills a distinct human being in the womb.
So is a person who needs a kidney. The comparison is quite obviously being made between the fetus and an organ recipient, not between the fetus and the organ. You have not addressed his argument, much less invalidated it.Not a valid argument.
The life in the mother's womb is a distinct human being.
Just for clarification, are you using "human being" to mean "legal person" or "homo sapiens?"More precisely abortion kills a distinct human being in the womb.
Why are there so many people who think that abortion became legal for the first time in 1973? Seriously? I don't mean to single you out, but just a general message: We're on the Internet. There's no excuse.
Most of the humans over the past few hundreds of thousands of years (where did "two thousand" come from?) didn't have the luxury of spare time and resources to fret over fetuses. That is the new concept. Not abortion. Still today, there are some societies that practice infanticide because they have to prioritize the laborers' lives when times get tough.
Still an incomplete picture. This is just U.S. history. A speck on the radar. I spoke of all of human history. I'm still wondering what the significance of "two thousand years" was, though that wasn't one of your posts.Until about the middle of the 19th century abortion was illegal after movement of the developing human life. Called the quickening. Before that point aborting was considered a misdemeanor offense.
In the 19th century abortion laws tightened to conception as medical science advanced. So all those state laws in the late 19th century were due to better scientific information.
Before, during, and after, actually. Abortion was legal in the U.S. when it came into existence...what point are you trying to make here?
Still an incomplete picture. This is just U.S. history. A speck on the radar. I spoke of all of human history. I'm still wondering what the significance of "two thousand years" was, though that wasn't one of your posts.
I would strongly disagree about the role of science in abortion bans. It had much more to do with Victorian-era moral panic. The Comstock Law is a prime example.
You're right, it's not a good enough reason on its own. That's why I would only use that argument with a pro-life person, in the hopes that it would sway them. And it does work for some of them.
Good thing I don't live in a theocracy, then. Not relevant to me or my rights. My body is my own.
Oy vey, no. We're talking about all of human history. Or we could even just limit it to 19th century, if you want. For women, sex wasn't divided into clear-cut rape and freely-consenting sex. Reality was: get hitched to whoever will have you, even if he's the town drunkard, or join the nunnery. Sometimes without the latter option being offered at all. Or, you could run away and become a prostitute, which I hope you'll agree isn't exactly a freely-chosen option in such a situation. Options #1 and #3 more often than not led to sexual encounters and pregnancies that they would not have chosen otherwise.
And no, the average 1890s women did not get "a sex ed class or two."Some girls in the U.S. now don't even get that. Try having zero knowledge of sexuality and then being brutally violated by your semi-arranged husband on your wedding night. And then bearing his kids for the next 20 years without any say in the matter.
Oh the Ipsie dixit game! I love this game! Try this one. Name any instance in which a second parties right to life trumps bodily integrity.
Cool! Let us know when you get the SCOTUS to agree.
So you claim. Over and over. Yet for some reason no one has presented the peer reviewed science to a court to have Roe V Wade overturned. It is almost as if your misrepresentation of science does not hold up in a court of law.
Nope, still not the definition no matter how much you attempt to supplant the outcome with the actual meaning.
So is a person who needs a kidney. The comparison is quite obviously being made between the fetus and an organ recipient, not between the fetus and the organ. You have not addressed his argument, much less invalidated it.
Just for clarification, are you using "human being" to mean "legal person" or "homo sapiens?"
You are in error blurring the lines. If a woman has an involuntary miscarriage no one usually knows about it. If she aborts there is an abortionist involved.
That is why the focus of law enforcement is on the providers.
There will be illegal providers if so many women as you say seek abortions. Arrest and shut down illegal providers and see how willing people are to have abortions.
.
But you do agree we are dealing with killing what science determines is a human being?
Rubbish.
A woman falls pregnant. Usual behaviour is to tell family, friends, work colleagues. She loses the pregnancy. Tells all those people she has unfortunately suffered a miscarriage.
Under your warped proposed law, a 'human being' has died suddenly. Your bizarre law would require that the death be investigated. The woman becomes a suspect.
I would see these events as being likely to being very common.
And cruel.
Good grief.
What do you think happened in the past? That illegal abortion providers operated freely?
They were arrested and prosecuted! And yet, women continued to procure abortions in their millions. Why do you think it would be any different if we returned to that draconian era?
You simply refuse to face reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?