|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 18 2024 10:50 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 17 2024 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
I think words and actions are distinct things. Pandering to 50% of thr population that are staunch supporters of human right regression (abortion rights for example) does not mean one is a fascist. It means he understands that 50% of the people will vote for you if you oppose abortion. That's half the population simply not being ready to go ahead with extending human rights. It's very sad that it's such a huge % of people, as well as them latching on to the immigration issue, but calling this fascism is just not where I'm seeing it go at the moment. The majority of Americans supports abortion rights. And for women that majority is even bigger. It's not 50%, get this number out of your head. Here's a gallup poll, look at the numbers. "According to Gallup's May 2024 update on Americans' abortion views, 35% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 50% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 12% say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.” " 35% want all abortion to be legal and 50% want it to be legal under some circumstances. That's 85% total. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx My dude you seem to be arguing against yourself: A - 35% want all abortion to be legal B - 50% want abortion to be legal under certain circumstances C - 12% illegal in all circumstances to sum it up: A - deranged leftists B - normal people C - deranged right-wingers Literally from your own link you can see that deranged left wingers are outnumbering deranged right wingers almost 3 to 1. To make it more fun your call "my body my choice" was reversed when pandemic hit: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802074/This is something you dont understand. You dont advocate for any freedoms. You merely advocate for anything what your currently aligned side tells you to.
The vast majority of people in A do not think what you have been told. They think that between the mom and the doctor they will make the best decision for that situation. They trust that the doctor will take all the information into account and their hippocratic oath to make that decision.
They do understand that not every situation will be perfect, but they also understand that bans do not stop abortions, heck most research shows they increase because illegal ones have absolutely no barriers. They are also extraordinarily dangerous. Now you might not care about a mom who is willing to get an abortion. But people in A believe that there are moms that are super scared (sometimes with very religious parents or are themselves and can't deal with the shame), and if they had a doctor to talk to they wouldn't go through with it, or if they were going to anyway they would have a chance at redemption.
And it is also not like these women are completely wrong. If they are super poor and drug addicted what life can they provide for that child? If they are disowned from their community and family how about then? People under massive stress, with crazy hormones running through their bodies are not always making the most rational decisions. Wanting to do this does not make some one such a terrible person that they are not redeemable and should die.
If someone really wanted to reduce abortions, they should make it safe for moms to have their children and raise them successfully and have real positive options for babies they can't take care of. That does not exist in the US (and lots of other places). They would also do sex ed, it does not increase sex and it does DRAMATICALLY reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
It is no fluke that basically everywhere with the above has less abortions and the places with the bans no sex ed only absence talk are the opposite.
|
On November 18 2024 06:38 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 05:23 oBlade wrote:
Wonderful leadership, the president who thinks he is the next FDR is going to cement his legacy as such by entering the US into a world war. Note he waited until he visited the Amazon so he wouldn't get caught in an escalating nuclear exchange in the US and Russia. The US isn't even involved in the fighting. Chill out, Komrade.
Today you learned what the word "escalating" means, congratulations!
On November 18 2024 10:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 10:50 Razyda wrote:On November 18 2024 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 17 2024 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
I think words and actions are distinct things. Pandering to 50% of thr population that are staunch supporters of human right regression (abortion rights for example) does not mean one is a fascist. It means he understands that 50% of the people will vote for you if you oppose abortion. That's half the population simply not being ready to go ahead with extending human rights. It's very sad that it's such a huge % of people, as well as them latching on to the immigration issue, but calling this fascism is just not where I'm seeing it go at the moment. The majority of Americans supports abortion rights. And for women that majority is even bigger. It's not 50%, get this number out of your head. Here's a gallup poll, look at the numbers. "According to Gallup's May 2024 update on Americans' abortion views, 35% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 50% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 12% say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.” " 35% want all abortion to be legal and 50% want it to be legal under some circumstances. That's 85% total. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx My dude you seem to be arguing against yourself: A - 35% want all abortion to be legal B - 50% want abortion to be legal under certain circumstances C - 12% illegal in all circumstances to sum it up: A - deranged leftists B - normal people C - deranged right-wingers Literally from your own link you can see that deranged left wingers are outnumbering deranged right wingers almost 3 to 1. To make it more fun your call "my body my choice" was reversed when pandemic hit: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802074/This is something you dont understand. You dont advocate for any freedoms. You merely advocate for anything what your currently aligned side tells you to. I think you fail to understand what "deranged" and "freedom" mean. The side that advocated for spreading deadly disease is also the same side that's visiting their dangerous viewpoint in the political spectrum, as well. Your freedoms end where someone else's begin. There is no "right" to be a willing vector for disease that's being infringed upon. On the other side though, if you don't want to get an abortion, you're free to not get one.
There is no right not to get sick.
A right to life is pretty well understood which is why abortion certainly affects viable fetuses directly.
|
On November 18 2024 11:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 10:50 Razyda wrote:On November 18 2024 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 17 2024 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
I think words and actions are distinct things. Pandering to 50% of thr population that are staunch supporters of human right regression (abortion rights for example) does not mean one is a fascist. It means he understands that 50% of the people will vote for you if you oppose abortion. That's half the population simply not being ready to go ahead with extending human rights. It's very sad that it's such a huge % of people, as well as them latching on to the immigration issue, but calling this fascism is just not where I'm seeing it go at the moment. The majority of Americans supports abortion rights. And for women that majority is even bigger. It's not 50%, get this number out of your head. Here's a gallup poll, look at the numbers. "According to Gallup's May 2024 update on Americans' abortion views, 35% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 50% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 12% say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.” " 35% want all abortion to be legal and 50% want it to be legal under some circumstances. That's 85% total. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx My dude you seem to be arguing against yourself: A - 35% want all abortion to be legal B - 50% want abortion to be legal under certain circumstances C - 12% illegal in all circumstances to sum it up: A - deranged leftists B - normal people C - deranged right-wingers Literally from your own link you can see that deranged left wingers are outnumbering deranged right wingers almost 3 to 1. To make it more fun your call "my body my choice" was reversed when pandemic hit: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802074/This is something you dont understand. You dont advocate for any freedoms. You merely advocate for anything what your currently aligned side tells you to. People who support all abortion are the only ones who fully understand the situation. When there is some limitation on abortion, there will always be women who suffer and there will be no one who benefits. Full abortion rights are not going to result in women aborting in month nine, that's a fearmongering myth. Far from it, giving all women full access is going to help them speak to doctors more openly, and doctors are our best chance at helping women choose the best option. We don't have anything better than doctors. There are of course always better doctors and worse doctors, and there will be cases of malpractice. But you can say that about anything literally. Doctors are not perfect angels either, there's always a bad apple. The important point is that open discussion with doctors allows women to choose the best option for themselves, and no matter what they choose they're more likely to be (relatively) more at peace with their choice. Women don't WANT to abort their child (in case you haven't noticed). It's a last resort for the vast majority of them and it's a tragedy for all of them.
"Women don't want to abort their child..." You know the large majority of abortions are elective, right? By definition they are having an abortion because they want one.
3rd trimester abortions are rare but they are not zero. It's about 1% and google tells me there were 1 million abortions last year in the US, so roughly 10,000 were in the 3rd trimester. You acknowledge that there's always some bad apples. Your position is that if there is a doctor providing abortion on demand in the 3rd trimester on humans capable of living outside the womb, it's important that they don't face any legal repercussions.
|
What conservatives indeed lack in their fundamental understanding of society is not that abortion should be legal or not, because that's an insane infringement of human rights. But instead it's what Billyboy touched upon and that is elevating society as a whole insofar that women are provided with the necessary social net (family, friends, institutions) so that if they become pregnant, the chance of having to abort due to it not being convenient becomes around zero. This way, you drastically lower abortions without telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
It's disgusting that people feel like they can restrict what women are able to do. The fact that women can make a child is the miracle, not the child itself. Children are literal miracles as well though, but that's only after they're born (or viable after birth). A bunch of cells or primirdial organs is pretty much meh imo. We can do that in a lab.
|
On November 18 2024 19:21 Uldridge wrote:
What conservatives indeed lack in their fundamental understanding of society is not that abortion should be legal or not, because that's an insane infringement of human rights. But instead it's what Billyboy touched upon and that is elevating society as a whole insofar that women are provided with the necessary social net (family, friends, institutions) so that if they become pregnant, the chance of having to abort due to it not being convenient becomes around zero. This way, you drastically lower abortions without telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
It's disgusting that people feel like they can restrict what women are able to do. The fact that women can make a child is the miracle, not the child itself. Children are literal miracles as well though, but that's only after they're born (or viable after birth). A bunch of cells or primirdial organs is pretty much meh imo. We can do that in a lab. That is the fundamental issue with the pro-life movement. They are not pro life, they are pro forced birth. If they were pro life they would care about the children after they left the womb
|
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law?
|
On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law?
Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law?
|
Norway28669 Posts
I think both those answers are probably colored by the opinion they want to support, rather than what they actually mean, tbh.
I have a hard time thinking that 12% of americans actually want abortions to be illegal for women even when the fetus is not viable and when the life of the mother is at great risk. Surely people prefer only the fetus dying over both the fetus and the mom dying - and I'm guessing that if you polled specifically 'should abortions be legal in situations where the child would certainly die and the mother would be at great risk of dying', then I'm guessing the number becomes lower.
Likewise I think if you ask 'should women be allowed to kill their entirely viable and healthy fetus the day before they are expected to give birth just because they just don't feel like having a kid' then you're not going to get 35% of people answering yes to that question.
Technically, you could argue that both of these options are covered by 'no abortions in any circumstance' and 'no limits to abortion', but I don't think people have those precise scenarios in mind when they're answering the question. The 'no limits' crowd doesn't want limits because they a) trust that the people frivolously aborting their healthy fetus a day before giving birth barely if at all exist (and perhaps also think that if they do, they're not viable mothers even if the fetus is a viable baby) and b) because any limits can be abused by people wanting to restrict a 'genuine' need for abortion (fetus not being viable/estimated to die after 3 weeks of pain). The 'no exceptions' crowd I imagine is much the same - accepting exceptions means the line becomes blurred and they prefer the simplicity - but if you actually present them with a case where the mother and child both died because she wasn't allowed to have an abortion, I think they'll probably agree that in isolation, it would be better if that mother was allowed to abort her fetus. Basically - I think they're saying no exceptions because they don't think it's possible to isolate the incidents where the mother would die without giving others access to abortion as well, and those cases become broken eggs in their no-abortion omelette.
|
On November 18 2024 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think both those answers are probably colored by the opinion they want to support, rather than what they actually mean, tbh.
I have a hard time thinking that 12% of americans actually want abortions to be illegal for women even when the fetus is not viable and when the life of the mother is at great risk. Surely people prefer only the fetus dying over both the fetus and the mom dying - and I'm guessing that if you polled specifically 'should abortions be legal in situations where the child would certainly die and the mother would be at great risk of dying', then I'm guessing the number becomes lower.
Likewise I think if you ask 'should women be allowed to kill their entirely viable and healthy fetus the day before they are expected to give birth just because they just don't feel like having a kid' then you're not going to get 35% of people answering yes to that question.
Technically, you could argue that both of these options are covered by 'no abortions in any circumstance' and 'no limits to abortion', but I don't think people have those precise scenarios in mind when they're answering the question. The 'no limits' crowd doesn't want limits because they a) trust that the people frivolously aborting their healthy fetus a day before giving birth barely if at all exist (and perhaps also think that if they do, they're not viable mothers even if the fetus is a viable baby) and b) because any limits can be abused by people wanting to restrict a 'genuine' need for abortion (fetus not being viable/estimated to die after 3 weeks of pain). The 'no exceptions' crowd I imagine is much the same - accepting exceptions means the line becomes blurred and they prefer the simplicity - but if you actually present them with a case where the mother and child both died because she wasn't allowed to have an abortion, I think they'll probably agree that in isolation, it would be better if that mother was allowed to abort her fetus. Basically - I think they're saying no exceptions because they don't think it's possible to isolate the incidents where the mother would die without giving others access to abortion as well, and those cases become broken eggs in their no-abortion omelette.
Eh.. I agree with you that those percentages are influenced by reading into the question and interpreting it how they please but there's also a % that actually does believe those things that you say, e.g. forcing a woman to deliver a non-viable fetus or being able to terminate a fetus the day before it's expected date of delivery. Maybe it's like 10% instead of 35% of the country that believe in infanticide on demand of the mother. It's a significant enough amount of people that Kamala Harris repeatedly dodged the question "Do you believe in any restrictions on abortion?" over and over again. Similar to how Trump also had to tip-toe to appease the far right and not alienate the majority of the country that believes in a right to abortion.
|
Norway28669 Posts
I'm not saying it's 0% for either, I just think both numbers are lower. If you say 10% instead of 35%, sure, that's plausible - but also significantly lower.
|
|
|
On November 18 2024 19:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think both those answers are probably colored by the opinion they want to support, rather than what they actually mean, tbh.
I have a hard time thinking that 12% of americans actually want abortions to be illegal for women even when the fetus is not viable and when the life of the mother is at great risk. Surely people prefer only the fetus dying over both the fetus and the mom dying - and I'm guessing that if you polled specifically 'should abortions be legal in situations where the child would certainly die and the mother would be at great risk of dying', then I'm guessing the number becomes lower.
Likewise I think if you ask 'should women be allowed to kill their entirely viable and healthy fetus the day before they are expected to give birth just because they just don't feel like having a kid' then you're not going to get 35% of people answering yes to that question.
Technically, you could argue that both of these options are covered by 'no abortions in any circumstance' and 'no limits to abortion', but I don't think people have those precise scenarios in mind when they're answering the question. The 'no limits' crowd doesn't want limits because they a) trust that the people frivolously aborting their healthy fetus a day before giving birth barely if at all exist (and perhaps also think that if they do, they're not viable mothers even if the fetus is a viable baby) and b) because any limits can be abused by people wanting to restrict a 'genuine' need for abortion (fetus not being viable/estimated to die after 3 weeks of pain). The 'no exceptions' crowd I imagine is much the same - accepting exceptions means the line becomes blurred and they prefer the simplicity - but if you actually present them with a case where the mother and child both died because she wasn't allowed to have an abortion, I think they'll probably agree that in isolation, it would be better if that mother was allowed to abort her fetus. Basically - I think they're saying no exceptions because they don't think it's possible to isolate the incidents where the mother would die without giving others access to abortion as well, and those cases become broken eggs in their no-abortion omelette.
See I agree with you on this one. This doesn't really change anything though. I believe it is rather justified to think that proportion (roughly 3:1) of people understanding what this positions mean doesn't really change that much. As for people who don't understand what this positions entail... well, ignorance is not an excuse.
I also agree with Jockmcplop:
On November 18 2024 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 03:15 BlackJack wrote:
Considering the bipartisan support I suspect the intention is to be able to target Pro-Palestinian groups since supporting Israel is the one thing both parties agree on I think when deciding if a bill is good or useful its best to completely ignore the intention behind it and focus on what it could be used for in the worst case.
|
On November 18 2024 20:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not saying it's 0% for either, I just think both numbers are lower. If you say 10% instead of 35%, sure, that's plausible - but also significantly lower.
I think it is very hard to get more than 90% agreement on anything. 10% are just what you get for even the stupidest shit possible. "Are fair elections important for democracy" will only get about 90% agreement, and "I don't trust Kim Jong Un to do the right thing" is on a similar level.
Source: This xkcd comic that has other sources https://xkcd.com/2305/
|
United States42693 Posts
On November 18 2024 20:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not saying it's 0% for either, I just think both numbers are lower. If you say 10% instead of 35%, sure, that's plausible - but also significantly lower.
I disagree. Americans are extremely indoctrinated on this issue. The specifics really don’t matter to a lot of people, you’ll get a reflexive “all abortions are okay” and “no abortions are okay” segment of the population to any question. They’re not considering the scenario, opposing abortion is just a part of their identity.
|
On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law?
The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd.
I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue.
|
On November 18 2024 19:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 11:51 Magic Powers wrote:On November 18 2024 10:50 Razyda wrote:On November 18 2024 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 17 2024 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
I think words and actions are distinct things. Pandering to 50% of thr population that are staunch supporters of human right regression (abortion rights for example) does not mean one is a fascist. It means he understands that 50% of the people will vote for you if you oppose abortion. That's half the population simply not being ready to go ahead with extending human rights. It's very sad that it's such a huge % of people, as well as them latching on to the immigration issue, but calling this fascism is just not where I'm seeing it go at the moment. The majority of Americans supports abortion rights. And for women that majority is even bigger. It's not 50%, get this number out of your head. Here's a gallup poll, look at the numbers. "According to Gallup's May 2024 update on Americans' abortion views, 35% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 50% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 12% say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.” " 35% want all abortion to be legal and 50% want it to be legal under some circumstances. That's 85% total. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx My dude you seem to be arguing against yourself: A - 35% want all abortion to be legal B - 50% want abortion to be legal under certain circumstances C - 12% illegal in all circumstances to sum it up: A - deranged leftists B - normal people C - deranged right-wingers Literally from your own link you can see that deranged left wingers are outnumbering deranged right wingers almost 3 to 1. To make it more fun your call "my body my choice" was reversed when pandemic hit: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802074/This is something you dont understand. You dont advocate for any freedoms. You merely advocate for anything what your currently aligned side tells you to. People who support all abortion are the only ones who fully understand the situation. When there is some limitation on abortion, there will always be women who suffer and there will be no one who benefits. Full abortion rights are not going to result in women aborting in month nine, that's a fearmongering myth. Far from it, giving all women full access is going to help them speak to doctors more openly, and doctors are our best chance at helping women choose the best option. We don't have anything better than doctors. There are of course always better doctors and worse doctors, and there will be cases of malpractice. But you can say that about anything literally. Doctors are not perfect angels either, there's always a bad apple. The important point is that open discussion with doctors allows women to choose the best option for themselves, and no matter what they choose they're more likely to be (relatively) more at peace with their choice. Women don't WANT to abort their child (in case you haven't noticed). It's a last resort for the vast majority of them and it's a tragedy for all of them. "Women don't want to abort their child..." You know the large majority of abortions are elective, right? By definition they are having an abortion because they want one. 3rd trimester abortions are rare but they are not zero. It's about 1% and google tells me there were 1 million abortions last year in the US, so roughly 10,000 were in the 3rd trimester. You acknowledge that there's always some bad apples. Your position is that if there is a doctor providing abortion on demand in the 3rd trimester on humans capable of living outside the womb, it's important that they don't face any legal repercussions.
You're better than this. You should know that women don't want to do an abortion in the vast majority of cases.
|
United States42693 Posts
On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue.
Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name.
The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
|
The pro-life crowd can't find a reasonable number of examples that proves that abortion should be restricted. They always come up with the weirdest fringe examples which don't make any sense at all. That's what they do with transgender sports as well, so they do it with abortion. That's their whole thing.
|
Norway28669 Posts
On November 18 2024 20:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 20:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not saying it's 0% for either, I just think both numbers are lower. If you say 10% instead of 35%, sure, that's plausible - but also significantly lower. I disagree. Americans are extremely indoctrinated on this issue. The specifics really don’t matter to a lot of people, you’ll get a reflexive “all abortions are okay” and “no abortions are okay” segment of the population to any question. They’re not considering the scenario, opposing abortion is just a part of their identity.
That's largely my point. I think that if they actually considered a specific scenario that would be covered by their reflexive answer then there are scenarios that would make some of them go 'oh hm I guess I don't support that'. Fine and understandable if you have less faith in americans.
|
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
A 9 month c-section plain isn't an abortion tho? I mean your arguing against/for people that even accuse pro-choicers of wanting "post birth abortions" and they don't mean putting the child up for adoption by that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
