That's ridiculous. Any baby that has been birthed by the mother and is then intentionally terminated has been murdered. It's the same as if a person shoots and kills another person with an intent to kill barring any self defense claim. The discussion so far has been focused on in vitro termination of a fetus at various stages of its development prior to birth.
There is plenty of room for disagreement on this topic, but let's at least get our facts right, @mchammer and @bystander. The start of pregnancy (called "gestation") is universally defined as the first day of a woman's last period. For example, this comes from the Cleveland Clinic: According to the same link, a heartbeat can normally be detected at around 6 weeks of pregnancy: Thus, the time between missing a period (4 weeks) and a detectable heartbeat (6 weeks) is 2 weeks -- just like AOC said. Many women have irregular cycles, so being 2 weeks late is a regular occurrence. I don't know why anyone bothers debating this topic beyond this point. You either believe a fetus at a particular age is a human life, or you don't. That factor completely drives the decision, and no amount of debate or discussion will ever change anyone's mind. People talk about the abortion debate as if they have THE answer. But every conceivable (pun intended) definition of the start of life is inherently arbitrary. I think we can all agree that a widely diffused assortment of carbon, oxygen, etc. is not life. Over the course of years, those atoms will combine into chemicals, get ingested into a body, form an egg and a sperm that unite, and then grow as a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, which then passes out of the womb, begins to breath on its own, eat solid food, walk, etc. -- and eventually grow into an adult who can hold down a steady job (or so the parents hope). The assortment of atoms is clearly not a life, and the fully grown adult clearly is a life. Somewhere along this continuum, a transition occurs. Stating when that transition occurs is inherently arbitrary. In fact, it is arbitrary to insist that there be a single point in time where the transition happens. It is only natural that people want to believe that one instant there is not a life, and then POOF, there is a life. That's what drives people to attach meaning to definable moments such as conception, viability, or birth. But I don't see any compelling reason that this has to be so. I personally (and, admittedly, arbitrarily) believe that: until the point of conception, there is no life at all; at the moment of birth, there is complete life; and in between, there is growing quantity and quality of factors that are part of the overall picture of what life is. Thus, in my not so humble opinion, abortion should be permitted more freely in the early phases, and less freely in later stages. The fact that this is entirely arbitrary doesn't bother me in the slightest.
As usual, when I saw the notification that you had quoted me my gut thought was, "****, what did I get wrong this time?" Lol. I can't take issue with this. It is true. One's definition of when life begins certainly has a degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity to it. One can draw the line at the heartbeat, but arguments can be made that life begins both sooner (at conception) or later (at viability). One could even go full Monty Python and take the "Every Sperm is Sacred" approach and argue that life begins even before conception. I think that's pretty absurd, but the argument can be made. Having said that, I often hear the arbitrariness of drawing the line as a reason not to have a line, and that's absurd. (For Roe defenders, it's particularly silly, because the entire opinion is based on someone drawing arbitrary lines.) Legislating is all about drawing lines when there's a spectrum. If the speed limit is 70 mph, does that mean 69 is absolutely safe and that 71 is absolutely dangerous? No, it means the public authorities and representatives of the people have, after considering the merits, drawn the line at 70 mph. And of course, there are countless examples of this. A 21 year old can buy booze. Does that mean a 20 year old is totally immature and that a 22 year old is totally mature? No. It means our public officials have decided a line should be drawn somewhere and drew it. Well, there isn't a constitutional reason why that can't be done on abortion.
The "irresistible urge" justification or excuse for irresponsible sex could have a very major unintended consequence if we actually take it seriously. Specifically, it becomes very hard to justify prosecuting someone for rape if the urge is irresistible. You're prosecuting him for something he can't help. Frankly, the entire offense falls apart and becomes constitutionally difficult to sustain.
I will get into trouble for this, but the difference between rape and consensual sex is how good or how convincing of a bullshitter is the man.
Sometimes this is true, but plenty of ******* guys do rape people. However, if we consider people to not be responsible for controlling their sexual urges, I don't see how we can judge rapists.
That is silly. Your "different perspective" is one that supports killing/murdering unborn babies. You are not being called out for having a different perspective. You are being called out for supporting the murder/killing of unborn babies. No matter what percentage of the country supports the position, it is still killing/murdering unborn babies. The facts aren't determined by polls. Own your positions. Don't try to hide them with terms like "pro choice", "white adjacent", "equity", and "justice involved individuals".
Then what is fetal viability? If you don't kill it, it is viable. Is that an argument for or against abortion? Does that "innocence" bother you? Does it really make the womb as a vessel more important, or just point out the importance as opposed to saying something like "pro choice" to hide the truth of what is actually happening?
I think BS can take on different forms. Obviously, you can tell a woman overt lies, which can be effective, but of course, is risky. A woman who has her head screwed on straight doesn't have to be BS'd this way, and it's not likely to be effective on her anyway. This is something guys pull on stupid and/or immature chicks. However, you can also BS by diversion. This is when a girl asks you a question and you know that telling the direct truth will shoot you down or at least put you in jeopardy because you don't know what she wants or expects to hear. Accordingly, you give an answer that is accurate (so you can't be called a liar if caught) but unresponsive to the question while seeming responsive enough to satisfy her agenda in asking it and get her to move onto something else. Personally, I've never done the former. I have done the latter.
Especially if they've been drinking. 2 things I've learned about women when they're intoxicated: 1) Usually horny 2) Become bi-curious. The straightest women I've ever met become bi-curious when drunk.
Yeah, so, in other aspects of life, when someone does something in the heat of the moment...bad purchase, whatever, murder is not allowed to get one out of it. Wonder why murdering babies is okay to get one out of the fun night of drinking and boinking.
I was referring more to the "arbitrary versus viability" argument. If putting a number of weeks or detecting a heartbeat or using advanced science to see an egg at the exact moment of conception are all at different points, and every other checkpoint in between, then everything is arbitrary and everything is viable. Every fetus is innocent because there isn't much of an opportunity to get away with wrongdoing in there. I don't think (at least I don't hope) that there's anyone on this board would advocate forcing someone to "see how it goes" with an ectopic pregnancy rather than abort. But that's not the problem for pro-life individuals. So, in an attempt to avoid shame, pretty much any woman can lie and give a reason other than "birth control" for getting an abortion. I knew a couple that held off on aborting until the 17th week of an tube pregnancy because they thought God would take care of everything... until the mom was septic and in kidney failure. Like I said in my other post, you can shame away all you want. Ring handbells, follow women around and call them sluts, tell them they're going to hell, etc. I'd never advocate anyone I got pregnant to have an abortion. It's the legality issues that I question.
I hear you. I also believe it to be a weak argument to use a small number of “dangerous” pregnancies to determine rules/laws governing abortions. It’s okay to state exceptions in the law.
There are 10x as many ectopic pregnancies in a year as there are drunk driving deaths. But, my issue isn't the quantity, it's the enforcement of the exceptions rather than just allowing someone access to the abortion. I would have a big issue with a legal exception stating "a doctor must perform so-and-so procedure to determine..."
Damn, my instincts are good. I knew there was a slimy pervert in you somewhere. Lol. I assume that during this period of debauchery, you at least adhered to and respected the 2 balls, 4 walls rule. Or are my instincts not quite that good?
All I'm going to say is that the **** that went on there after closing would have made the Romans blush.
