Abortion

[Martin Hash]

The obvious fallacy of your position defies comprehension. We have legalized abortion. Period. The Law has met The Science.

What do you mean by "The Science"?

Liberty is a made-up concept therefore it has some made up rules, like my liberty extends to where it interferes with your liberty & the due process of law exception. Sometimes the made-up concept of liberty & other made-up concepts conflict so there's an arbitration process involving the judicial system. During the abortion decisions, science, liberty & mysticism were juggled into the laws we use today. Democracy is the only way to change the law, that or civil war.

[heydaralon]

I don't get the debate. Everyone on this forum is pro choice right?

[C-Mag]

I don't get the debate. Everyone on this forum is pro choice right?

The 50 year debate is pretty silly. There can only be one set of circumstances to define when something is living or dead

[Hastur]

I draw the line at week 22. After that a prematurely born child is often saved. I know it can seem arbitrary and cold but abortions can't be stopped so we need to draw a line somewhere. To have to kill a viable baby isn't an acceptable price to me.
As medicine and prenatal care improves the line might have to be moved. I'm a pragmatist. (But I'm a guy, I don't really get a say.)

[SuburbanFarmer]

I draw the line at week 22. After that a prematurely born child is often saved. I know it can seem arbitrary and cold but abortions can't be stopped so we need to draw a line somewhere. To have to kill a viable baby isn't an acceptable price to me.
As medicine and prenatal care improves the line might have to be moved. I'm a pragmatist. (But I'm a guy, I don't really get a say.)

What happens when medical science can guarantee survival of a 2-week old embryo? It's certainly not impossible.

[Hastur]

I draw the line at week 22. After that a prematurely born child is often saved. I know it can seem arbitrary and cold but abortions can't be stopped so we need to draw a line somewhere. To have to kill a viable baby isn't an acceptable price to me.
As medicine and prenatal care improves the line might have to be moved. I'm a pragmatist. (But I'm a guy, I don't really get a say.)

What happens when medical science can guarantee survival of a 2-week old embryo? It's certainly not impossible.

I don't think they can ever guarantee survival of a 2-week old aborted embryo. An embryo in a lab environment or one retrieved by surgery, perhaps, but not an aborted one.

What I can't tolerate is late abortions where the child has to be literally killed after or before the procedure.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I draw the line at week 22. After that a prematurely born child is often saved. I know it can seem arbitrary and cold but abortions can't be stopped so we need to draw a line somewhere. To have to kill a viable baby isn't an acceptable price to me.
As medicine and prenatal care improves the line might have to be moved. I'm a pragmatist. (But I'm a guy, I don't really get a say.)

What happens when medical science can guarantee survival of a 2-week old embryo? It's certainly not impossible.

I don't think they can ever guarantee survival of a 2-week old aborted embryo. An embryo in a lab environment or one retrieved by surgery, perhaps, but not an aborted one.

What I can't tolerate is late abortions where the child has to be literally killed after or before the procedure.

It sounds like your issue is with the means of abortion, not the effect... It's obviously a disgusting thing.

But what, functionally, is the difference between "retrieved by surgery" and "aborted"? Baby is removed from mother, and either dies or does not die.

So, if we could ensure survival for, say, a tenth-week miscarriage, does that move the line beyond which a woman can't stop her pregnancy legally?

And the question is legality. Because forcing women to do it privately leads to whole raft of other issues.

[Hastur]

What happens when medical science can guarantee survival of a 2-week old embryo? It's certainly not impossible.

I don't think they can ever guarantee survival of a 2-week old aborted embryo. An embryo in a lab environment or one retrieved by surgery, perhaps, but not an aborted one.

What I can't tolerate is late abortions where the child has to be literally killed after or before the procedure.

It sounds like your issue is with the means of abortion, not the effect... It's obviously a disgusting thing.

But what, functionally, is the difference between "retrieved by surgery" and "aborted"? Baby is removed from mother, and either dies or does not die.

So, if we could ensure survival for, say, a tenth-week miscarriage, does that move the line beyond which a woman can't stop her pregnancy legally?

And the question is legality. Because forcing women to do it privately leads to whole raft of other issues.

I don't claim logic, only pragmaticism. There has to be a line drawn and there is mine.

[Martin Hash]

If a fetus could be magically transported from a woman's womb to a medical facility, who pays for that? What if it cost $100 million? Let's say a clone can be made from stem cells, and it only cost $1, can The State force a person to provide stem cells? Let's say there was a Star Trek replicator that could make babies by the dozen, must the replicator be used? What if it was used on people without them knowing it? How many angels fit on the head of a pin?

The Courts decide this shit, not amateur moralists.

[Speaker to Animals]

Courts have zero business deciding any of this. This is the role of legislatures, and the duty of "amateur moralists" to find some consensus on how to grapple with difficult moral issues since our votes have consequences in said legislatures.

The only role a court should have is on limiting the infringement of fundamental rights. The only thing they should ever have been doing was limiting the legalization of abortion in some cases, not expanding it.

They didn't even do that with slavery.