That makes no sense because God never said do not Abort. He said you shall not not murder. So is it murder or isn't it? Is murder a right? No. Killing another person isn't a God given right and nor should it be.
If a man rapes his 13-year-old step-daughter or the pregnant girl will die during childbirth or hundreds of other reasons, the MORAL thing to do as society would be to pay for abortion.
it's not a 'person.' it's a fetus or embryo and has no rights. You would save one living infant in a burning building over 1,000 embryos because you know the difference. Stop pretending otherwise. You may try to find ways to justify denying rights of living individuals because you feel emotionally uncomfortable about the subject, but doesn't change the facts.
You are jumping into my post to the OP without even understanding my argument. Personally I don't think you can even argue a fetus has personhood until after it even has the capacity for personhood for which it requires an active brain. And a brain doesn't begin to actually exist until 12 weeks. So I think it is the woman's choice until then and after that point it's more convoluted and harder to define especially as the fetus begins to feel pain and respondbto external stimuli.
Which is the point. It should be guaranteed for any reason, no questions, up to that point because there is no chance that the abortion would be killing a person. The debate should only take place after that date to determine risks and reasons.
Unfortunately, today we see laws made on the basis of what somebody thinks a fetus is. But, they don't include the issues of women's health OR fetal health. We have OB/GYNs who don't know what they are allowed to do in favor of the woman's health, for example. And, there is clearly NO interest in fetal health - as we see in Texas where a woman could not have a toxic fetus removed, where fetal death was certain and if awaited, the woman would likely lose the ability to procreate. She was wealthy and healthy enough to travel to a state that offers OBV/GYN services, and the live there for long enough to become able to travel. Not all Texans can afford that. We also have serious diseases that a person may have, and that may be solved, but not if the survival of the fetus is a legal requirement. An obvious case is cancer, where chemotherapy is required, but there are others. With these gray lines, we ask doctors to bet their entire careers on choices that are made by state prosecutors and judges as they are the ones who apply the law as they interpret it. One result is that we have regions of the USA where there is a horrible lack of pregnancy related healthcare.
Nooo what exists at 12 weeks is some disorganised neural tissue https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp2268
Thumb sucking usually begins by 12 weeks. Yeah, just some "disorganised neural tissue"... "Twelve weeks after conception, your unborn baby is coordinated enough to suck his or her thumb." "12 Weeks: Though too small to be felt by the mother, the unborn baby reaches peak frequency of movement during the third month. The unborn baby's sex can be visually determined, and the unborn baby’s eyes, ears and face begin to display distinctive characteristics. He/she can kick, turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn head, open mouth and press lips tightly together." "9 Weeks from conception: The unborn baby will bend fingers around an object placed in his/her palm. Unique fingerprints appear. Thumb sucking may occur." Fetal Development Milestones - Care Net Pregnancy of Southern Maryland (carenetsomd.org)
From your link Now you do realise don’t you that that is 14 weeks pregnant?? Remember - foetal age and pregnancy stage are two weeks apart because pregnancy is calculated from last menstrual cycle not from conception AND The sucking reflex is extremely primitive and is a REFLEX not organised thought. At 12 weeks ther are no Gyri or sulci on the brain surface https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...ss by,the brain undergoes considerable growth. https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Site_Map#Neuralhttps://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Site_Map#Neural
You keep describing perfectly formed fetuses throughout gestation and women who are fully healthy during pregnancy. That's nonsense.
Pro-choicers are consistently opposed to restrictions later in pregnancy on perfectly normal healthy fetuses and perfectly healthy women with a normal pregnancy. It's because the MAJORITY of these abortions are done on healthy babies, healthy mothers. That is what this is really about. Pro-choicers are just desperately trying to use the health loophole to justify all abortions that don't have to do with health (at least not anything out of the ordinary).
Consistently opposed to late pregnancy restrictions? No, that's not true. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs on when it's okay, but what you likely notice is that more vocal ones tend to be more extreme. Pro-choicers generally cite it as healthcare because that's how they see it. They see it that way because they believe a person has autonomy over their body, and, in most cases, they do not view the fetus as a person until a certain point. Some people choose arbitrary points based upon what seems right, or viability, but the only logical point is when the mind exists, IMO. The mind is what makes the person. Whether the fetus is normal or not isn't really an important point. We don't execute people for being disabled, but we do dispose of tissue that's NOT a person when it adversely affects the body of an actual person.
No, that's total bs. Late term abortions are carried out when there is a medical justification. There are very few of these, as the health issues are usually known before that time. Women with a healthy fetus don't carry that fetus for 9 months and then decide to abort!! Healthcare is NOT A LOOPHOLE.
It is a loophole when the reason it is being done has nothing to do with healthcare. (I hope you're not going to go into semantics and try claiming "all abortion is healthcare", like many pro-choicers try to do) But women at 12, 14, 16 weeks do. I've even presented some evidence in the past about women who abort at 23 weeks for less than completely noble reasons.
No, it is all healthcare. The only question is whether legislators, prosecutors, etc. deny access. You should cite this evidence.
That seems like an argument based on definitions, using loaded words and terminology. In logic, this is referred to as an equivocation fallacy. Saying that all abortion is healthcare, then say that we cannot deny access to healthcare, and since abortion is healthcare (according to your definition), argue that we cannot deny abortion. The trouble is, the precise meaning of the word "healthcare" is not really the same in first two statements. So it's like you're attempting to falsely equivocate the word "healthcare" in the two different usages. "healthcare" does not necessarily equal "healthcare", when used in different contexts.
I think you're trying to argue that it isn't healthcare if it doesn't follow your personal views of morality. For many, blood transfusions are not allowable healthcare due to their religious views. Thank God they aren't interested in imposing THEIR views on our population, as you are. The question of laws on abortion isn't whether it's healthcare. It's that some government agency decided to deny that particular healthcare. As I've pointed out, there are reasons for abortion. The champions of denial of abortion are not doctors and are not present when the decision is made.
I don't think any of the states that have passed legislation so far have told women to go give birth in the forest. Some is a little more constraining than I'd sport but that's how the system words - voters decide.
No, I was just saying it's not so simple. Kidnapping someone and harvesting their organs without their consent to transfer into someone else could also be viewed as "healthcare", in the broadest stretch of meaning. Or some of the horrific medical experimentation on prisoners that went on under the Nazis and Japanese during WW2. (If the research provides benefit to others, could it be viewed as "healthcare"?) In Guantanamo Bay, U.S. prison guards force-fed prisoners who went on hunger strikes with tubes that went through their nose. Also "healthcare"? Then there is the question of whether medical procedures that are not really necessary should be considered "healthcare", such as facelifts and botox, or breast implants because the young woman is going to be an exotic dancer in a strip club. There's a white guy on YouTube who underwent multiple surgeries to try to transform into a Korean, to be like the K-pop celebrities he admires.
You've heard of midwives, haven't you? It's a lot cheaper than a hospital delivery. One study showed that a women giving birth with the assistance of a midwife had a 30-40% lower risk of cesarean. Low-risk moms face fewer complications with midwives - UW Medicine "risk of experiencing an infant death was 19 percent lower for births attended by certified nurse midwives than for births attended by physicians. The risk of neonatal mortality (an infant death occurring in the first 28 days of life) was 33 percent lower" NCHS Pressroom - 1998 News Release - Lower Infant Mortality with Certified Midwives (cdc.gov) Although the maternal mortality rates, while still rather low, are twice as high in home deliveries compared to hospital settings. They did however find no difference in the rates of neonatal death for "non-anomalous" infants. Maternal and Newborn Outcomes by Birth Setting - Birth Settings in America - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
Voters don't have a history of standing firm for fundamental rights of citizens. And that includes today, where in some states women are forbidden abortions that would save their lives or ensure continuing ability to procreate.
so you denounce democracy. Good to know[/quote' Then it's up to the people of that state to take the appropriate action. Today is not for ever and IF the state's people want change they have the process to fix it without federal interference.
