You say that, but it's unclear exactly what your argument is. Does your argument here pretty much entirely boil down to and depend on a fetus not having any intrinsic value as a human being, and not really existing as a human being? (In which case you are proving my point made in the opening post) Or is your argument that the human being which is a fetus is in some sort of separate category and therefore should not be accorded rights? The only analogy I can think of that is similar to that is slavery. Recognized as human beings with intrinsic value but not accorded full individual rights. (Maybe condemned criminals also. Or starving people in some foreign Third World country who are not high on the priority list)
That appears to be a poor argument to me. Would you argue that women (and abortion doctors) would be more culpable if they were under an obligation to care for the fetus? As you well know, there are many cases of child abuse where the children were not under the care of the perpetrator. That doesn't seem to me to make it any more right or better.
Oh, another example of a fetus / the unborn being in a different category might be the caste system in ancient Sparta. People low on the pecking order could be killed for very little reason. Like if they did something to insult or offend someone from the higher class, or if they were caught keeping a hidden sword.
A fetus is part of the woman's body. The health needs of the woman and those of the fetus can conflict. Healthcare decisions must be made by the woman. When legislatures play doctor, doctors end up having to practice defensive medicine - limiting care to what they believe will not be assaulted by some prosecutor looking for political advancement. We are seeing this problem TODAY in places where legislatures believe they are qualified in healthcare. It's time to end this assault on women. Here's an idea for you to work on. Costs of prenatal care, childbirth and postnatal care are significant. And, in our for-profit healthcare system there are segments of our society for which these costs are a serious impediment. The result is women avoiding care due to cost. How about focusing on ensuring that this care is available and affordable for all women? This would improve outcomes for both the woman and the fetus. Plus, it might even remove a reason some women chose to abort. Please remember: A fetus does not have constitutional protections - which apply to citizens and persons. A woman DOES have protection of personal autonomy.
I respect your opinion and you have every right to your beliefs. As long as those beliefs remain outside her uterus, we have no issue.
Well, it is undeniable that pregnancy (including abortion) involves clinical treatment of the pregnant woman so it is certainly her business. The question is how much regulation and limitation needs to be applied to that business (though that's really the question for pretty much anything in a structured society). That's working backwards from your preferred conclusion though. It would only be relevant if there was agreement that abortion was "abuse of a little child" but there obviously isn't. A literal pro-life (or pro-existence) argument maybe. It doesn't render any of the arguments for restrictions to the availability of abortion, even for a complete prohibition, though. If your only argument is rendered moot by the simple statement that a fetus isn't a child, it sounds like very much a "you" problem. Isn't the idea that the fetus is a child is an argument against the matter being (entirely) the mother's business since it impacts another distinct human being? Have they? I don't pretend to follow all these "debates" in great detail, and it's not specifically an argument I'd make myself, but I'm sure I would have spotted it being proved false time and again.
This is certainly true. For medicine in general, we have organizations that do serious testing of methods and practices and include serious examination of ethics, privacy, etc., forming the foundation of proper care that doctors provide. In this case, legislatures are cutting through ALL of this, right down into the operating room where the doctor and patient are making difficult decisions on life and death for the woman and for the fetus. They are assessing a significant range of health care issues, none of which actually comes with a 100% v. 0% type of answer. Then, we are allowing PROSECUTORS to make the interpretations of these laws, deciding whether that doctor can be allowed to continue practicing medicine!! This is an entirely parallel system of requirements, NOT made on the basis of medicine, NOT examined by those who form medical care standards. This is an astounding overstepping of the line that we respect throughout medicine, leaving doctors with a second, primarily political, and poorly defined law that is judged by prosecutors, not by medical standards. We already HAVE a medical system. This NEW second medical system is just plain NOT acceptable.
Because it is. Uuuuuh oooooooooh, not again.. Ugh. Anti-abortionists literally do this already. Because it is not. You even accidentally admitted in another thread you cannot even tell a panda fetus from a human fetus, so... This will not end well. Just stop. Which is exactly the reason anti-abortionists keep calling a ZEF "baby" and "child". How? The pro-abortion is not based on a is-not though. It is based on an is -- it is a ZEF and the woman is an individual which means only the latter has rights. Sorry, but... It is the anti-abortionists who lack arguments. Nah. Screw this. I give up. You are clearly in denial. You have created 3500 ridiculous threads and you have been trashed in all of them.
Let's remember that a fetus is totally dependent and is a serious component of the woman's health. Suggesting that a congress can accurately divide the issues presented by every medical case involving the presence of a fetus is preposterous. And, existing attempts to do so point out the damage being done to the healthcare of women.
Those are NOT EXAMPLES. Those are your fever dreams. THIS is an example: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/11/texas-abortion-lawsuit-kate-cox/ Ms Cox needed an abortion. The fetus was terminal. She had been to the ER multiple times due to this fetus. Her doctors were clear that an abortion was critically important. She WANTED a baby, and besides the direct health risk, failing to get an abortion would likely mean she would be left without childbearing ability. She, her primary doctor and her lawyer tried to get an EXCEPTION from Texas law. It went all the way to the state Supreme Court and there it was DENIED and the doctor was threatened with career ending criminal prosecution. Luckily, this woman had the funds to go to another state and go through a multi day procedure while staying a hotel. I don't know what they did with their two kids during that period. NOT everyone has the wealth to do that, and if Republicans had their way, there wouldn't be states to go to. YOU need to know that you are NOT "pro life". You are OPPOSED to women getting the healthcare they need - and choose.
The claim that the abortion was critically important is debatable. This has already been discussed in two separate threads; I will not derail this thread by discussing that story here. There was also an 8-9% chance the baby might have been able to go on living another 10-15 years, and a small chance it might have had normal intelligence as well.
that's if you're self-centered in arrogant I'd like self-awareness some people see a child in the womb is a person. And you have nothing to say or nothing to show that suggests that isn't true. All you do is call it a child in another language and think that that means it's okay to kill it. they see it is not her body the body she's removing is the child that someone else's body. Patient you can't say that this is not another individual. This is the dumbest statement I've seen he didn't say that it did. He compared taking a child's life to abusing a child.
BULL. She had multiple doctors. You don't get to debate the medical facts of her case. Plus, without abortion the doctors stated that her ability to have children (which she wanted) would likely be ended. She was already rushing to the ER on multiple occasions. And, it is HER choice.
While it is n her body it is her business or are you advocating to regulate every pregnant woman to ensure “she does the right thing” throughout her pregnancy? Will you wish to charge women with drinking too much caffeine? Exercising too much/ too little? Where does the interference stop?
We also remember the Catholic Church’s record of Kiddie diddling and guess where they stand on abortion
I personally think the media played up and exaggerated that issue, creating a public perception that it was much more systemic than it was. (They couldn't criticize Catholicism directly because, unlike with other Christian groups in the U.S., the majority of Catholics voted for the Democratic Party; so instead the media has been attempting to wean their voters away from the Church, through crafty subterfuge, and giving lots of media coverage to stories like this) Willing to continue that discussion with you in another separate thread if you want.
Anytime mate - we have prosecuted a whole ton of them here in Aus including archbishops ahem George Pell https://apnews.com/article/australi...was the,convictions were overturned on appeal.
Catholicism is a CHOICE. If you want to follow rigorous papal directives, you are TOTALLY free to do so. That is how "choice" works. And, I'd point out that polling shows Catholics favor abortion being available all or most of the time. Besides, I don't see evidence that the Pope would deny Ms. Cox the healthcare she seriously needed. And, it is not a "story" - it is reality in Texas and other states in America.
Let's please try to stay on topic. If you want to discuss something like Catholicism, please start a separate thread. I'm not going to let this thread get derailed off topic.
Plus I have worked in a Catholic hospital and if a woman needed an abortion on medical grounds she got one - no further questions
Doctors stated that in this case there wasn't a chance of the fetus surviving beyond a short period after birth, because the fetus had a fatal flaw. In fact, the doctors doubted the fetus would live to birth. On the other hand, that fetus was a serious health problem for the woman. Read the cite. Yes, you see a fetus as a "child". But, the question is whether there is legitimate justification for using government to force your beliefs on others in this case, and to require women to sustain permanent bodily harm up to and including death.
Like I said, that simply is not quite true. And you are attempting to derail the topic of this thread with something else. In my opinion, the article is dishonest (what I feel is misrepresenting the facts). This has been discussed in two other threads in this forum (in Current Events). It has nothing to do with the topic. You are welcome to start a new thread, since no thread about this story has actually been posted in the Abortion section so far.
