Accusing me of misogyny doesn't constitute a logical argument against what I am saying. Hopefully you realize that. Well if that was the case, women wouldn't need any elective abortion at all. Do you even fully think through the implications of everything you write? What you just wrote ultimately works against your larger position.
Do you ever think about anything you write? I really don’t care about what you think, you seem to be extremely prejudiced against woman and have started really asinine and absurd threads to promote your intolerant and rigid thinking.
You absolutely ARE going after the very life of pregnant women as pointed out to you repeatedly. And, then you pretend that you can prove intent?
You haven't give any legitimate basis for going after a woman's sex life. But, that wasn't the point I was making. Laws being written are dismissive of the issues women face in pregnancy. Your own concerns are fully focused on the fetus. The fetus is only a potential, while the woman is a person with rights of her person as supported by our constitution. The legal direction you support ignores that a fetus may be known to be unable to survive or may already be dead. It ignores that attempting to carry a fetus to term can be a death sentence for the woman, or can cause serious lasting health problems.
Because every pregnancy involves peril to the woman and endangers her health. You're trying to change the issue and make this overly complicated.
WillReadmore said: ↑ You absolutely ARE going after the very life of pregnant women as pointed out to you repeatedly. ...and why are you so interested in women's sex lives ? ....and nothing else about them ....very odd indeed...
The fact that pregnancy involves risk is NOT AN EXCUSE for ignoring healthcare. And, you can NOT accuse me of making this complicated, as the rightful solution is that a woman has the right to look to her own healthcare decisions with the help of a doctor of her choosing. It's you who is trying to write laws to cover all situations, enforcing your personal belief system through legal prosecution.
I notice you try to inject health issues into every abortion argument made by pro-lifers. How about we try to focus on one argument at a time? We all know lots of times there are no unusual health situations.
The healthcare of a woman in consultation with her doctor is one very central issue that is being ignored by those whose who are writing laws to place the fetus (regardless of viability) above the health of the woman. That can not be ignored. As for the rest, the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be allowed in most or all situations. I am well aware that there is a highly motivated minority. Data show that a significant number are evangelical Christians. I would have to assume that this issue touches on their religious beliefs. The obvious solution is to allow evangelical Christians to follow their beliefs without restriction. That is PRECISELY the position of those who care about allowing women to have control of their personal healthcare.
Why? Yes, it would. You are just changing the way the ridiculous anti-abortion argument is formulated by making it even more ridiculous. The impilcations are still the same -- Women enjoying sex is bad and abortion is bad "because God said so". Where and when has this ever happened? Have you ever even talked to or met a woman in real life? Only in the theocratic hellhole Conservatives wish to turn America into. What if the pregnancy is the result of paedophilia? You know what? Scrap that. I am not going to step into this pathetic trap of yours. Abortion is not the same thng as pedophilia or rape. That is just an insane take. If she is pregnant, the fetus does exist. Yes. Hahahahahaha. "Even if a woman should have rights, she should not.". Great. Bro... Just say you hate women already.
This has got to be one of the most inane posts I've read in a while. Abortion should never, ever be illegal. Period.
Your analogies don't work because the people put at risk of death are actual persons with minds. The potential for killing actual persons is not the same as the certainty of killing a potential person. A fetus isn't a person anymore than an egg, sperm, or any nucleated cell in my body are. Any of those things could be made into a person (except maybe a sperm that lacks X) with technology, or could be used to make a baby in a womb. Potential isn't without any value, but it's not nearly on the same level as an actual human being. A human being has feelings, thoughts, suffers, hopes, dreams. An embryo does none of that. There is some tragedy in potential persons never existing, but that tragedy is innumerable and ubiquitous. The children you never had with your first love. The children you never had because you weren't in the mood that night. But they are not at all the same as actual children. This is the core reason why pro-life people are wrong.
I think you're trying to shift the goal posts and make the topic specifically about risk of death. That is was component of the overall pro-choice abortion argument, sure. But I think it's a deflect from the main argument. What percentage of pregnancies that end in abortions actually involved serious high risk of death to the woman? It seems you want to focus on a small subset of pregnancies. Sure, you can mention that here, but doesn't that deserve its own separate topic? Then you throw in the issue of "potentiality". I've noticed this pattern with pro-choicers. Just throw lots of separate arguments at the other side in one thread, never wanting to stick with just one argument. It's like you don't want to focus on discussing any one argument. We've had discussions about all of this before, in their own separate threads. And guess what? Whatever the argument being specifically rebutted, pro-choicers in this forum always seem to want to shift the argument to some other topic. Do you want to talk about potentiality? Because if so, I could refer you to several other threads where that issue came up. Here are just a couple: LIFE: it begins in the womb, Time Machine Hypothetical, Take Away Right to be Born as Punishment, "The brain hasn't turned on yet, so it's okay to kill", bioethics of fetal experimentation in conjunction with abortion
I'm just telling you that the crux of the whole abortion debate is only about two things, and ignoring them doesn't win any arguments about it. Personhood being one of them. The other issue is privacy/autonomy of the woman, which is one I don't tend to rely on but it's there. I don't rely on it because it only becomes relevant if you show the personhood of the embryo/fetus, because then it becomes weighing the rights of two persons against each other. You get nowhere talking about punishing women for abortion or even discouraging abortion if the people on the other side don't agree the thing you're trying to protect is even a thinking, feeling being. Why would we need to protect that over actual people? It seems crazy. Pro-lifers seem to assume it as a given most of the time, and it's really not.
Hey, I've started threads about personhood before, but seems when that happens, pro-choicers only want to change the argument to "Well, even if it were a person, the woman would still have the right to abort, because..." See, maybe the issue is YOU think the abortion debate is all about those two issues, but other pro-choicers see things differently. They might have some different priorities over what they think abortion is all about. Well anyway, guess what? We're not going to discuss all those other issues in this thread.
That's why I said it's about two things, not one. Autonomy of the woman to be in control of her body is the other one. One could argue that forcing her to carry a fetus to term is like forcing somebody to donate their kidney to save a life. Fortunately, it's not even on this level of a moral choice because the ZEF is not a person at the time most abortions are performed. Personhood being a function of the presence of a mind. Meanwhile, idiots in Texas legislate based upon the function of a pump (heart).
Well, like I said, you seem to be trying to change the topic. We already have other threads about each of those arguments.
Not really, the end of your OP says: "related hypothetical thought experiment scenario: Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?" So your thread is about abortion and includes a question about the rights of a fetus. How do we determine if something gets rights? Personhood, usually, or at least being a "being" in a mental sense. If the fetus deserves no rights, ANY kind of right of an actual person would outweigh it. One could have abortion for fun (maybe a masochist) and it would be morally neutral (other than maybe using up healthcare resources that could be better used). And in fact my initial point directly addressed your landmine example in the OP. The reason that analogy doesn't work is because it would kill actual children. Fetuses before 20 weeks or so are not actual children because they are not actual persons. They are not actual persons because they do not have minds.
No I am asking the opposite Why would women risk pregnancy if they do not want to become pregnant? (Not even going to think about going there with what your question reveals about how you think of women - you have made it that abundantly clear) The answer to why they would risk pregnancy is multi factorial First is poverty - contraception, good reliable contraception is expensive https://www.npr.org/sections/health...aception-is-free-to-women-except-when-its-not https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/paying-contraception-united-states This is why the Biden Harris administration has floated new rules to expand contraceptive coverage https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023...ntrol-coverage-under-affordable-care-act.html Second is misconceptions and plain ignorance e.g you can’t get pregnant whilst breastfeeding Third relying on “natural” methods l.e. I can’t get pregnant if I am having a period Relying on condoms -‘nuff said. In an abusive relationship etc etc etc
