The "Pro-Life-LITE" argument....how many times have you heard

I would still rather it is down to the individual choice of the woman. Waiting periods have little to no effect on women who have already decided to have an abortion, all it does is push the time frame higher .. often wondered if that is one of the reasons for waiting periods so that in a few years pro-lifers can scream and shout about how abortions are getting later and later.

 

I would not say that there are laws as such but there should be I think. Such a law would not be "pro abortion" per say, but more protecting those that want to have an abortion and abortion practitioners from predatory practices that restrict abortion such as what is going on in Texas and other states.



What we do have is a Bill of Rights which protects individual freedom.

 

Laws that protect abortion would be pro-abortion correct?

 

Not necessarily. A law that protects freedom of the individual to do what they wish with their bodies (including abortion) is not necessarily pro anything.

Just because there is no law against getting a tattoo does not mean that the state is pro-tattoo.

Laws that protect freedom of the individual are meant to protect people against those that would want to force their will on them. These laws clear a path for freedom but do not dictate how that freedom is used.

Being "pro -something" has a different connotation IMO. Such laws are neutral in how that freedom is used.

 

Yea I see it differently in if it protects a freedom, or makes a law like for funding so a person can exercise the freedom, then I look at it as supporting that freedom and is pro- whatever the freedom is. California for example has a law on the books that specifically addresses the woman's right to choose. This tells me that law is pro-abortion. Now if it is not anti-tattoo then it is pro-tattoo in that it does not have laws that prohibit the act. Now there is no law legalizing it either, so there can actually be a law in place that would prohibit, or restrict tattoos without a specific law that says you can not restrict it(which would be pro-tattoo).
See where I'm coming from here?

 

The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks 5 days. That indicates viability is currently 21 weeks which is well within the 2nd trimester. That also shows it is a human being at a minimum of 21 weeks.

As to medical necessity for abortion at any stage, we all know that "the health of the mother" is such a broad term that anything qualifies, from mental stress to a true physical threat. It was intentionally made broad to give the impression of morality while not hindering abortion on demand.

 

There is a difference between being "Pro" something and being neutral. Just because we got rid of prohibition does not mean that we are saying people "should" drink.

I look at being pro- something as suggesting that something should be done or suggesting that it is good that people do it.

This is the same thing with the term "Pro abortion" Just because someone agrees that it is a woman's choice does not mean that this person thinks abortion is a good thing and folks should do it as much as possible.

There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others. I may totally be against pornography but this does not give me the right to force that belief on others.

A law stating a women has the right to choose is simply stating that there is no justification for forcing her to do otherwise.

"I don't like alcohol personally" is not a valid reason for voting for prohibition.

The rule of law is in part based on the "golden rule". Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Simply stated - If you do not want people forcing their personal beliefs on you then you have a moral obligation not to force your beliefs on others.

When we vote "yes" in a referendum (say on banning alcohol) you should have a legitimate reason and answers the question " Do you have sufficient rational to force your beliefs on others by having the state use violence, coercion, fine, imprisonment or even death"

"I do not like something personally" is not sufficient rational. "God does not like it" is not sufficient rational.

So - being against a law can mean "although I absolutely detest alcohol, I do not have sufficient reason to force my personal beliefs on others"

This is not being "pro alcohol". It is a stance against forcing personal beliefs on others.

 

I can see what you are saying, but still will say if a law protects something, or if a law funds something, then it is pro, it is not neutral. Pro does not have to mean you think something is good, it means you think something should be legal. In other words it should exist.
Pro abortion for example is favoring the legalization of abortion. I will argue that California and many other states have laws that favor the legalization of abortion and has laws that favor abortion more so then the federal government. The low income women getting funding for abortions favors abortion as well in that it allows low income women to receive funding, so they can afford to have an abortion legally. Pro does not mean you think it is good and should be done, just that it should be available, Laws that make it more accessible, affordable and widely available are pro. Laws that restrict, make it less affordable, and less available are anti. Also laws that prevent restrictions are also Pro in that it favors abortion.
I don't think there is a neutral when it comes to abortion laws, or abortion views, unless you really do not care about the issue. You are either pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. Now pro-choice and pro-life varies in degrees. Some are 100% pro-choice in that they think abortion should always be available up to the moment of birth. Some are 100% pro-life in that they never want abortion legal. And a majority are in between in that they want restrictions in place especially after the 1st trimester.

 

Just because I think something should be legal does not mean I am "for it" or Pro that thing. I could be completely against something on a personal basis but still think it should be legal.

The term "Pro" implies that I am for something and this is not necessarily the case. I can hate abortion but still be against a law against abortion.

A I can be for a law giving individual rights and freedoms yet still be against some of the things that people will do with that freedom.

The term "Pro" implies that I am for something and this may not be true.

 

pro does not mean you are for something. It means you support it. Are you saying you do not support abortion.
Now the definition of pro-abortion- favors the legalization of abortion. It does not mean you are for it, just that you think it should be legal. Any law that favors abortion is pro-abortion.
Anti-abortion-opposing or legislating against medically induced abortion. Any law that restricts abortion would be anti-abortion

 

There is a difference between me personally supporting something and supporting legalization of something. I can completely disagree with something yet support legalization of that something.

This is what you seem to not understand. I can say "I do not want alcohol in my life" yet be against making alcohol illegal.

I can absolutely hate abortion yet be for legalization of abortion. Do I support legalization of abortion. Yes, but this does not mean I support abortion personally.

It simply means that I have no good argument such that I would allow the state to force my beliefs on others.

The point here is that it does not matter what "I think" in relation to making a law.

 

I never said you were for abortion. But you are pro-abortion if you support it being legal.
I'm not sure why I'm getting so much argument about it. I showed what pro-abortion is I even gave laws that support what I'm saying. It's like people hate being called pro-abortion, but want it legal. There is no difference. That is the point. pro-abortion is favoring the legalization of abortion. Simple

 

I think this is more about semantics. The term "pro life" for example is not technically correct as everyone who is pro life kills life to survive.

The term "pro abortion" is not technically correct because those who support legalization of abortion are not necessarily in favor of abortion.

The difference is in what one prefers personally as opposed to what one accepts as legal. These are two different questions.

 

Right but by definition there are pro-abortion and anti-abortion laws, even if technically those laws do not prevent, or encourage abortions
technically roughly 60% of Americans are not 100% pro-life, or pro-choice, but the last poll I saw a majority consider them self more pro-life
I am mixed anyways. There are times when I think the woman should be able to choose and other times where she should not.

 

I have serious issues with abortion late in term but not for any kind of legislation during this point other than if the fetus is viable an attempt should be made to save it.

Prior to that there is no sound argument that can be made to prevent a woman from aborting IMO. The whole "murder" argument fails because there is no good argument that the fetus is a living human such that it should have rights including the right to life or that the value of this entity somehow trumps the value of the rights of the mother.

 

When it comes to the issue of personhood then viability needs to be based upon natural viability unassisted by medical science. Was this 21 week 5 day based upon medical technology (I suspect that it was) but "natural (inalienable) rights" need to logically be established based upon "nature" as opposed outside human interactions. For example, if the premature baby required medical assistance to survive then it's "right to life" would not exist because an "inalienable right" cannot impose an involuntary obligation nor can it be dependent upon another person (e.g. the doctor or medical technician).

Not to disparage your comment that I appreciated. We can also note that the "3rd" trimester criteria of Roe v Wade no longer exists per se. Other criteria based upon medical knowledge has replaced it. Also remember that I'm a self-professed authority on Inalienable Rights (I've been seriously studing them for over 30 years) so sometimes I'm very strict on my criteria. It doesn't mean I'm always right pragmatically but I deal with the theory behind them a lot.

I think we can agree that there are sometimes broad interpretations related to the "Health of the Mother" for late abortions and I agree that this should be better defined. Techically, under the law, it has to represent a serious threat to her future health and should never be based upon a "medical whim" if you know what I mean. It must be broad in one sense but also restricted based upon reasonable criteria and common sense. It shouldn't allow "abortion on demand" but instead "abortion due to a medical necessity" based upon a medical professional's opinion. Politics and individual or religious opinion should not be involved at all related to this and medical opinions from organizations like the AMA should be considered instead IMHO.

 

How long is the waiting period is a serious consideration, I would suggest that normally the patient should go to the clinic the first time to confirm the pegnancy (medical determintions and not a 'pregnancy test' from the local pharmacy) and for possible consultation. If she's pregnant, whether she wants an abortion or not, doesn't mean she shouldn't have counseling about her pregnancy from a medical professional. Her decision based upon the consultation (not religious indoctrination) still needs to be an informed decision related to either/both having the child or a possible abortion because I don't expect her to be a medical expert, Then, if she decides she wants an abortion she can just make an appointment to return for the actual abortion either the next day or whenever the clinic can schedule it. If she want to have the baby she still needs future appointments.

I don't see anything whatsoever with simply requiring the consultation and an actual abortion occuring on two different days. In truth it allows the clinic to better schedule it's workload for the staff because the time allocation is different for a first consultation and a consultation w/abortion. It isn't really an inconvience for the woman nor does it drive putting off the abortion until it might become a greater health risk. We're only talking about a day or so and not a month or so.

 

No problem with a woman being offered the consultation, she should however not be forced to have one, and there are many issues that make the waiting period more than just an inconvenience, you are making the assumption that all women can afford to make the two journeys, a lot of poor women cannot afford to make two trips (especially when so many clinics are having to shut down because of pro-life TRAP laws) if they have to travel a long distance, neither may they be able to afford to take another day off work, or pay for child minders for any other children they may have. - http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2013.4283

 

All babies whether premature or healthy are completely dependent upon external assistance for survival. Without obligatory care the baby dies. It does not matter whether the care is a mother providing food, a family providing shelter and care, or an MD providing medical treatment.

And how do you resolve your position with older people who are no longer "viable", such as the elderly with dementia, the quadraplegic, the blind, people with illnesses requiring extreme care? Do these people lose their personhood status?

 

Explain why fetuses are not members of society.

 

Firstly its ones ability to earn and contribute to the financial growth of the economy. Whatever is consumed is spent indirectly or directly on an economy, whatever is saved or invested is directly/ indirectly related to the amount of Cash in circulation.

Secondly, one must be able to contribute ones skills and ones talents in influencing the different social groups that exist. This if done cumulatively, creates a diverse society. With Diversity comes long term productive gains.

Thirdly, we must be visionaries and be capable in thinking ahead for whatever social group we belong to. Visionaries create the fundamental thought process that drives people forward.

 

The problem is accurately noted that the "anti-abortionists" are using "denial of access" by passng laws to close Planned Parenthood clinics as a means to deny the Rights of the Woman to have an abortion. If it wasn't for the "denial of access" issue then a woman would be able to make two visits but in many cases you are correct because of nefarious laws passed by the anti-abortionists to close clinics.

I was assuming that these nefarious laws would be repealed but that is a shaky and unsupported argument just like expecting the anti-abortionists supporting a non-restrictive consultation/abortion delay. The goal is not to reasonably accomodate abortions in accordance with Roe v Wade or to be concerned with the woman at all.

No person should have a medical procedure performed without medical consultation for anything. A person cannot provide informed consent to the procedure if they are uninformed about it.

 

Oh I agree the woman should have a medical consultation in order to be able to give informed consent, but when tied into the other TRAP laws being introduced to close down clinics it does, in my opinion, place an undue burden on the woman .. especially poor women.

 

All I'm trying to argue is that the "rights" of a "bratty teenager who should have kept their legs shut" should not override the rights of an innocent baby who has no responsibility. I never implied anything about punishment or retribution.

- - - Updated - - -

Undue burden discourages women from having abortions.

 

And undue burdens aren't punishment??????? YES they are........