Viability is just another potential and does not refer to anything actual. Furthermore, everybody knows that "viability" is only a lame argument used by anti-abortionists too scared to just say they are against the procedure in all cases. As medical technology sdvances the point of "viability" is pushed earlier and earlier into the pregnancy. Also, most late-term abortions are in cases where the woman actually wants to be a mother. Abortion should be legal up until birth.
You sound like an Abortion extremist. I'm not sure whether I can even take you seriously. Not even any super Pro-Choice politician would dare publicly take that view or explicitly purport to believe that. Do you want to admit you may have over-grasped and gone a little too far with that statement?
Yes indeed. That would usually be seen as an argument that would in favor of the pro-life side. It's interesting you seem to be trying to use that for your pro-abortion argument.
Most, but very likely and almost certainly not all. In addition to that, some doctors have a tendency to just tell their patient they need an abortion whenever there's the slightest medical problem or tiniest potential risk to life. And the woman is not really presented with the correct and full picture. Shouldn't these doctor's recommendations and assessments be subject to review and oversight somehow? Something that's unlikely to happen with many extreme pro-choice laws that seek to provide broad protection to the doctor. It wasn't really "her decision" if she was misled about the level of "medical necessity".
"Extremism" means nothing. It is non-definable and is mostly only used as a smear. If you advocate for the good being an "extremist" is actually a compliment. Because they are cowards which is why the anti-abortionists have managed to push forward and introduce bans. Not at all.
Just to clarify, we are referring to and discussing late-term abortions for elective reasons, when the "fetus" could likely survive outside of the mother if it were removed, but who cares? It's inside the mother so doesn't get the same rights to life, apparently.
Late-term abortion is actually a separate issue since it is not what is the basis of the debate at all. The most relevant timeline is the first trimestre and if you oppose abortion within that timeframe you are just a religious zealot. "Some, not all". Joke aside, this never happens. These "extreme pro-choice laws" woukd guarantee exactly that whereas your side would just force her to give birth no matter what "because God said so".
Just like animals do not have the "same rights to life" neither does a ZEF. Only humans have the right to life and the woman is the only human life involved in this decision. She gets to decide how to live her life and does not owe it to anyone.
Since we are talking about late-term abortion, part of me wonders if you actually believe this, or how much you actually believe this. Believing something like that would probably even have been a stretch for the most racist slavery supporter, or Hitler.
Not too long ago, Conservatives used to mock Lefties for crying #literallyhitler and now we are here...At the point where you are making that same snowflakey reaction yourselves. Lmfao.
Whichever abortion method is used, it is not an expression of the woman's bodily autonomy! It's funny - this idea of 'bodily autonomy' - nobody has ever been able to give an example of it outside of the context of abortion. Maybe you will surprise me and give one, but I shall not hold my breath! How exactly is having some doctor, usually a man, digging around inside of a woman, an expression of that woman's bodily autonomy!?
Oh yeah? Why do you think that? "Nobody" has been able to give you an example because your social circle consists of Conservatives who do not believe in it. Bodily autonomy simply means you get to do to- and with your body as you please. This includes anything from piercing your ears, taking a vaccine to having an abortion. Your body belojgs to you and not to God or the government. That is not how abortions work. It is literally just a pill that you swallow. But, a woman having the option to book such an appointment is a derivative of a society that respects her bodily autonomy.
Above 50% of them. Of course, anti-abortionists do not even know this because they are all about feels and not facts.
But you just said that surgical abortion is "not how abortions work", and now you are saying that at least 40% are surgical abortion?
I am pro-life, but government bans is not the best way to reduce abortions. Many other Western countries have far lower abortion rates and they did without resorting to draconian government action.
The "scraping" most anti-abortionists like to use for fear-mongering is used for late-term abortions which are very rare and mostly done in situations where even some anti-abortionists like to make exceptions, so that does not even need to be discussed. The only relevant period is the first trimestre unless the thread specificalky is about late-term abortions. Anything else is dishonest. The most common methods are medical- and suction abortions. You could probably easily find the exact numbers at the CDC. I do not have them, but I do know it is waaaaaaaaay below 40% of abortions that are the gore type of horror films anti-abortionists use in their emotionalist prooaganda.
There are mostly only two types of anti-abortionists, the first being religious people and the second being partisan fanboys. Religious people These are the originators of the whole anti-abortion movement. They do not really have any arguments and can only refer to "faith" as the basis of their position. Of course, in recent years, many of them have realised that "God" is not an argument that the general public will accept or fall for, so they tend to pretend they are "just being scientific" (see for example Ben Shapiro). These are very dangerous people since they sugar coat their religious dogma in a "scientific disguise", pseudo-philosophical nonsense and lots of emotions (images and videos) to pursuade the public. Partisan fanboys These are typically agnostic or even atheists with no real reason to oppose abortion, but they are Conservatives and therefore choose to oppose abortion "because only lefties support it". Of course, this means they are living with contradictions and in desperate attemps of finding arguments, they turn to the Shapiros and are immediately pursuaded by their clever make-believe scientific arguments resulting in severe brainrot.
That is why I question your ability to comprehend what you've read. It seems in these series of posts that you don't understand the language.
The science of the unborn are humans is science whether you like it or not. Meanwhile you resort to your ridiculous pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo about actualisation, volitional consciousness and physical individuation, all of which I have competently destroyed you on, with you not being able to defend this nonsense under my scrutiny, which you clearly find just too overwhelming given your countless dodges!
There is no such thing as "an unborn". It is not a valid concept and only a term that anti-abortionists use to score emotional points. The fetus might one day have a baby, so that non-existent thing is "an unborn" too. Your side of the debate has to start using reality as its refrence point and proper words referring to the actualities of reality. LMAO. Sure, if that makes you feel better we can say so, sweetie.
Unborn LIFE. The fetus on the other hand, IS! What an insanely dumb argument you are making! It's not a life yet.
