On abortion

[ERCougar]

Legal in any case or would you put some restrictions around its use?

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

[All-American]

Forget the P&F example! It's absurd to call a fetus a "child". That's all I was pointing out.
I've given you plenty of meaningful distinctions between a fetus and a baby, namely the most important and significant physiologic that occurs during the entire process, save perhaps fertilization. I'm still waiting for you to provide me some useful alternative cutoff that constitutes an appropriate beginning of rights that would outweigh mother's right to abort a pregnancy, in what cases you would grant an exception and why. It's extraordinarily messy to do that (notice the people who actually work in this arena tend to be pro-choice, as they have witnessed just how complicated these situations often get--far more commonly than the 40 week abortion you keep wanting to legislate around).

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

It's only absurd if you find any of the distinctions you point out meaningful. I don't. Not even Roe thought a fetus has no right to life; it simply weighed that right against a mother's right to terminate the pregnancy and picked a point where the former outweighed the latter. Nobody argues that the decision was not arbitrary; a great many have argued that the decision was wrong. You are pretty far afield, though, when you argue that they simply picked too early a point, and that the right to choose prevails over the right to live up until birth.

[Pelado]

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

Isn't that currently the case - that there has to be education of alternatives and then a day or so waiting period? Is that just in certain states, or is it not at all how it currently works?

[Topper]

Education requirements have been struck down.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Topper]

AA

I understand your point but you must admit determining when an unborn has rights that trump the mother s is difficult to administer given its floating nature.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

I can't think of any either. What about timing? At what point do you think it's no longer okay to terminate a fetus? Anytime prior to cutting the cord?

[smokymountainrain]

AA

I understand your point but you must admit determining when an unborn has rights that trump the mother s is difficult to administer given its floating nature.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Maybe I shouldn't enter the fray so late in the discussion, but I find your comment here puzzling. It's not about the unborn's right's trumping the mother's rights. It's not an issue the mother's life vs the baby's life.

It's an issue of whether we require the mother to finish her pregnancy, go to the hospital and deliver the baby, allowing the baby to live or whether we allow the mother to avoid those things and instead allow her to end the unborn baby's life. If we choose the former, that doesn't mean the baby's rights trump the mother's rights (does it?), it simply means the baby's life trumps the mother's inconvenience.

[Topper]

It is an issue of a mother having the liberty to determine what happens to her body versus society claiming it has a superior right ro stop her.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Topper]

Name an instance where society claims a superior right over a man s body.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Topper]

It is a vestige of misogyny, men controlling the bodies of women. Indeed it is a form of slavery.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[All-American]

Name an instance where society claims a superior right over a man s body.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The draft.

[smokymountainrain]

It is an issue of a mother having the liberty to determine what happens to her body versus society claiming it has a superior right ro stop her.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, at a certain point, she is not only determining what happens to her body, but is determining what happen's to a baby's body and ultimately that baby's life. Kinda sucks. If her body were the only body in question here, it probably wouldn't be such a polarizing issue.

[Topper]

Is there conscientious objector status for a woman denied an abortion?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[imanihonjin]

Imanihonjin must be disappointed. Here he is today, on two threads discussing some of the major moral issues of the day, offering solid critiques of those who disagree with him, yet no one will tell him just when a baby is a baby! Come on people, just give him the truth from on high and he'll be satisfied!

I'll leave it up to JL on the other thread to answer his well-reasoned objections to man-made climate change. But so far, no one has satisfied him...

Yeah, sorry if I just don't accept the baby has to understand Phineas and Ferb humor before being afforded any rights. Seems extremely well reasoned and thought out.

[imanihonjin]

Forget the P&F example! It's absurd to call a fetus a "child". That's all I was pointing out.
I've given you plenty of meaningful distinctions between a fetus and a baby, namely the most important and significant physiologic that occurs during the entire process, save perhaps fertilization. I'm still waiting for you to provide me some useful alternative cutoff that constitutes an appropriate beginning of rights that would outweigh mother's right to abort a pregnancy, in what cases you would grant an exception and why. It's extraordinarily messy to do that (notice the people who actually work in this arena tend to be pro-choice, as they have witnessed just how complicated these situations often get--far more commonly than the 40 week abortion you keep wanting to legislate around).

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

The Phineas and Ferb example was one of the reasons you gave as to why a baby in utero is different from one not. You have state that there are certain physiological differences between an unborn and a born child (which is obvious on some levels like breathing and fluid in the lungs) but haven't really offered any examples that are meaningful in determining when to treat a baby as a person or simply as a fetus.