If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?

[Anonymous]

Let's just kill the mother, extract the fetus and end the debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, 16:31, I did not compare cows to people. I compared them to fetuses. Fetuses are not people. They are something less than people -- anyone not insane will concede that. The question is how much less, at what points, and what are the ramifications of that? What is the proper balance?

You need a course in logic. And linguistics. You need to learn to use language with precision. And to think more critically. Try harder.

They have a heartbeat you smug little prick. Deny science all you wish, you're clueless.

This is what happens when you listen only to people who agree with you. You say the mantra over and over, and then you start to overlook obvious facts like how cows have heartbeats, too.

Actually, it's what happens when I ask my wife's opinion, who happens to be seven weeks pregnant, maybe she's biased, maybe it's the life growing inside of her. And if you're married, you should know not to go to your spouse for affirmations.

Uh, you do realize that almost all of us have been seven weeks pregnant, right? And yet not all of us feel like your wife. "Opinion" is the word you chose, and that is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered my question. Are you okay with chopping up 28 week old premature babies because it would be hard for the mother to care for it? You know, give birth, break the babies limbs, and suck it up in a vacuum.

If this is okay, then my point is proven that you have no conscience. If not, then why is it okay to chop up a 28 week old baby in utero? Why is one life worthy of protecting, but with the other there is the "choice" to kill?

28 weeks is three weeks into the 3rd trimester, and you won't find a lot of support for that. But it says little about abortion in the first or second month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-choice poster here. I think an abortion at 28 weeks can only be justified if: 1) It has only recently been discovered that the fetus has severe birth defects, or 2) The life of the mother, if the pregnancy continues, is severely threatened. If either of those are the case, an abortion is justified. You can characterize it as violent if you like.

The circumstances shouldn't matter if it's a mothers *choice*. Shouldn't she be able to change her mind about having a baby at any time? I mean it's her body, she has to raise it- so if at 28 weeks she wants to dismember the baby because Johnny Appleseed dumped her- then that's okay. But why isn't it okay if she changes her mind after the baby is here? It's her life, she has to raise the child- why is it not okay if she chooses to kill the premature baby? Do you know how much medical bills could cost for that type of care? She should be able to do the same procedure that would have been done in utero. Shake it to death, break a few limbs, and throw it in the trash...easy peasy.

However, if a mothers health is at risk, surely there must be a less brutal way to handle the situation. But I don't believe in mercy killings, especially when doctors are often wrong in prenatal diagnoses. And even if they aren't, there's still a better way to proceed.

[Anonymous]

Obviously you would like to believe it's all or nothing pp. But it's not. That's why even many conservatives recognize the use of cut off points in a pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-choice poster here. I think an abortion at 28 weeks can only be justified if: 1) It has only recently been discovered that the fetus has severe birth defects, or 2) The life of the mother, if the pregnancy continues, is severely threatened. If either of those are the case, an abortion is justified. You can characterize it as violent if you like.

The circumstances shouldn't matter if it's a mothers *choice*. Shouldn't she be able to change her mind about having a baby at any time? I mean it's her body, she has to raise it- so if at 28 weeks she wants to dismember the baby because Johnny Appleseed dumped her- then that's okay. But why isn't it okay if she changes her mind after the baby is here? It's her life, she has to raise the child- why is it not okay if she chooses to kill the premature baby? Do you know how much medical bills could cost for that type of care? She should be able to do the same procedure that would have been done in utero. Shake it to death, break a few limbs, and throw it in the trash...easy peasy.

However, if a mothers health is at risk, surely there must be a less brutal way to handle the situation. But I don't believe in mercy killings, especially when doctors are often wrong in prenatal diagnoses. And even if they aren't, there's still a better way to proceed.

At 28 weeks a baby can live without the mother. Therefore there is a competing interest, and therefore the rights of the mother are not absolute. This is simple stuff. Stop pretending that *choice* is an all or nothing concept. If you want to set up straw men and knock them down, you can do that in the privacy of your own home. But it does nothing to further debate with actual people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

28 weeks is three weeks into the 3rd trimester, and you won't find a lot of support for that. But it says little about abortion in the first or second month.

Can someone explain how this became a womens issue?
2 are needed to make a baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

28 weeks is three weeks into the 3rd trimester, and you won't find a lot of support for that. But it says little about abortion in the first or second month.

Can someone explain how this became a womens issue?
2 are needed to make a baby?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. But the obvious answer is that the woman has to carry a baby, and a man can often dodge his responsibility for the baby's wellbeing.

Can you imagine a world in which a court rolled the dice and handed 50% of babies to the man, then made the woman provide a court-ordered minimum monthly payment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

28 weeks is three weeks into the 3rd trimester, and you won't find a lot of support for that. But it says little about abortion in the first or second month.

Can someone explain how this became a womens issue?
2 are needed to make a baby?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. But the obvious answer is that the woman has to carry a baby, and a man can often dodge his responsibility for the baby's wellbeing.

Can you imagine a world in which a court rolled the dice and handed 50% of babies to the man, then made the woman provide a court-ordered minimum monthly payment?

Well, that is not happening
But everyone seems to think it is ok for a man to pretend nothing happened, but the girl mustbe made into the embodiment of evil
How is it her responsibility alone when it takes 2?

[Anonymous]

Because she spread her legs because she wanted it. The man can't help himself, you know?

[sarcasm]