Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A human zygote is a human being in its earliest stage of development on the continuum of human development.

Human development is a continuous process. At each stage- it’s a human.

You've wholly crossed into the realm of philosophy, not science. The "being" part of "human being" refers to self-awareness, sentience, or "soul". The placenta, that is normally tossed in the trash after birth, is just as human as the living baby, but no one would argue that it is sentient. Most parents are only vaguely even aware of it. At the same time, we frequently extend protections to other species that demonstrate higher levels of sentience; we find practices such as eating dogs to be abhorrent. The philosophical question becomes, at what point does a human embryo or fetus become self-aware? Scientists have posited that the ability to sense pain can be used as an early gauge, hence the endeavors to establish what the point is. Interestingly, we've also found that before birth, a fetus lives in a sleep-like state with lowered responsiveness to stimulation. This is one reason why many believe it is more merciful for a fetus to die in the womb rather than after birth when they have deformities incompatible with life.

[Anonymous]

So are these states also revamping their sex education instruction to be more thorough and honest, and including free contraception for all, as well as comprehensive pre and post natal healthcare?

If not, they're obviously not interested in reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies, but simply interested in punishing and shaming women.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what to believe anymore because I can't believe VA lawmakers even considered a bill allowing abortion through birth.

Well you shouldn’t believe that because it isn’t true. Virginia House Bill 2491 would not change the time limit in which a person can get an abortion in Virginia, but it would broaden the health exceptions allowing someone to get an abortion in the third trimester.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HB2491
Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman's informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.

[Anonymous]

NP here - I don't care if it's defined as human or not. Honestly, for the sake of argument, let's say a fetus is a human. Fine. But you still can't force me to donate my body for another person's benefit. For example: you can't make me donate my blood, even if the recipient has a rare blood disorder and needs my blood - and only my blood - to survive. The state cannot hold me down and take my blood to save him. And if I've been donating my blood regularly to keep them alive, and I decide to stop, then the state still can't force me to donate my blood. This is still the case even if the recipient is in the situation because of something I did. Why on earth should the law be different for pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you can murder a human being but not a person?

Not pp. but no, you cannot murder a human being or a person. Neither of which is applicable to zygotes, as they are neither.

A human zygote is a human being in its earliest stage of development on the continuum of human development.

Human development is a continuous process. At each stage- it’s a human.

Human DNA does not make something a human being or person. Otherwise all the eggs in my ovaries are human beings, as they're a step in the development process.

Being-ness requires individualism. If something cannot exist, cannot develop, cannot grow, without being completely dependent on a specific person (the woman is a person and human being), it has no being-ness. It has no sovereign existence. Zygotes are not human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone show me the specific legislation that makes Plan B, birth control and IUDs illegal in the AL bill? Someone made the allegation above and I am interested to be it.

As with all legislation, it rests in the interpretation, namely whether preventing implantation of a fertilized egg is considered abortion or not. Plan B functions in this way and at least some IUDs (or all IUDs according to the abortion fanatics). Right now we have law makers who are categorically ignorant of biology and news media using graphics that illustrate the illegality of abortion before fertilization even occurs, so that's a nuance that isn't settled.

Could =/= Should

When someone makes a statement that the bill MAKES IUDs and some birth control pills illegal, you better be able to back that up.

Birth control pills prevent fertilization and are not called an abortifacient except by the wingnutiest of the right.


IUDs and Plan B are abortifacients that effect the implantation of the fertilized egg. Basically, they cause an abortion in the 2nd-3rd week of "pregnancy" or in the 1st week or so after fertilization. If you have a bill, such as in Alabama that makes abortion illegal from the day of menstruation, then abortion in the 2nd-3rd week is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the point of posting this? If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to regardless of reason. Who are you to sit in judgement?

Then perhaps she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Just sayin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the point of posting this? If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to regardless of reason. Who are you to sit in judgement?

Then perhaps she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Just sayin'

Boom. There it is -- it's about punishing dirty women for having dirty dirty sex.

No one tells obese people they can't have stomach reduction surgeries because they shouldn't have gotten fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here - I don't care if it's defined as human or not. Honestly, for the sake of argument, let's say a fetus is a human. Fine. But you still can't force me to donate my body for another person's benefit. For example: you can't make me donate my blood, even if the recipient has a rare blood disorder and needs my blood - and only my blood - to survive. The state cannot hold me down and take my blood to save him. And if I've been donating my blood regularly to keep them alive, and I decide to stop, then the state still can't force me to donate my blood. This is still the case even if the recipient is in the situation because of something I did. Why on earth should the law be different for pregnancy?

This is a common debate (I agree with it). That mothers and fathers be legally mandated by the state to donate their blood, organs, etc to their children, despite any objection (religious, financial, physical health, mental health, or otherwise). If it'll save the child, even if it will be risky for mom and dad, the state should force you to sacrifice your body.

But how many of these Republican men are on board with this to help lives of children?

I am a regular blood donor, on the bone marrow registry, and am designated as an organ donor on my license. But these are my choices - being forced by your state or country to give your body to another, is effing insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the point of posting this? If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to regardless of reason. Who are you to sit in judgement?

Then perhaps she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Just sayin'

I bet you're also in the relationships forum telling women they owe their husbands sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will someone show me the specific legislation that makes Plan B, birth control and IUDs illegal in the AL bill? Someone made the allegation above and I am interested to be it.

As with all legislation, it rests in the interpretation, namely whether preventing implantation of a fertilized egg is considered abortion or not. Plan B functions in this way and at least some IUDs (or all IUDs according to the abortion fanatics). Right now we have law makers who are categorically ignorant of biology and news media using graphics that illustrate the illegality of abortion before fertilization even occurs, so that's a nuance that isn't settled.

Could =/= Should

When someone makes a statement that the bill MAKES IUDs and some birth control pills illegal, you better be able to back that up.

Birth control pills prevent fertilization and are not called an abortifacient except by the wingnutiest of the right.


IUDs and Plan B are abortifacients that effect the implantation of the fertilized egg. Basically, they cause an abortion in the 2nd-3rd week of "pregnancy" or in the 1st week or so after fertilization. If you have a bill, such as in Alabama that makes abortion illegal from the day of menstruation, then abortion in the 2nd-3rd week is illegal.

Gotcha. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the point of posting this? If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to regardless of reason. Who are you to sit in judgement?

Then perhaps she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Just sayin'

Sure fine. She shouldn’t have gotten pregnant. Does that make you feel better to wag your judgmental finger like that? Still doesn’t mean the state gets to force her to go to term and push a baby out of her vagina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the point of posting this? If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to regardless of reason. Who are you to sit in judgement?

Then perhaps she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Just sayin'

Boom. There it is -- it's about punishing dirty women for having dirty dirty sex.

No one tells obese people they can't have stomach reduction surgeries because they shouldn't have gotten fat.

+100000

And no one tells skin cancer patients they're not allowed to seek medical care, because they tanned as a teenager. Or smokers who got lung cancer. You don't deny someone medical treatment because of a decision they made - unless we're some nutcase country that focuses on punishment, not human health and life.

[Anonymous]

How do we think this new anti-choice movement will affect 2020? Seems like a lot of women born after 1973 are coming to realize the rights they always thought they had are at risk.

Will you be more likely to vote Democratic knowing that the alternative is Trump replacing even more pro-choice justices?

[Anonymous]

Even a corpse has more rights than a woman under these laws. Sick