Might as well misogynyFollow

I can differentiate precious and tragic but they are not exclusive.

Can you differentiate "small mass of tissue" with "human being" because it doesn't seem so based on your "forming in the womb" comment. Potential isn't reality, which is good for the rest of you given my potential for world takeover.

Can we have a bit less ramble and a bit more fire in these sermons?

It's totally human. There's millions of individual human cells there, millions of humans, and our laws are incredibly biased against them all. It's not enough we silence genes and neuter individuals to make them unable to procreate for the good of the collective, we have to take their rights away as well?

For shame.

Edited, Jun 12th 2014 3:42pm by someproteinguy

That so ain't right, yer just makin that up.



SpoilerHey Firefox thinks 'yer' is a word. I learned something new today.

You already know one another's stances on abortion, stop frontin'.

Ever? How about after 22 weeks, which is the current legal standard in the US. WTF?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you understand abortion law *at all*?

Edit: Sorry, before your insane furious backpedaling begins, let me clarify: Your assertion that 22 weeks is a "legal standard" in the US is completely made up and false.



Edited, Jun 12th 2014 7:48pm by Smasharoo

So your answer is "yes. I want to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it isn't sufficiently pro-abortion". Let's be honest here. Yes or No: Elective abortion should be legal right up to the moment of birth?



Yes. Do you? The legal standard set in Roe v. Wade (which I recall quoting at length in a recent thread) clearly allows for restriction of abortion past the point at which it is possible under existing medical science for the fetus to live outside the mother. The rationale is clearly based on the idea that any abortion at that point could be replaced with a removal of a live fetus instead, and unless there are significant health effect deltas between the two (which obviously includes emergency procedures to save the life of the mother), the arguments for abortion based on a woman's rights to control her own body, no longer apply.

In fact, in Roe v. Wade the entire argument for allowing or disallowing abortion is based on statistical health outcomes, and *not* some kind of absolute right. If current medical science means that an abortion procedure will result in fewer statistical health problems than bringing a pregnancy to term, then denying an abortion to a women is the state imposing harm on the women (by preventing her from making a health decision). The choice to abort isn't the right. It's the right to not be forced to make a choice that will result in greater statistical harm to oneself.

The abortion position has gained over time because as the medical procedures themselves have improved, the risk of health harm from the abortion itself is much smaller than the risk of health harm from carrying a pregnancy to term. But it's important to understand that this is what the "right" rests on. If at some point in the future medical science improved to the point where there was less risk of health harm carrying a pregnancy to term than having an abortion, Roe v. Wade would no longer prohibit restrictions on abortions.


The 22 weeks statement comes because currently most states use that as the point at which the odds of a fetus surviving out of the womb are sufficiently high as to allow for restriction of abortions past that point (point of potential viability). To be fair, some states use 24 weeks instead. The point is that your claim that no one has ever defined this is incorrect. While the precise number may vary (slightly), there very clearly is a point in time and no one's really that far out of agreement over when it occurs.

If you want to claim victory over whether or not 22 weeks is a "national standard", by all means, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that your original statement to which I was responding was completely incorrect. We absolutely can (and do) set a time period at which the right (interest technically) of a glob of human cells to live outweigh the rights of the human who's body they are currently living in. I get that you don't want this to be true, but that is currently the legal truth.


Edited, Jun 12th 2014 7:30pm by gbaji

So your answer is "yes. I want to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it isn't sufficiently pro-abortion". Let's be honest here. Yes or No: Elective abortion should be legal right up to the moment of birth?

Yes, absolutely. Not really that controversial. We weight the rights of people against one another all the time. Weighing the rights of lumps of flesh against people should be fairly trivial in comparison. If a woman is forced to take a child to term at any point in a pregnancy, a consistent ethical decision should be made in other similar cases. For instance, if you are a viable kidney donor for someone who will die if they don't receive one. Why aren't you forced to donate? Life should be sacrosanct and more important than your minor medical risk and inconvenience, right?

Because people are afraid of it happening to themselves.

Just gotta say that you feel like you're a man at the moment

Just gotta say that you feel like you're a man at the moment

Not this again. Gender identity is complicated, grandpa, I keep telling you. Do you ever ponder that if you'd had a child at 20 you could fairly easily be a grandfather? My son could be my grandson and it really wouldn't be that strange. I mean it would because demographically that would be odd where I live, but in most places it would be pretty normal. ****, I got old somehow.

Not when you gotta take a leak.