A centrist perspective on abortion

a reply to: Boadicea

And focus on solutions that start from the position that mothers do have rights and find solutions that respect the rights of the mother?

I don't see why we should be placing the rights of one individual above another individual, but if anything we should value the life of the young more than the old. I've stated very clearly the mother should have rights up to a certain point, but no one should have a right to murder.

One way to do so is to legally recognize her right to terminate the pregnancy at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all

How is that a solution? It's really very simple, we just need to agree on an age when a baby becomes a legal person. After that point in time, if the mother has failed to get an abortion then she can just put the child up for adoption if she really doesn't want it.

Wait until they start pushing for after birth abortions here in the US.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If it's such a massive crime to kill the baby after it is born, what makes it so different moments before the baby is born, or even weeks before the baby is born?

No one is advocating for aborting a nine months gestational, healthy, viable fetus. There are times, however, where the fetus is so deformed, like the brain developed on the outside of skull, if there is a skull.

Anencephaly: Anencephaly is a very serious birth defect in which an infant is born without parts of their brain or skull. The incidence of anencephaly in the US is about 1 in every 4,600 births. As of right now, there's no treatment for anencephaly — and the majority of infants born with it will live for only a few weeks.

A fetal anomaly is considered "incompatible with life," now often referred to as "life limiting," if infant survival rates or quality of life are predicted to be very low. Common examples of these conditions are anencephaly, more severe forms of holoprosencephaly, hydranencephaly, renal agenesis, thanatophoric dysplasia, and triploidy.

In general, if a pregnant person is faced with a fetal anomaly that's considered "life limiting," they may decide between terminating the pregnancy, continuing the pregnancy with palliative comfort care, continuing the pregnancy with intensive care, or waiting until delivery to fully assess the situation.

A woman carrying such a fetus may unexpectedly go to into labor, while she and her family might want the fetus to die in utero rather than have it suffer a slow painful death.

Such situations are very, very rare.

Not quite true there are other reasons than mental handicaps or malformation that women may desire abortions. There are personal reasons such as the woman herself not willing to deal with the mental difficulties of birthing, raising, or putting the baby up for adoption.

See my previous comment, and maybe try to refrain from speaking for all women.

a reply to: AutomateThis1v2

I was only talking about late term abortions, up to "birth/labor, here, I was giving some examples of why they might be needed.

Not trying to speak to the other reasons why someone also might want a late term abortion. I support and defend the reasons you've laid out too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

I read somewhere that about 11% of American believe that the government has no business whatsoever regulating abortion. It appears that Mayor Eric Adams is one of those people. Do you think that means that Eric Adams advocates for aborting a gestational nine month healthy, viable fetus?

I doubt it. I can't read his mind, nor the minds of the 11% of Americans that want the government to butt out of bodily autonomy issues. But I doubt that they actually do want healthy, viable, fully developed fetuses aborted.

I doubt you'll even find even the shadiest of doctors to do it too, because infant trafficking is so much more profitable than murdering them.

unless he's one of those non-living fetuses you want to smash, he counts as somebody. So when you say something sofaking stupid like "nobody is saying that", when he literally said that, you sound supremely stupid, bigley.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

When I was much younger, I had no issue with abortion.

As I grew older and wiser though, I realized that it, the unborn living human was (in fact) an unborn living human.

Once I came to that realization, then I could not be for abortion.

a reply to: The2Billies

Anytime Someone Calls you Something you are Obviously Not , just Punch them in the Face . That's Usually the Best Response even though you Follow the Path of Peace..........

a reply to: network dude

Get off your high horse! Eric Adams never said he supported aborting full term, healthy fetuses. No matter how much you want it to be true.

I don't know what kind of fantasies are rumbling around your mind that have people salivating at the prospect of aborting full term healthy babies fetuses.

Nobody is talking about that but you and your ilk!

From what I understand, the right usually uses religion to justify not doing it out of virtue, yet would more or less lose their # that it would entice stuff like welfare, or Socialism.

All the while the Left would let near or full born baby to be aborted, yet thinking they are more capable at parenting.

It more or less the Woman's choice really since they pick seed, though some people should just get sterilized if one get an abortion every season, or just doesn't visit the kids....

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Hiya CO.
Am Alt-Nothin.

Have been thinking that myself should probably be aborted, but since my parents have passed, will need a volunteer to put me out of everybody else's misery.

My recommendation is that they should pickle, smoke, and marinate me, from the inside-out, for about 10 years.

My ribs might be good, but what would the right sauce be ?

Maybe my deranged sense-of-humour could be transplanted into some poor rich sap who doesn't have one ?

Ha-ha : poor-rich guy ; that's funny... !!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Women and mothers do have rights -- absolute inalienable rights. Women's and mothers' rights do not end because they become pregnant. Women and mothers are not second-class citizens no matter how much you or anyone else wants to declare them so. Conflicting rights need to be balanced.... not picking and choosing who has rights and who should have some rights.

Our rights come from our Creator. Not you. Not government.

And let's not play dumb about "murder," as if we don't sanction killing some people every single day. As a society, we have plenty of examples of "justified" and/or lawful reasons to kill -- including self defense and self preservation from threats (and every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life and long-term well-being). Some states even allow "justified" killings to protect property -- things -- when no threat to life exists. We wage war and kill many all at once -- combatants and civilians alike. We have a death penalty for certain crimes -- and many want to expand the list of crimes for which we can kill people. We remove life support when brain dead. We approve and distribute medications that we know will kill some people.

We can balance conflicting rights, but we have to first recognize and acknowledge that women -- pregnant women in particular -- do in fact have rights, and we must respect those rights. Anything less is unacceptable. Women are NOT second-class citizens.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1v2
Wait until they start pushing for after birth abortions here in the US.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

This has already begun.

In California and Maryland Democrats have put forth bills that would make post-birth abortion legal. Their verbiage does not include forbidding a healthy XX (according to the liberal left and prominent Democrats the word mother is transphobic and now forbidden in polite society) with a healthy baby from having a post-birth abortion - i.e. killing the newborn. (links in my earlier posts)

a reply to: The2Billies

You keep pushing this, although it has been explained that the CA bill has been amended to "pregnancy related" and they are not in session now in Maryland and will amend it when they reconvene next April. They have to amend the verbiage because a certain fringe segment insists they want to murder babies weeks after birth, instead of understanding "lack of care" in its medical field use.

I had already called this earlier. Even though your claim is refuted, you're still preaching that people want to kill babies after they are born and go home.

Meanwhile, representatives like Gaetz are claiming anyone on WIC is not a "hard working American", and the program hurts the "hard working Americans" so once again we see that only a fetus is important. You want to force a woman or young girl to have a baby that she may not be able to financially provide for at her 12.00 an hour job, while possibly facing medical debt. In many states, she may not have the option to terminate within the first couple of months, so now she needs help so the baby can have proper nutrition, but the same "life is sacred" representatives are now angry that she needs help. Ridiculous.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A woman carrying such a fetus may unexpectedly go to into labor, while she and her family might want the fetus to die in utero rather than have it suffer a slow painful death.

I wonder what the pain is like for a fetus that dies in utero.

a reply to: dandandat2

They can administer anesthesia to the fetus. In Utah it's the law after 20 weeks.

Utah passed into law a requirement that a physician who performs an abortion at 20 weeks’ gestational age or older must administer “an anesthetic or analgesic to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child.”

anesthesiaexperts.com...

a reply to: Boadicea

Women and mothers do have rights -- absolute inalienable rights. Women's and mothers' rights do not end because they become pregnant. Women and mothers are not second-class citizens no matter how much you or anyone else wants to declare them so. Conflicting rights need to be balanced.... not picking and choosing who has rights and who should have some rights.

How you got any of that from what I said is beyond me. I have said multiple times women should and do have rights. I simply said that no one should have a right to murder, and if we accept the idea that a baby does gain legal person status at some point during development, then it is legally considered murder to abort the baby after that time. The mothers rights don't disappear, as you said her rights need to be balanced with that of the child. But you seem to be implying the mother always has superior rights, and should be able to abort the child at any point, which is absurd and shows zero empathy for the baby. Just because it hasn't yet developed into a mature human being doesn't make its life worth any less.

And let's not play dumb about "murder," as if we don't sanction killing some people every single day. As a society, we have plenty of examples of "justified" and/or lawful reasons to kill -- including self defense and self preservation from threats (and every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life and long-term well-being). Some states even allow "justified" killings to protect property -- things -- when no threat to life exists. We wage war and kill many all at once -- combatants and civilians alike. We have a death penalty for certain crimes -- and many want to expand the list of crimes for which we can kill people. We remove life support when brain dead. We approve and distribute medications that we know will kill some people.

I am absolutely baffled how you got two stars for that nonsensical argument. Self defense is an extremely different thing, and comparing abortion to self defense is crazy. But it's part of why I think it's important to give the mother a fair amount of time to perform an abortion, I don't know how many times I can repeat myself. And what about the completely defenseless baby, what about its well being? You clearly seem to have a bias for one individual over another, but if we accept the idea a baby does gain human rights at some point, then it is ethically untenable to give preference to one individual over another. It is about balancing rights just as you say, but your proposals clearly don't describe a balanced solution.

There was a news article about how they removed a baby operated on it, and put in back in the mother where it stayed for 11 more weeks before it was born.
I think what has been lost in all this back in forth is the advancement in science since the 70's

For centrists it doesn't make a lot of sense that for wanted infants born early at 22 weeks who we then fight for them so hard, spend every tech and dollar there is to let them live, without that help they would be dead within hours; verses unwanted infants being killed in another area of the hospital.

What is the difference in the human response towards these very youngest humans, being desperately wanted or being unwanted. I think it's so sad that being just unwanted could be death sentence ?

I think the courts has the right to say just because a baby is unwanted doesn't mean it should die. That's logical and a centrists perspective. Of coarse if comes down to either the mother or the baby, mom get priority.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Lots of presumptions (and ignorance) in there...

Women have rights. Period. All pregnancies can threaten the mother's life up to and beyond birth. Women have a right to protect their pre-existing life first and foremost.

Any and all pregnancies can be terminated safely in humane ways that respect the best interests and rights of both the mother and the embryo/fetus.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

They can administer anesthesia to the fetus. In Utah it's the law after 20 weeks.

Utah passed into law a requirement that a physician who performs an abortion at 20 weeks’ gestational age or older must administer “an anesthetic or analgesic to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child.”

anesthesiaexperts.com...

I guess Utah is one of the more ideal places to get an abortion.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Lots of presumptions (and ignorance) in there...

Women have rights. Period. All pregnancies can threaten the mother's life up to and beyond birth. Women have a right to protect their pre-existing life first and foremost.

Any and all pregnancies can be terminated safely in humane ways that respect the best interests and rights of both the mother and the embryo/fetus.

Are you suggesting that the embryo/fetus has interests and rights?