Anti-choicers: this is the fruit of your labour

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Babies have been born five months premature and survived. But to you, those are just toads.

And if that premature baby needs a blood transfusion - or whatever - from the father to survive but he refuses, I trust that you support strapping him down and taking it without his consent, right?

... or is it only women who you think should have their bodily autonomy violated?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh my!! Every period should be an "unborn child" by your poor definition. All it would have taken was a little bit of sperm and we know that only a tiny fraction of a percentage of sperm ever gets anywhere close to an unfertilized ovum. Clearly that should have been a child.

Again not addressing the actual facts... nothing but diversion from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again not addressing the actual facts... nothing but diversion from you.

Incorrect. I did address the actual facts. You are making arguments based upon fantasies.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In science we don't deal in proofs, but here is medical expertise:
Doctors Appalled By 10-Year-Old Giving Birth

The question isn't whether ten year olds should be getting pregnant. Of course not.
The question is whether in each individual case, killing the baby is justified or if there's another option.
But as I already stated this has really nothing to do with abortion being legal. I have zero doubt that if she reaches a dangerous point in the development of the baby and it's determined both can't survive that a medical abortion would be allowed. There's no reason for open abortion clinics to exist for these rare scenarios. No one wants to talk about the other 99.9 percent that are just for convenience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question isn't whether ten year olds should be getting pregnant. Of course not.
The question is whether in each individual case, killing the baby is justified or if there's another option.
But as I already stated this has really nothing to do with abortion being legal. I have zero doubt that if she reaches a dangerous point in the development of the baby and it's determined both can't survive that a medical abortion would be allowed. There's no reason for open abortion clinics to exist for these rare scenarios. No one wants to talk about the other 99.9 percent that are just for convenience.

There you go losing the argument immediately with false claims. If one cannot use proper terminology to win a debate one has already as much as admitted that they are wrong.

 

[Heyo]

No one wants to talk about the other 99.9 percent that are just for convenience.

Because we did that in multiple other threads. This thread is about a 10 year old denied a procedure that doctors agree is necessary and all that based on a law where the makers of that law omitted to include comprehensible exceptions.
And there are still people defending that law. (Or are trying to deflect to abortion in general.) That makes it clear to me that this is what was intended or at least accepted. For a crowd that mainly focuses on emotional arguments they have a severe lack of empathy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one wants to talk about the other 99.9 percent that are just for convenience.

I will.

(setting aside your rectally-sourced "99.9%" figure, of course)

The right to bodily autonomy should be respected at all times for all reasons.

A pregnant person should have the right to end their pregnancy at any time, regardless if this is because of concern about health risks, concerns about how they could afford parenthood, convenience, spite, whatever.

Your right to bodily autonomy isn't contingent on others deciding that your motives are pure enough; only a hypocrite would refuse this basic right to others.

 

[74x12]

As of the recent R v W decision that is not a legal option. As far as I’m aware.
Already there are medical professionals who are worried about said overturning of legislature impacting their practice and opening them up to potential lawsuits.
So…. What am I to take from this?

In which state?

 

[Wildswanderer]

A pregnant person should have the right to end their pregnancy at any time, regardless if this is because of concern about health risks, concerns about how they could afford parenthood, convenience, spite, whatever.

If that's the case I see no reason it would stop at birth. After all, we know that the child could have been born much earlier and survived, so birth becomes an arbitrary line...if she's not ready to be a parent after he is born she should, under your rules, be able to justify leaving the baby in the woods without any legal consequences. She should not be obligated to use her body to support him. So feeding him isn't her problem. If he dies on the floor, so what?

 

[SomeRandom]

In which state?

I think in states such as Texas and pretty much any state with so called “trigger anti abortion laws” (their words, not mine.)
This is what I found

For doctors, abortion restrictions create an 'impossible choice' when providing care

[URL="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/06/22/critics-fear-abortion-bans-could-jeopardize-health-of-pregnant-women"]Critics Fear Abortion Bans Could Jeopardize Health of Pregnant Women
[/URL]

 

[Subduction Zone]

In which state?

In quite a few states. There are states where doctors are worried at hospitals any time that a pregnant women come in for some emergency that is not related to her pregnancy.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because we did that in multiple other threads. This thread is about a 10 year old denied a procedure that doctors agree is necessary and all that based on a law where the makers of that law omitted to include comprehensible exceptions.
And there are still people defending that law. (Or are trying to deflect to abortion in general.) That makes it clear to me that this is what was intended or at least accepted. For a crowd that mainly focuses on emotional arguments they have a severe lack of empathy.

You have shown no empathy for the millions who never got a chance to experience life outside the womb so I can't take you seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's the case I see no reason it would stop at birth. After all, we know that the child could have been born much earlier and survived, so birth becomes an arbitrary line...if she's not ready to be a parent after he is born she should, under your rules, be able to justify leaving the baby in the woods without any legal consequences. She should not be obligated to use her body to support him. So feeding him isn't her problem. If he dies on the floor, so what?

Okay, so why do you continually dodge the question about just a bon on elective abortions after 21 weeks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have shown no empathy for the millions who never got a chance to experience life outside the womb so I can't take you seriously.

And you have shown no empathy for the billions of eggs that never experience life outside of the womb, nor the trillions of sperm that meet that same fate. I guess we can't take you seriously either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If that's the case I see no reason it would stop at birth. After all, we know that the child could have been born much earlier and survived, so birth becomes an arbitrary line...if she's not ready to be a parent after he is born she should, under your rules, be able to justify leaving the baby in the woods without any legal consequences. She should not be obligated to use her body to support him. So feeding him isn't her problem. If he dies on the floor, so what?

You don't have the first clue about what bodily autonomy is, and I'm too fed up to try to educate someone who doesn't seem willing to listen.

Have fun being wrong.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Okay, so why do you continually dodge the question about just a bon on elective abortions after 21 weeks?

So you create another arbitrary line and pretend life starts there? How about no elective abortions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you create another arbitrary line and pretend life starts there? How about no elective abortions?

That can be proven to be immoral.

 

[Heyo]

You have shown no empathy for the millions who never got a chance to experience life outside the womb so I can't take you seriously.

So you insist on derailing the thread and returning to the point.
Bye.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That can be proven to be immoral.

I don't see anything immoral about not killing unborn children because it's more convenient than letting them live. But maybe that's because Im actually pro life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see anything immoral about not killing unborn children because it's more convenient than letting them live. But maybe that's because Im actually pro life.

Then your morals, your logic, and your knowledge of what children are need to be corrected.

You keep telling us in your own posts that you have no valid argument against abortion. The only people that will give you any heed are fellow drinkers of the Kool Aid.

And you need to get a good dose of empathy as well.