Ohio's heartbeat bill could upend Roe v. Wade. It started at a sleepover.

[Shiranui117]

"However, unborn children are not a part of the mother's body."

Really? It's half her. It's connected to her, She nourishes it, What she drinks or eat affects it, She births it.

The baby is not an organ like the mother's ribs or hand or breast. She nourishes it, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a part of her body for her to dispose of at her leisure. You just demonstrated my point that pro-choicers don't consider unborn babies to be humans or even separate life forms. This is why you think pro-lifers are "anti-women's rights", because pro-choicers and pro-lifers don't agree on whether or not unborn babies should be considered humans. Pro-life says yes, pro-choice says no.

 

[We Never Know]

The baby is not an organ like the mother's ribs or hand or breast. She nourishes it, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a part of her body for her to dispose of at her leisure. You just demonstrated my point that pro-choicers don't consider unborn babies to be humans or even separate life forms.

Did you ever study biology? Ribs and hands are not organs however they are part of the body. A fetus at this point is not considered life. Your hand or ribs are not considered life. That's being political correct. However I do not agree with abortion simply because of irresponsible sex.

 

[Shiranui117]

Did you ever study biology? Ribs and hands are not organs however they are part of the body.

You get what I was getting at. Pro-choicers just see unborn babies as another part of the mother's body.

A fetus at this point is not considered life.

On what basis? Who made this determination?

However I do not agree with abortion simply because of irresponsible sex.

We agree on this point.

 

[We Never Know]

You get what I was getting at. Pro-choicers just see unborn babies as another part of the mother's body. On what basis? Who made this determination? We agree on this point.

Science and laws determine what is considered life.

 

[David T]

I don't much care for abortions. With the easy to obtain numerous kinds of birth control out there, abortion shouldn't be an answer to irresponsibility.


Ohio's heartbeat bill could upend Roe v. Wade. It started at a sleepover.

2.8 billion to 7.5 billion in my life time. An increase of 200,000 per day in population. Only narrcisists dress abortion up as religiously important. It's self deluded.

 

[We Never Know]

2.8 billion to 7.5 billion in my life time. An increase of 200,000 per day in population. Only narrcisists dress abortion up as religiously important. It's self deluded.

I don't agree with abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe that's why you condone it, because of religion which you don't agree with. What do you think?

Biology is the science concerned with the study of life. One popular definition of life is...
1. that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis
2. are composed of cells
3. have a lifecycle
4. undergo metabolism
5. can grow, adapt to their environment
6. respond to stimuli
7. reproduce and evolve

Tell me which ones pertain to a fetus and which ones pertain to a 1 month old baby.

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't agree with abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe that's why you condone it, because of religion which you don't agree with. What do you think?

Biology is the science concerned with the study of life. One popular definition of life is...
1. that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis
2. are composed of cells
3. have a lifecycle
4. undergo metabolism
5. can grow, adapt to their environment
6. respond to stimuli
7. reproduce and evolve

Tell me which ones pertain to a fetus and which ones pertain to a 1 month old baby.

All of them. A fetus grows, is composed of cells, has a lifecycle (hint: it's at the beginning), undergoes metabolic functions (see the link below), responds to stimuli (see second link), and will eventually be able to reproduce. Just because fetuses are still early in development and bad at maintaining homeostasis doesn't mean they don't do it within the boundaries of what they are currently capable of. 1-month-old babies are similarly horrendously bad at maintaining homeostasis (hence all the child-safe cleaners and foods we have, and all the precautions we have to take to ensure that babies are at a proper temperature and are fed regularly), and also are incapable of reproduction until they hit puberty.
Principal substrates of fetal metabolism: fuel and growth requirements of the ovine fetus. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199809/fetal-psychology

So if you say that unborn children are not considered living beings, when would you place the beginning of human life? When the mother goes into labor? When the child's head pops out? A few hours after the birth? A few days later? A month after? When the mother decides to call it an independent living being?

 

[David1967]

I'm not so respectful of your kind, ya honey swill'n,
pants wear'n, frog lick'n, doily twirl'n, weasel juggler!

That is a very ummm creative insult. I have to admit, I'm envious.

 

[SomeRandom]

You get what I was getting at. Pro-choicers just see unborn babies as another part of the mother's body.

A zygote is to be sure is part of a woman's body. Last I checked the uterus was in fact located inside a woman's body, after all. A fetus might be questionable, I'll give you that. But that's not really why I'm pro choice.
I don't feel it right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy for whatever reason. It's not my body, so it's not really my decision. Such a practice I find akin to rape.
But that's just me.

Now if some smarty pants out there was to invent a mechanical uterus that can nourish a zygote from it's very early stages without the mother, then I welcome all women to use it in lieu of an abortion. Of course, we might bring ourselves closer to mass starvation with a large increase of births. But swings and roundabouts I suppose.

 

[Shiranui117]

A zygote is to be sure is part of a woman's body. Last I checked the uterus was in fact located inside a woman's body, after all. A fetus might be questionable, I'll give you that. But that's not really why I'm pro choice.
I don't feel it right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy for whatever reason. It's not my body, so it's not really my decision. Such a practice I find akin to rape.
But that's just me.

I'd be shocked to see a complete ban of abortion in my lifetime, to be sure. I just don't see it in our current social and political climate. But most of the US does agree that late-term abortions should be banned (65% agree with banning it from the second trimester onward, and 81% agree with banning it in the third trimester, according to Gallup).

Past the point of viability, there's just no good reason to kill an unborn child that I can really think of. One could make a good case for the unviability of the fetus and go for a "mercy kill", so to speak, but even then I'm not really on board. From what I know, if the mother's health is in danger, a quick C-section followed with whatever medical procedure necessary to save the mother is the obvious way to go. That way the extreme physiological stress associated with labor is avoided, and the baby can still be delivered. Now if somebody here knows of a condition where that would not be the case and even a C-section could still lead to the death of the mother, then let me know.

 

[Shiranui117]

That is a very ummm creative insult. I have to admit, I'm envious.

If you look, @Revoltingest didn't even have that much creativity in his insult. It's just a series of [NOUN]-[VERB] combinations as adjectives, and then a final [NOUN]-[VERB] as a noun. He could at least switch up the syntactical categories when combining words together to form insults. Lazy town over here.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'd be shocked to see a complete ban of abortion in my lifetime, to be sure. I just don't see it in our current social and political climate. But most of the US does agree that late-term abortions should be banned (65% agree with banning it from the second trimester onward, and 81% agree with banning it in the third trimester, according to Gallup).

Past the point of viability, there's just no good reason to kill an unborn child that I can really think of. One could make a good case for the unviability of the fetus and go for a "mercy kill", so to speak, but even then I'm not really on board. From what I know, if the mother's health is in danger, a quick C-section followed with whatever medical procedure necessary to save the mother is the obvious way to go. That way the extreme physiological stress associated with labor is avoided, and the baby can still be delivered. Now if somebody here knows of a condition where that would not be the case and even a C-section could still lead to the death of the mother, then let me know.

Late term abortions are among the most medically necessary. Simply because there are many "issues" that might not be detectable (technology restraints or simply development in general) until the third trimester.

 

[Shiranui117]

Late term abortions are among the most medically necessary. Simply because there are many "issues" that might not be detectable (technology restraints or simply development in general) until the third trimester.

What are these issues? Why would a C-section not be a possibility?

Unless you're talking about removing a baby that has already died in the womb? Because as far as I am aware, removing an already-dead fetus from the womb isn't an abortion. It's removing a corpse. You can't terminate a pregnancy that is already terminated.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, unborn children are not a part of the mother's body.

The unborn is a part of the mother. She develops it inside her, what she takes in effects it, and without her it up to a point it doesn't survive.

 

[Shad]

Science determine what is considered life.

Really? So if a tiny organism, a single cell organism, was found on Mars or some moon what do you think science will say? What will the headlines say? You get the point I hope

 

[SomeRandom]

What are these issues? Why would a C-section not be a possibility?

Unless you're talking about removing a baby that has already died in the womb? Because as far as I am aware, removing an already-dead fetus from the womb isn't an abortion. It's removing a corpse. You can't terminate a pregnancy that is already terminated.

Normally late term fetal abnormalities “incompatible for life.” It’s been a while since health class, so forgive me. But if I recall correctly it’s a spectrum of birth defects. It is also done if the life of the mother is in danger or would seriously affect her mental or physical health to continue the pregnancy.
That sort of thing.
Given how grave late term abortion is, I doubt it’s taken lightly by medical professionals involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a very ummm creative insult. I have to admit, I'm envious.

Creative?
I stole it from some dirt shovel'n, door knob fondle'n, flower press'n,
milk chug'n, cat fancy'n, doodle scribble'r.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you look, @Revoltingest didn't even have that much creativity in his insult. It's just a series of [NOUN]-[VERB] combinations as adjectives, and then a final [NOUN]-[VERB] as a noun. He could at least switch up the syntactical categories when combining words together to form insults. Lazy town over here.

That format is a proud Scottish tradition.

 

[Shiranui117]

That format is a proud Scottish tradition.

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying if you want to do a big, long insult, switch up the formula a bit and show that half-witted, pit-scratching, backwoods, rung-out, numbskulled hopeless wigglewaggler of a primate who has the REAL intellectual and linguistic superiority. Make them feel in the depths of their souls just how much of a brazenly avaricious, duplicitous, larcenous ursine they are.

 

[We Never Know]

All of them. A fetus grows, is composed of cells, has a lifecycle (hint: it's at the beginning), undergoes metabolic functions (see the link below), responds to stimuli (see second link), and will eventually be able to reproduce. Just because fetuses are still early in development and bad at maintaining homeostasis doesn't mean they don't do it within the boundaries of what they are currently capable of. 1-month-old babies are similarly horrendously bad at maintaining homeostasis (hence all the child-safe cleaners and foods we have, and all the precautions we have to take to ensure that babies are at a proper temperature and are fed regularly), and also are incapable of reproduction until they hit puberty.
Principal substrates of fetal metabolism: fuel and growth requirements of the ovine fetus. - PubMed - NCBI
Fetal Psychology

So if you say that unborn children are not considered living beings, when would you place the beginning of human life? When the mother goes into labor? When the child's head pops out? A few hours after the birth? A few days later? A month after? When the mother decides to call it an independent living being?

That's what I'm saying. A 3 month old fetus and a 1 month old baby arent really that different except one is not considered life and the other is.
Really the biggest difference is ones been born. It seems that's the line we have drawn on what considers something to be life.