Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Rights we usually arrogate ourselves but generally deny to other animals: a right to life, liberty, personal and bodily autonomy, self determination, &al; a right not to be harmed, robbed, or imprisoned.
Ie: Those considerations and deference we expect for ourselves but not for chickens.

I agree, we determine morality so we can discuss the rights of animals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is truly scary. What if a doctor determines viability is at 9 months of pregnancy?

Then there's something desperately wrong with the fetus medically and abortion should not be excluded as an option.

So how can the preborn at viability, which you cannot define, have a relationship with society?

It can't.

The idea of using viability as the line after which a pregnant person shouldn't be able to end their pregnancy is ridiculous.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because a 5 year-old is a person who has already been born and granted the full rights we grant to born human beings. Said person has been living a life as a person for five years.

When do you consider the unborn a person with rights?

 

[ChristineM]

This misses the point. Abortion is legal in some states and not in others. Marijuana is legal in some states and not others. This was my point. There is a fundamental right for the unborn to life that needs to be weighed against the fundamental right of a woman to nurture the unborn.

The unborn is not considered a person so has no rights in law. There is no fundinental rights for a fetus, all there is is religious pleading to override the rights of the woman

 

[SkepticThinker]

When do you consider the unborn a person with rights?

When they're born.
Which is why I think comparisons to killing a five year old child are completely ridiculous and more of a diversionary tactic than anything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When do you consider the unborn a person with rights?

Why do you think a fetus is entitled to more rights than a person? Why do you think being born strips them of their rights?

"A person with rights" isn't entitled to use another person's body without the other person's consent. Your position needs the fetus to have super rights far beyond those we grant to actual people. Feel like justifying this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When they're born.
Which is why I think comparisons to killing a five year old child are completely ridiculous and more of a diversionary tactic than anything else.

I kind of welcome those comparisons because they expose just how ridiculous anti-choice arguments are.

Even with a 5-year-old child, one person's bodily security trumps another person's right to life. A parent has every right to refuse to provide bone marrow, a kidney, a pint of blood or even a hair off their head for their child even if the child will certainly die without it.

The five-year-old case is useful for illustrating that any arguments about "personhood" of a fetus or embryo are irrelevant to the question of whether abortion should be allowed. Even when we consider a situation where it's clear we're dealing with a real person, bodily security still wins.

 

[Valjean]

This misses the point. Abortion is legal in some states and not in others. Marijuana is legal in some states and not others. This was my point. There is a fundamental right for the unborn to life that needs to be weighed against the fundamental right of a woman to nurture the unborn.

It is not about bodily security it is about the life of the unborn. What about the bodily security for the unborn?

What fundamental features confer a right-to-life on "the unborn?"

 

[Valjean]

This is truly scary. What if a doctor determines viability is at 9 months of pregnancy?

He would be ignoring thousands of cases of viable babies being born at less than nine months.

 

[Valjean]

I agree, we determine morality so we can discuss the rights of animals.

We determine morality so we can behave morally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there any right you think a fetus should be entitled to that doesn't involve harming, shaming or disadvantaging a pregnant person?

Since @Mister Emu has gone MIA, so any other anti-choicers feel like answering?

I'm sure that if you think fetuses are people, you've expressed this belief in other ways, right?

Have you fought against deportation of undocumented pregnant people on the grounds that the fetus has citizenship?

Have you fought for allowing embryos to be the beneficiaries of life insurance or inheritance?

Have you so much as argued that pregnant people should be allowed to use the "2 people or more" HOV lane?

... or do you only treat fetuses as people when you can weaponize it?

 

[metis]

Over my life of 77 years, I have never been to a funeral or funeral parlor in any church for a miscarriage.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's the line (lie?), but I think we both know it isn't true.

Another person telling others what they think. I do believe it is a human life that warrants protection.

If we were to indulge the fiction that a fetus is a person with legal rights, you mean?

Bodily security doesn't entitle one person to occupy or use another person's body without their consent.

It does when the person is in the other person's body without their consent and most times at the consent of the mother.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then there's something desperately wrong with the fetus medically and abortion should not be excluded as an option.

That is not necessarily so. You are assuming things.

It can't.

The idea of using viability as the line after which a pregnant person shouldn't be able to end their pregnancy is ridiculous.

Then what is your criteria?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The unborn is not considered a person so has no rights in law. There is no fundinental rights for a fetus, all there is is religious pleading to override the rights of the woman

I am not religious and I think religious arguments are ridiculous. I am arguing that the unborn have a fundamental right to life. If you want to discuss this then ok. If you are just going to tell me I a want to take away women's rights and that is the reason I am prolife then I am not interested.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When they're born.
Which is why I think comparisons to killing a five year old child are completely ridiculous and more of a diversionary tactic than anything else.

So you think abortion at 9 months of pregnancy is ok? Or do you have qualifiers on that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why do you think a fetus is entitled to more rights than a person? Why do you think being born strips them of their rights?

"A person with rights" isn't entitled to use another person's body without the other person's consent. Your position needs the fetus to have super rights far beyond those we grant to actual people. Feel like justifying this?

I did in another post to you. See post 213. Of course there is always a more detailed discussion needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you think abortion at 9 months of pregnancy is ok? Or do you have qualifiers on that.

If it's needed in a particular situation, then yes, whatever needs to be done needs to be done.

A blastocyst/zygote/fetus that is in utero hasn't been born and isn't the same thing as a born and developed five year old child. It just isn't. The comparison just doesn't work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another person telling others what they think. I do believe it is a human life that warrants protection.

It's inferred from your positions and assuming that you hold consistent views. To be fair, I haven't ruled out the possibility that you're irrational or a hypocrite.

It does when the person is in the other person's body without their consent and most times at the consent of the mother.

There's that rapist mentality again. Just so we're clear:

• Consent to going upstairs isn't consent to sex.
• Consent to initiating sex isn't consent to continuing sex.
• Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.
• Consent to getting pregnant isn't consent to remaining pregnant.
• Consent to remaining pregnant right now isn't consent to remaining pregnant at all points in the future.

Consent needs to be continuous; it can be revoked at any time.

 

[metis]

1. About 930,160 legal induced abortions are provided annually in the U.S.
2. 20.6% of all pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion.
3. 61% of Americans believe abortion should be legal all or most of the time.
4. The top reason for abortion (25%) is not being ready for a child, <0.5% victim of rape.
5. 93% of abortions occur during the first trimester, at or before 13 weeks of gestation.
6. The majority of American women (57.1%) who have abortions are in their 20s.
7. There are 1,687 health care facilities in the U.S. that provide legal abortion services.
8. The median self-pay cost for medication abortion in the U.S. is $568.
9. 9.3% of legal abortions are performed on women outside their state of residence.
10. 62% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation. -- Abortion Statistics in 2022 (Latest U.S. Data) | Real Diapers

I decided to post the above for clarification's sake. Note that 93% of abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.