Abortion is wrong

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Not really sure where this is going?  We believe we have some value, otherwise why are we having the discussion of abortion in the first place?

I'll say again, Just because death is a reality of life doesn't mean purposefully causing preemptive death is ok.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Natural human rights are not something sourced by the government, they belong to every individual.  According to Jefferson, they are unalienable meaning they can't be granted or taken away.  The goal of the government is to protect these rights.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

In theory only, in practice, these rights are denied and taken away on a daily basis all around the globe, what good is a right that can be arbitrarily denied anyway?. But I agree we digress... In the end you believe that a fetus is a person and I don't, you and I are both right and if you think abortion is wrong and I think it's not, we're also both right because morality is subjective... 

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@John_C_87

I don't consider an individual egg and sperm an ending of human life.  On a individual basis the natural development of either won't produce a living human being and only contain 1/2 of the 46 chromosomes.  Sperm are generated at a much larger rate than eggs meaning naturally there is no way to convert all sperm into humans.  Ind. they are not the same as conceived zygote.

All women are created equal, but that is only to a point.  We can't equalize all the physical and psychological differences between men and women.  We are all CREATED equal, one is created at conception and abortion ends disregards those rights.

The consideration of ending a living things life is not the point MichaelElpers we address the fact of ending life as a united state with termination to that fact on record history, not having the DNA is simply explaining why killing then at that moment is more important then after DNA. As fare as sexual activity all woman are to be created equal is the united state as a goal declared as grievance against the American united State Constitution. This was expected to be performed without accusation in a basic principle.

Where is the living egg going if not dying when a woman does not get pregnant? This is a basic principle all woman as united state can answer under oath of truth. A female scientist can answer the question? A female lawyer can answer the question, a female doctor can answer the question. It is dying. Is it being murdered? Yes. How many female witness can say they do not know a baby will be officially stopped by not allowing the egg to continue by neglecting care it needs to live. They intentionally know the egg will die. Is this potential for life threatening  hypocrisy?

All woman brings a baby across an international border into a Nation, yes or no? Can you prove she can? Would this  be reasonable design to understand a topic.?

MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers

Morality is subjective, but I dont believe the definition of a human life is.  I would hope we agree the killing a human life morally is wrong, that is why I think it is paramount that we discuss and come to a consensus what a human life is.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I would hope we agree the killing a human life morally is wrong

In itself? No... Killing, in itself is amoral, only context can give grounds for a possible moral judgment... Think capital punishment, self-defense and  assisted suicide...  As stated I cannot agree, but I would agree to something like: "killing a person is usually wrong"... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes I agree with that.  The point being in regards to abortion we need to have more scientific discussions on what defines a human life.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

The study doesn't support that claim, I posted the numbers and what it said.  Said the results were statically insignificant, they only compared the far ends of the spectrum, and it didn't conclude that the restrictions were the only/main factors is determining those numbers.  They didn't provide any analyses on the stat.  I would say that the numbers must be altered by different factors, as it makes no logical sense that laws reducing the legality and safety of an abortion would produce more/ similar numbers.  You can't determine from their data that more restrictions wouldn't decrease the numbers, nothing supports this.

To be clear, I'm not making a claim, but merely citing a straight read of the numbers. That being said, I am quite happy to accept the difference in abortion rates between countries with restrictive laws and those without are statistically insignificant. This doesn't affect my point: "If reducing abortion is the goal, then banning abortion is not the way to go".  Guttmacher suggests "high levels of unmet need for contraception and of unintended pregnancy help explain the high levels of abortion in countries with restrictive abortion laws" [1]. There is nothing illogical about abortion rates remaining roughly unchanged in spite of legislation restricting it.  Just like a ban on unintended pregnancy would do little to decrease its frequency, so it is with abortion - they are linked.

I do agree there needs to be more education.  It should be a requirement of every elementary health class and should include: abstinence, natural family planning, condoms, birth control, and surgical operations.  On providing free contraceptives I agree as far as it limiting abortions, but disagree as a libertarian point of view.  Sex is not a requirement to live, and therefore shouldn't be subsidized by the government.  That is like saying someone should pay for my Netflix subscription.  I realize some women need birth control for health reasons, so I propose that it be included on their insurance if cited as such. 

 I'm not a fan of natural family planning or abstinence.  Natural family planning (rhythm method, etc) has a poor track record (1 in 4 chance of unintended pregnancy), and abstinence-only might actually contribute to higher levels of teen pregnancies and STDs.  Condoms work (and they reduce STDs). Long term methods (like IUD) work better in reducing unwanted pregnancies.

I get your view, but I think it is in our best interest to make sure children aren't born into homes in which they are not wanted or can't be properly cared for. Plus, the libertarian view would not be for government regulation on abortion - maybe we can get you to fully commit to Libertarianism. ;-P  As for the unnecessity of sex, I would rather be a part of a society which regularly has sex over one which doesn't - the former would be healthier.[2] (I don't think a Netflix subscription would generally improve mental and physical health for society in general...unless it's Netflix and chill!) The only cost is subsidizing contraceptives to those who need it - worth every penny. ;-)

Dee

@MichaelElpers

...Human rights are not given by the government.  

Forgive me for butting in @Plaffelvohfen and @MichaelElpers but I’m intrigued regarding human rights ......

On whose authority are they given then if not the governments?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

It is argued that they are unalienable, given to every person, because without the existence of government everyone in nature would still have these rights.  It is the job of the government to protect these rights to keep people and other entities from infringing on these rights.  Jefferson argued this and stated any government that tries to take away these rights are illegitimate and should be overthrown.

With how many rights are protected by the U.S. constitution and not in other countries it makes it harder to understand.  Also seems like one could say murder is than a natural right.  In nature everyone would have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, and because murder is an infringement of another's rights we would justify that it is not a natural right.

I still believe this is the best way to look at things because it helps limit the power of the government.  Gives the idea that they are helpers/protectors of the people, not rulers who control them by granting/ taking rights away.

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes I agree with that.  The point being in regards to abortion we need to have more scientific discussions on what defines a human life.

No you need less talk and more realistic principle.

Okay, so why scientifically who something is more important then what something is in deterring when something it is alive. Other then science has more stake in the establishment of murder. A united state can be formed as a union before individual identification is made. Knowing your name only effects the recording of deaths accuracy not the death. Is the problem that this basic fact was not completely assessed before a admission to crime took place? 

Saying a virgin is a woman who has had/has no sexual intercourse yet ovulates and produces an living egg, and though the help of science fact we know she is committing a murder by their findings. We know she is not dependent on DNA to act on killing the egg that is alive. Science though having female participants performs the same actions outside the female body in the same way a woman uses an egg inside her body that creates the human egg.
 
We do not agree kill a human is morally wrong. We only agree killing a human may be morally wrong, morals like constitution do not apply to those who do not maintain them. Lethal force may be necessary. As a stale mate a second indication of united state is immigration.

MichaelElpers

@John_C_87

I usually don't care about grammar, but I can barely understand what you're saying.  

"Okay, so why scientifically who something is more important then what something is in deterring when something it is alive."  This sentence makes no sense.  The rest is hard to read as well.

A woman is not committing murder when when she ovulates, the egg is not developing into a human.  

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee ;

I found this out: Apparently The United Nations pinpoint the origin of Human Rights to the year 539 BC. When the troops of Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other precepts were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder, whose provisions served as inspiration for the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Based on these decrees, civilizations in India, as well as Greece and Rome, expanded on the concept of 'natural law' (Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature) and society continued to make progress, leading to another cornerstone of the history of Human Rights: the Magna Carta  of 1215, accepted by King John of England, considered by many experts as the document that marks the start of modern democracy.

Then came the UN with the Declaration of human rights, where a bunch of people (mostly government appointed I assume) decided on a list of rights...

So, in a sense, it was given by a King (Cyrus), extended by another King (John of England) and globalized by modern governments via the UN institution...

Dee

• It is argued that they are unalienable, given to every person, because without the existence of government everyone in nature would still have these rights.  

But they rely on government totally to ensure they cannot be taken away so there  is no other authority other than government 

Everyone in nature would have zero rights without an authority to enforce such rights 

With how many rights are protected by the U.S. constitution and not in other countries it makes it harder to understand.  

I don’t know what countries you’re referring to as most have rights protected and guaranteed by the government , I always smile at the way Americans seem to think their constitution is the best when it’s no better or worse than most 

Also seems like one could say murder is than a natural right.  In nature everyone would have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, and because murder is an infringement of another's rights we would justify that it is not a natural right.

But abortion is not murder and even your own government does not see it that way.In nature no one would have any rights without an authoritative source 

Do you believe it fair and your right to deny a woman bodily autonomy?

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomyand the self-determinationof human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal

I still believe this is the best way to look at things because it helps limit the power of the government.  Gives the idea that they are helpers/protectors of the people, not rulers who control them by granting/ taking rights away.

But denying a woman bodily autonomy is to give government power to force women who  are unwilling to give birth to the unwanted 

@MichaelElpers

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Fascinating, thank you for that  

MichaelElpers

@Dee

The U.S. constitution is the best, it protects the most rights.  No other country has the freedom of speech listed.

It is also the document in which nearly all other other western nations base and compare their laws to.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

In abortion, the argument is that we are protecting the right of the fetus' natural right to life.  Yes we even protect people who are unwanted.  Your point kind of seems like you think we should cast out the unwanted...like what happens in China when female children are discarded for males.

I believe it fair to deny bodily autonomy, when the reason for their existence is generated by your actions and in order to keep bodily autonomy you must harm it.  In what other circumstances do you get to commit the action and lawfully push the consequences onto someone else. 

Dee

The U.S. constitution is the best, it protects the most rights.  No other country has the freedom of speech listed.

That’s your subjective opinion and nothing more yet here you are wishing to deny women the right to bodily autonomy.

My  country has freedom of speech and most European countries have along with others , what do you base your assumptions on? 

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers

@Dee

No other country has freedom of speech written into law.  That's not an opinion.  That is why hate speech laws can be enacted into other countries.  Freedom of expression may also be limited...why count dancula was sentenced for teaching his dog the Nazi salute as a joke to his gf.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Dee

The U.S. constitution is the best, it protects the most rights.  No other country has the freedom of speech listed.

This is false...

Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Freedom of speech in the Czech Republic is guaranteed by the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, which has the same legal standing as the Czech Constitution.
Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by the Constitution (Grundloven)
Finland has been ranked in the Press Freedom Index as the country with the best press freedom in 2002–2006, 2009–2010, and 2012–2014. According to the Constitution, everyone has freedom of expression, entailing the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.

And I could go on for every single European country... 

The American ego, meh...

Dee

@MichaelElpers

*******In abortion, the argument is that we are protecting the right of the fetus' natural right to life.  

So you say , but you wish to do so by denying the woman her “natural right “ to bodily autonomy, so tell me why should a supposed right of the unborn trump those of a woman?

********Yes we even protect people who are unwanted.  

How do you protect the unwanted?

************Your point kind of seems like you think we should cast out the unwanted...like what happens in China when female children are discarded for males.

No that’s not my point but your reinterpretation of my points and this fallacious as it’s an attempt to shift the goalposts 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

No other country has freedom of speech written into law.

Nonsense 

•   That's not an opinion.

It is and it’s incorrect 

  That is why hate speech laws can be enacted into other countries.  Freedom of expression may also be limited...why count dancula was sentenced for teaching his dog the Nazi salute as a joke to his 

I don’t know what you’re saying here , you do know “expression “ includes speech?

You have limited freedom of speech like most countries 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

"unwilling to give birth to the unwanted ."  You definitely used unwanted as degradation to their value.  Their rights to not trump the women's which is why pro-life people support abortion when the mother's life is in danger.  However, the fetus' right to life does trump the women's right to bodily autonomy and convenience especially in the situation they were responsible for creating.

We protect everyone's rights, not just those most wanted. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Please show me the logical steps from which you can conclude that the right to life (a) infers (b) a right to use someone body, in whole or in part, without continuous consent... 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Our freedom of speech is only limited by speech whose action would cause direct physical harm.  Fire in a crowded theater or direct call to violence against another.  That is not how it is in other countries showed by example previously mentioned, places like Canada beginning to enact gender pronouns, and many more examples. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

You use the term continuous consent, not sure the continuous matters.  When you sign a lease or other agreement you take on the consequences for the length of the agreement, this is what I would say is comparable.  The women gives consent that a pregnancy may occur when she has sex, (if you want to avoid abstinence or only agree to consent with people who have vasectomies).

Curiously, besides rape, who do you believe gives consent for a potential of a pregnancy?  Sometimes consequences for consent last longer than the day they were given.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

*****You definitely used unwanted as degradation to their value.  

If you’re unwanted you’re of no value to one who does not want you otherwise you would be wanted  

*******Their rights to not trump the women's which is why pro-life people support abortion when the mother's life is in danger.  

That’s an exception and again attempting to shift the goalposts because you and people like you wish to deny women bodily autonomy 

********However, the fetus' right to life does trump the women's right to bodily autonomy and convenience especially in the situation they were responsible for creating.

So again you wish to give the unborn a right whilst denying a woman a right , the unborn are more important to you than the born.

So what if a woman is partly responsible for creating, how does that make her have let a fetus use her body illegally?

*******We protect everyone's rights, not just those most wanted. 

You don’t , you just admitted you deny women the right to bodily autonomy or do you not see this as a right? 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Our freedom of speech is only limited by speech whose action would cause direct physical harm. 

Like most countries 

• Fire in a crowded theater or direct call to violence against another

Yes 

.  That is not how it is in other countries showed by example previously mentioned, places like Canada beginning to enact gender pronouns, and many more examples. 

Im afraid it is , you really ought to take of your Stars and Stripes glasses and realise your constitution is more or less the same as everyone else’s. You gave no “previous examples” .

How exactly is Canada limiting freedom of speech? 

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@John_C_87

I usually don't care about grammar, but I can barely understand what you're saying.  

"Okay, so why scientifically who something is more important then what something is in deterring when something it is alive."  This sentence makes no sense.  The rest is hard to read as well.

A woman is not committing murder when she ovulates, the egg is not developing into a human.  

"Okay, so why scientifically who something is more important then what something is in deterring when something it is alive."  This sentence makes no sense.  The rest is hard to read as well.

Let me rephrase, DNA tells use who someone is not if they are alive. A working car without a Vehicle Identification number is still a working car. A living person without a state Identification number is still a person who is living.

A woman is not committing murder when she ovulates, the egg is not developing into a human.  

Agreed she does not commit the murder until allowing ovulation to continue. A woman is not committing murder when she ovulates, the egg is not developing into a human it is dying. Needing nurturing by her to keep living.   The idea a crime is not punished, pursued, or held in constitutional separation by woman does not by law mean the idea’s action is not still a crime. It is only presumed not a crime. The principle of pregnancy abortion is shared equally between a virgin woman and a woman who have had sex provided they both can produce offspring.

Both women commit also just so happen to perform their murder's to stop immigration across an international border. Is it not reasonable to say you can prove this as fact, or prove it as a lie good or bad grammar?

John_C_87

@Dee ;

I'm afraid it is you really ought to take of your Stars and Stripes glasses and realize your constitution is more or less the same as everyone else’s. You gave no “previous examples” .

How exactly is Canada limiting freedom of speech? 

Canada like the United States have very few people who work to preserve Constitutional principle as a united state. They work to preserve a democracy. Legal precedent in free dictates a process must not have assigned cost or self value. Legal precedent does not mean the writes of law get to say so by powers of democracy. lol.

There is a big Problem in freedom of speech in this comparison. The United States Constitution is different from Canadian Constitution. A state of the union address describes that United State is not a place it is a type of constitution. So I writing as clear as day Canadian United State Constitution does not exist. Holly bug juice! Did you just see that basic principle for the first time or what? 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

No, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, it's a fallacious claim... 

Being involved in a car wreck and thereby sustaining injuries is a possibility every time someone gets in a car. In some sense, getting in a wreck and thereby being injured can be seen as the natural consequence of getting in a car. After all, without precautions, wrecks and injuries sustained from wrecks would be quite common. We take two types of precautions when it comes to driving cars:

1. We have traffic lights, drivers ed, and other things that help prevent wrecks from occurring.
2. We have seat belts, air bags, ambulances, and other things that help minimize damage in case of a wreck.

Having sex is similar in several ways. After all, without any precautions, pregnancy and having to carry to term would be the natural result of having sex (although in itself, the rates of such occurrence is low, it takes on average 78 intercourse for couples actively seeking a pregnancy and of those pregnancy the majority will end in miscarriage... In fact, spontaneous abortion/miscarriage is the norm with regards to the outcome of pregnancy...). Fortunately, we have two types of precautions when it comes to having sex.

1. We have condoms, the pill, IUDs, and other things that help prevent pregnancies from occurring.
2. We have abortion to help minimize the damage in case of an unwanted pregnancy. (Pregnancy is considered by law to be a “substantial bodily injury” in several jurisdictions in the United States)
   

While the first set of precautions have lowered the number of car accidents that occur, just as the analogous first set of precautions have lowered the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur, they have not eliminated them. Car accidents can happen because of human error on a driver’s part, or because a driver refuses to adhere to the general precautions (think drunk driving), or through no one’s fault at all. Similarly, unplanned pregnancies can still happen because of human error in using birth control, or because of rape or birth control sabotage,  or through simple birth control failure. And of course, just as some people drive when they’re tired or drunk and thus open themselves to greater risk of wreck, even so some people go without birth control entirely or use it only sporadically and thus open themselves to greater risk of pregnancy.

Saying that we should do away with plan B or abortion because they enable people to engage in risky sex without having to face the natural consequences (i.e. pregnancy) is like saying that we should embed knife-like spikes into cars’ steering wheels in order to cut down on risky driving behavior (because a driver being slammed forward would be automatically impaled).  After all, things like seat belts and air bags decrease the risk of injury when getting in a wreck and thus lead to more risky driving. Even so, things like plan B and abortion (which, let me point out, are not identical) decrease the potential harm suffered by an accidental pregnancy and thus, it could be argued, lead to more risky sex.

Legislating that a person involved in a car wreck could not have medical care would likely also lead to a decrease in risky driving. In fact, it might even lead to a decrease in driving at all, which would then bring  the number of accidents down. Or, we might simply legislate that people who get in wrecks because they were driving drunk, ran a red light, or fell asleep at the wheel should be denied medical service. After all, this is exactly the suggestions made by those who argue that making pregnancy the natural consequence of sex (i.e. decreasing access to birth control and abortion) would bring down the rate of premarital sex (and probably marital sex as well, come to think of it) or that only women who have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest should have access to abortions.

Saying that pregnancy is simply the consequence of sex is like saying that getting in a wreck is simply the consequence of getting in a car.

Saying that having sex means giving consent to carrying  a pregnancy to term is like saying that getting in a car means consenting to bleeding to death without assistance in the case of a wreck.

John_C_87

it’s not a fallacious claim Plaffelvofen. extending the life of a male sperm by allowing it outside one border is not reason to secure a reason for a woman to give her life to bring that life across an international border as united state. Even if she is taking part in established findings of that life. 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

Sorry for the grammar issues.

Is it reasonable to debate the burden of life on such complex and expensive training as DNA?

DNA tells us who we are and who we are related to in basic principle right?

How does that connect to living and life?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The difference medical treatment for a car accident and treatment using abortion, is that abortion ends a life during the treatment.

Also, while getting in a wreck and having becoming pregnant can be consequences, pregnancy is one primary reasons/outcomes of sex, while having an accident is not.  Also, when you have a car accident their is an investigation done or whose fault and whether you were being careless.  Going back to my point that maybe to get an abortion, you should have to prove that you weren't being delinquent in trying to prevent the pregnancy. 

MichaelElpers

@John_C_87

I'm not basing life purely off DNA.  At conception, unique and human DNA is created.  This is an argument towards value, displaying that at conception the zygote is human and new individual separate from anyone else.  After conception, the zygote works through natural processes to further development into creating a fully developed human being, something that doesn't end until around age 25. 

Conception is when the individuals DNA is created and human life begins development.  This is why I believe conception is when human life begins why it has value. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

pregnancy is one primary reasons/outcomes of sex,

It takes on average 78 intercourse for couples actively seeking a pregnancy and of those pregnancy the majority will end in miscarriage... In fact, spontaneous abortion/miscarriage can be regarded to be the norm with regards to the outcome of "unprotected" sex... With any use of contraception, it's obvious that pregnancy is not the sole purpose of sex, that's a position based on archaic religious puritanism...

Second, what you're trying to do is force your belief that a fetus is a person on others and you're doing it on religious grounds... This is not a theocracy, religious beliefs are personal and should stay that way...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I haven't mentioned religion or used it as an argument once.  In my post to John_C, I am making a scientific argument based on why I believe a fetus to be a valuable human life.  Where did you find a majority end in miscarriage, the sources i've seen say 10-20% known and most likely higher accounting for unknown, but not a majority.

Also never said pregnancy is the sole purpose of sex, but it is a primary outcome.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

From my linked article:

Conclusions

A synthesis of many large-scale studies from the last 15 years unambiguously confirms the Wood-Boklage-Holman hypothesis that abortion is an intrinsic and overarching component of human reproduction. It is the most common outcome of conception across a woman’s lifetime and the predominant factor controlling age-specific variation in human female fertility. To reproduce, a human female cannot forgo a high risk of abortion, and to have a large family it is virtually impossible to avoid multiple abortions. Modern birth control with access to elective abortions, markedly reduces –rather than increases– the lifetime number of abortions a woman produces.

And although you did not specifically mention religion, it's underlying your whole argument... 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

 Conception is when the individuals DNA is created and human life begins development.  This is why I believe conception is when human life begins why it has value.  We are not asking for what you believe. We seek for what we can both prove. The goal is them made even higher by Supreme Court ruling in that privacy should also be addressed by a creation of any to be more perfect union of. united state.

Again to be clear. Me grievance that moves Female pregnancy abortion to abolishment is the self-incrimination. A law to make a criminal proceeding easier or swifter will never effect the liberty woman make by admission to the self-incrimination of female pregnancy abortion. Nor will it stop the independent abolishment that takes place by removal of the detail of self-crimination when restructured under a united state constitutional address such as female specific amputation.

MichaelElpers

@John_C_87

We can scientifically prove that is what happens.  I am merely providing scientific evidence to help support the conclusion am i drawing.  It is nearly impossible to prove the value of any human life.

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@John_C_87

We can scientifically prove that is what happens.  I am merely providing scientific evidence to help support the conclusion am i drawing.  It is nearly impossible to prove the value of any human life.

When and how can we prove this? DNA at its complex principle and high cost identifies only. Science keeps the egg alive outside the woman's body as united state so it can be used by herself or other woman. No! the abolishment of female pregnancy abortion should proceed. You have made no address to the grievance of self-incrimination made as a united state.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

How is religion my underlying argument, unless you think placing value of human life is only inherent in religion.  Also you use miscarriage and abortion interchangeably, while the both result in the death of the fetus one is deliberate and that matters.

I will have to look at that source further, as one article that referenced it said it was not yet peer reviewed, but i will read it.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

The intent of an abortion is NOT to kill the fetus.. The intent is to free the pregnant woman from abuse (the use of her body without consent) by the new organism. Death is not the intent, it is an unfortunate side-effect at the moment and it could change in the future, nothing more... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Death of the fetus I would say often is the intent, and even if it is not it is a knowledgeable direct outcome.  Most people get an abortion because of the inconvenience it puts on their life, they have an abortion to rid themselves of that inconvenience.  They're not getting of it just to enjoy bodily autonomy. 

You're saying if the fetus could be taken out and nurtured through technology, the majority of mothers who currently get an abortion would be perfectly fine with raising that child...No, they want the fetus out of their life, that's why they get abortions.

You can't perform actions that directly harm someone else just because it wasn't the intent.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Most people get an abortion because of the inconvenience...

Fallacious unsupported claim...

MichaelElpers

Guttmacher institute.  Cite major reasons as interfering with education or work, ability to care for dependents, don't have the time. All of these things are convenience, things they don't want because it would make their life harder.  For all these cited reasons, the intent is to kill the fetus to rid them from their lives.

Show me the source that says woman's main reason for abortion is to keep bodily autonomy for a 9 month period.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

So you consider having your genital at high risk of being teared apart an inconvenience? As many as 95 percent of first-time mothers experience vaginal tearing. You’d think that the likelihood of lacerations that require stitches around your genitals alone would discount the rhetoric that a woman can easily just have a baby and put it up for adoption.

Pregnancy always endangers the life of a mother (more so un the US). The notion that pregnancy is just this carefree experience doesn’t take into account the vomiting, the gestational diabetes, hemorrhoids, bowel problems, incontinence, or any of the common complications that follow pregnancy and birth.

Having a child, is a life-changing event, in every possible sense... To say that women who have an abortion do so out of inconvenience is contemptible...

Happily carrying a fetus to term is an act of the most profound, generous love precisely because it does entail pain and sacrifice. That should never be forced on anyone.

MichaelElpers

Pregnancy doesn't endanger more women in the U.S., it's because different countries report their stats differently for what is considered death by childbirth.  it doesn't make sense that the U.S. has the best rates in medicine for nearly everything, but are terrible in pregnancy care.

None of those medical things you listed are permanent life changing events, but  taking care of a child is...that's why they want to kill it.  While i understand  those things suck, we do have pain killers, meds, ect.  Those complications because not permanent, I would list as convenience and don't take precedent above the fetus's life.

Also what is the percentage that a person who has an abortion also has a child.  They'll most likely experience that 95% stat anyways. 

The reasons you listed above would fall under scared of child birth, which wasn't listed as a main reason.  Still haven't convinced me that the intent isn't to kill the fetus.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Yes it does endanger the life of the woman... And more so in the US : https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world

A fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells so yeah, the quality of life of the woman take precedence over that petri dish... 

MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers

Well a clump of cells is different than a petri dish, also everyone is a clump of cells...just more developed.  Thanks for finally admitting the intent is kill the baby in order to keep their quality of life from being inconvenienced. 
Hopefully people don't start believing their quality of life is more important than anothers life based on IQ, sex, race, ect.

Again those stats are misleading because of the way countries report child bearing death stats.  The U.S. has the most advanced medicine, those numbers don't make sense unless reporting is different.