Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

It is progressing the way an argument would naturally progress with the criteria you have offered to justify abortions. You act like you are testifying before the Supreme Court. This is philosophical discussion and your, my, and everyone else's comments here are worth exactly jack shit. So, if I want to bring up some crazy improbable scenario to shine light on a potential logical flaw, I'm well within rights to do so.

 

Friend at home and his wife lost the 21 week baby over the weekend. Guess I should tell them to toughen up, it was just a collection of cells incapable of surviving anyway.

 

I think the only reason the discussion swings so wildly is that both sides will apply the other positions logic to extreme examples.

For example, the discussion of self awareness (I run to postnatal). Or viability (you run to preconception for example).

I have been, I hope, consistent in my position: post first trimester should be illegal except when the doctor declares either a) the fetus will never be viable or b) the mother's life is in critical danger.

I imagine your position is completely noninterference. Which I disagree with, categorically. And I am not sure we will ever meet in the middle.

 

Sad to hear. I had a friend lose hers several months ago.

 

Explain. Because I don't see how you figure it.

 

Human, yes. Beings, no. Just for the record.

 

Not sure of all the details of it. It's a tough time.

 

Go for it, I'm all for crazy improbable scenarios, so long as they are honestly presented as such.

 

I mean, people do want to set limits on what she can do to her own body, insofar as what happens to her body will affect what happens to the baby's body. But I agree with the point I see you as trying to make--that the pro-choice side characterizes this as a sexist power grab (trying to control women), and that is not anywhere near the primary concern.

 

The question of control is over the body she houses inside. Hence, the discussion about whether or not the fetus should or should not be afforded some degree of protection. Acting like the motivation is to remove choices from the mother is just a way to demonize the position. Baby killer and mother controller are two sides of the same coin.

 

21 weeks old, or 21 weeks gestation? Honest question, I'm not clear.

Assuming gestation, I want to reiterate something I said a long while ago in a thread regarding how to treat the murders of pregnant women.

The expectation and intention of carrying to term a pregnancy is a very different situation than an unwanted pregnancy. If the parents-to-be have every intention of bringing a life into the world, any disruption to that intention is essentially a loss to their intended family and absolutely a tragedy. There was every reason to believe that they were going to have a child and were preparing for it, excited for it, etc.

That is nothing like an unwanted pregnancy, in which the woman has no intention of bringing a life into this world.


I hope you can forgive me for coming across cold and callous on these things, and I mean no offense from the above. It's just how I see it, and I think many pro-choice folks see it. I fully recognize that they lost a child they were going to have. I do not see it that way when someone terminates a pregnancy, they were not going to have a child-- that was their choice.

 

Gestation.

And if you don't want or can't care for a kid, don't have sex. It's pretty simple.

 

On your view, this tragedy seems to be fundamentally similar to having a false positive pregnancy test after months of trying to have a baby. They have reason to believe they having one, they want one, but it turns out they aren't having one. Maybe the 21-weeker hurts more because they had their hopes up longer, but the difference is in degree, not kind.

 

If she is housing the body against her will, should she not have the ability to have it removed? What is the nature of this apparent universal and natural obligation to house a person inside of another? I am quite positive this will come across as a monstrous question but humor me, because I sincerely don't get this perceived natural law.

 

This is just a terribly sensitive topic so again forgive me for the appearance of flippancy:

I would say it is akin in relationship but obviously not degree of expecting a delicious meal, putting it in the oven, seeing it being cooked, and it getting ruined by catching on fire or something. A false positive pregnancy would be ordering out for a delicious meal, and that delivery driver not showing up. Both would hurt quite a bit, how similarly I couldn't really say but each is distinct in that with one you actually saw and experienced the process before things went off track.

So no, I do see them differently.

 

See, this is what I think this often boils down to: controlling sexuality.

 

Has nothing to do with it for me.

 

You don't even have to do that. Just be willing to go to term, have the baby, and give it for adoption. There is currently muce more demand than supply (even with a 25k price tag) for infants.

 

If this is true, why are families not seeking out pregnant women who do not want the baby and offering to pay them?

 

I have the right to drive my car forward. You take away that right if you stand right in front of my car, meaning that driving forward would kill you. In other words, I consider your right to live of greater value than my right to drive.