| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sadburger" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2005 04:30:51 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Abortion restrictions |
In article <sp63c15qnob7n7nd1ibs96bjqk50p2ficv@4ax.com>, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
One of the things that crops up from time to time when discussing abortion
is some well-meaning "pro-choice" type squawking about how they have no
objection to abortion restrictions after a certain length of time or if the
fetus has reached some arbitrary landmark. Either you believe the woman
involved is capable of making her own choice, or you don't. It is that
simple. Note that the woman is not mandated to have an abortion, just that
she is allowed to make a choice during those particular circumstances. The
"minor abortion restriction" position is not substantially different than
one who claims the woman is free to make a choice before implantation, but
afterwards it is no longer her decision, rather, it becomes someone else's
(often society's). If nothing else, these particular "pro-choicers" ought
to realize that their finely honed and reasoned cut-off point is quite
unlikely to make it into any law, and that no matter how "loose" or
unrestrictive their abortion restrictions are, they are, in fact, abortion
restrictions. Yes, some women will have abortions for reasons that seem no
more serious than how they will look in a bathing suit. Others may find
that their situation has drastically changed in the past few months, and
they may have even prayed and thought about it a great deal, and relieved
special forgiveness and permission from their god to spare bringing a child
into the world simply to suffer and die in tribulations even the mother
might not survive. There are examples of where abortion restrictions might
be beneficial and then there are examples of where abortion restrictions
might cause more harm than they were intended to prevent. Just as you
can't be "just a little pregnant," you can't be for "just minor abortion
restrictions." It's sort of like claiming you are a vegetarian but eating
meat only on alternate Thursdays. Sure, you may eat meat a lot less than
the average, in fact, percentage wise meat may make up a negligible part of
your diet, but you are still not a vegetarian.
Despite the rhetoric of "explicit, ongoing consent," it is my
understanding that many (perhaps younger) pro-choicers think of "choice"
as "a choice"-- one singular decision made at any singular point in time
after one learns of the pregnancy, but before abortion restrictions would
take effect. Pretty much any window of opportunity would be sufficient to
make such a decision, because the decision to abort is not so much in
reaction to any particular changes in circumstance during the nine months
of pregnancy as it is to the woman's personal view of childbearing,
formulated well in advance of her pregnancy. If, as Malapert says,
abortion is a way of "un-fucking things up," pro-choicers unable to
completely disabuse themselves of notions of fetal worth might agree that-
having once deferred their opportunity to undo what has been done- the
woman has from then on waived her right to choose.
Malapert, as far as I'm aware, is the one who introduced this criteria of
"nobody has the right to access another person's bodily resources without
their explicit, onging consent" into ta. Brushing aside the obvious
philosophical problems of "explicit consent" in this instance, the
"ongoing consent" criterion is wildly at odds with other things she
said...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/caf87b00916ff37c?hl=en
: (Papa Jack (R.I.P) quoting an AFP article...)
: > "Former Liberal leader David Steel warned that
: > Britain's 1967 abortion law has gone too far.
:
: > "Steel, who was the architect of the law, called
: > for a change in legislation to prevent the termi-
: > nation of pregnancies beyond about three months
: > from conception.
:
: I have no problem with that as long as abortion and contraception are
: readily available before that to any woman who wants either.
:
: > "The veteran politician told the Sunday Times that
: > medical advances enabling premature babies to be
: > saved at 22 weeks meant that a law enabling abor-
: > tion for "social" reasons up to 24 weeks was
: > out-dated.
:
: I have no problem with abortions after the first trimester or so being
: reviewed by a medical panel to be sure they are necessary.
:
: > "He said abortion on demand should be limited as
: > in other European countries to 12 or 13 weeks,
: > and thereafter allowed only on medical grounds.
: > [...]
:
: Sounds like a good compromise to me. I wonder how many abortion
: opponents will agree?
So while I'm not your greatest fan, Galen, I must congratulate you on
your consistency...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8876cedecaa5fc1b?hl=en
: You can't "balance" rights. It would be like a court ruling
: that slave holders were actually deprived of their
: "ownership rights" when the slaves were freed. As part of
: the compromise, or "balancing rights," blacks are expected
: to become (I think "slavery," per se, is outlawed in this
: country), uh, indentured servants to be freed in nine
: months. Of course, exemptions are made if there is a
: possibility of grave danger, but no exemptions are made for
: the "mental health" of the subject. Oh, they'll be strict
: laws about what kind of work these "indentured servants"
: can be subjected to. After all, the idea is to "balance
: rights," not subject black people to anything. Besides, it
: only lasts nine months.
Apparently, many pro-choicers have no problem with slavery for three
months. One- whom I would have no compunction describing as evil-
apparently thinks that six months of slavery is perfectly acceptable.
One last point... you said something about "bringing a child into the
world simply to suffer and die in tribulations even the mother might not
survive," and pro-choicers certainly have not been averse to telling me of
the enormous financial hardships pregnant women have to endure as a result
of their pregnancy-- ones that, as Mark Sebree says, will "ruin their
lives." Why is it that pro-choicers are most emphatic about abortion
rights in instances where it seems like the woman has *no* choice? That
is, the more emphatic they are about the necessity of legal abortion, the
less and less they end up talking about "choice"? This is part of the
reason I think "pro-choice" is a misnomer-- decisions to abort that are
entirely decided by the values of the woman- and by no outside pressure
one way or the other (per Chilton's criteria)- would almost invariably end
up being as inconsequential as "how will I look in a bathing suit?"
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
28 Jun 2005 05:33:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:30:51 GMT, (Sadburger) wrote:
Well, I deleted it all. Not that I disagree or am trying to hide it or
anything, there just didn't seem to be anything to quote that would launch
my latest whine. I'll get on with it.
When a medical doctor can get up on the Senate floor and say that after
careful consideration (not taken at all lightly, according to him) that
someone (who is later shown to be blind by an autopsy) responds to visual
stimuli (Dr. Bill Frist about Terri Schiavo), when the Vice President can
say "last throes" and the Secretary of Defense can say it is maybe up to 12
years, then abortion restrictions based on "medical" necessity or limits as
to time are pretty much meaningless. Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute, but as this administration has made clear
they could completely ban abortion and then claim that their ban didn't
inhibit anyone. No matter how clear, no matter how well thought, no matter
how clever you think your position is, the government (or others) may well
find a way around it. In one case you have a medical doctor being
absolutely wrong and in another you have two government officials
disagreeing about the length of time. And it isn't just the Republicans,
although they have provided the most recent, most blatant examples.
Democrats, liberals, conservatives, almost all players in politics play
fast and loose with terms. So do doctors, not as much, but Dr. Frist's
actions are pretty medically repugnant, and he does emphasize his medical
credentials often. It doesn't matter how "fine-tuned" the law, the mere
existence of a law allows for interpretation.
But my basic rant is still that no one (not even noone) has permission to
bargain away or 'balance" another's rights. Furthermore, if you trust a
woman to make a choice at 3 weeks, you ought to be able to trust the same
woman at 35 weeks.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 05:15:56 PM |
|
|
In article <8kh3c1pcof7gdlvsrgrlnjcihk0ju7j99v@4ax.com>,
ghekhuis@earthlink.net says...
But my basic rant is still that no one (not even noone) has permission to
bargain away or 'balance" another's rights. Furthermore, if you trust a
woman to make a choice at 3 weeks, you ought to be able to trust the same
woman at 35 weeks.
The only "restriction" I would wish to see, is that if the woman wants
the pregnancy terminated between the time of expected reasonable
viability and the time of expected spontaneous ending (ie. approximately
7 months onwards) the termination should be performed as far as
reasonably practical such that the foetus is delivered live.
The woman still gets her abortion if, as and when she decides, and the
anti-choicer's should be completely satisfied because their so-called
'innocent baby' is brought out from being a foetus, alive and kicking
and thrust into *their* arms to deal with.
(Of course, if the foetus is dead already before the termination, or not
expected to survive however carefully separated from the woman's body at
that point, then no restriction at all would be required).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 05:26:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:56 +0100, Pat Winstanley
<boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
In article <8kh3c1pcof7gdlvsrgrlnjcihk0ju7j99v@4ax.com>,
says...
But my basic rant is still that no one (not even noone) has permission to
bargain away or 'balance" another's rights. Furthermore, if you trust a
woman to make a choice at 3 weeks, you ought to be able to trust the same
woman at 35 weeks.
The only "restriction" I would wish to see, is that if the woman wants
the pregnancy terminated between the time of expected reasonable
viability and the time of expected spontaneous ending (ie. approximately
7 months onwards) the termination should be performed as far as
reasonably practical such that the foetus is delivered live.
The woman still gets her abortion if, as and when she decides, and the
anti-choicer's should be completely satisfied because their so-called
'innocent baby' is brought out from being a foetus, alive and kicking
and thrust into *their* arms to deal with.
(Of course, if the foetus is dead already before the termination, or not
expected to survive however carefully separated from the woman's body at
that point, then no restriction at all would be required).
That sounds fairly reasonable, but when you have a medical doctor behaving
like Dr. Bill Frist, he is liable to testify that a fetus can be delivered
alive from day one, and that any abortion which results in the death of the
conceptus runs afoul of the law. Perhaps such a thing might work in your
country, but in this country it seems the only way to avoid
re-interpretation in law is to have nothing to interpret.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
28 Jun 2005 08:38:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
.....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
28 Jun 2005 08:49:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 06:36:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 04:26:04 PM |
|
|
In article <42c28594.397743578@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
Errr, you said that in almost the exact language earlier in this very
short thread.
In article <42c1afa3.342974781@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
I had assumed you were joking, like Henry Ford saying "You can get a Ford
in any color, as long as it's black."
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 05:18:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:26:04 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <42c28594.397743578@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
Errr, you said that in almost the exact language earlier in this very
short thread.
In article <42c1afa3.342974781@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
That is nowhere NEAR the same language. HINT: the majority of women
choose to terminate their pregnancies other than by abortion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
30 Jun 2005 03:52:30 AM |
|
|
Sadburger wrote:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
I had assumed you were joking, like Henry Ford saying "You can get a Ford
in any color, as long as it's black."
And I have no objection to terminations of pregnancy as long as the
health and life of the unborn child are not jeopardised.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
30 Jun 2005 04:45:00 PM |
|
|
In article <42c3b900$0$24190$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
michael.calwell@btopenworld.com says...
And I have no objection to terminations of pregnancy as long as the
health and life of the unborn child are not jeopardised.
However you do claim there to be a child when no child exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
30 Jun 2005 11:27:32 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Sadburger wrote:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
I had assumed you were joking, like Henry Ford saying "You can get a Ford
in any color, as long as it's black."
And I have no objection to terminations of pregnancy as long as the
health and life of the unborn child are not jeopardised.
But if the woman's health and even life are threatended, too damn bad.
As far as you're concerned she can just die.
After all, as far as you're concerned she's just an immoral criminal.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 04:41:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:36:04 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
I'm sorry, you are correct, you actually didn't say that. More correctly
you said that you didn't object to restrictions or outright bans as long as
they didn't interfere with the ability to obtain an abortion. How cute of
you.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 05:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:41:27 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:36:04 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
I'm sorry, you are correct, you actually didn't say that. More correctly
you said that you didn't object to restrictions or outright bans as long as
they didn't interfere with the ability to obtain an abortion. How cute of
you.
I didn't sat that either. Your dishonesty is not cute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 05:46:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:19:26 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:41:27 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:36:04 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
< > wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
I'm sorry, you are correct, you actually didn't say that. More correctly
you said that you didn't object to restrictions or outright bans as long as
they didn't interfere with the ability to obtain an abortion. How cute of
you.
I didn't sat that either. Your dishonesty is not cute.
How is it "dishonest"? I didn't quote you, I paraphrased these words:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
Remember saying that exactly?
I suppose you are going to argue that "terminating her pregnancy" is not
equal to "obtaining an abortion." Technically you would be correct. I
see defending such a technicality is very important to you. You are
correct. I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong to paraphrase your position in
such a way. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion restrictions |
29 Jun 2005 07:45:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:46:41 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:19:26 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:41:27 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:36:04 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:49:59 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:38:30 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:50 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Saying that you are all in favor of
abortion restrictions as long as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an
abortion may be kind of cute....
That would be a stupid thing to say. Who said it?
I wasn't going to mention any names, but when I looked it up I saw it was
you. I really didn't notice who said it at first, but the notion kind of
stuck in my mind. I have to think you knew you said it and you have some
purpose in asking me, who knows what. By your own admission you say stupid
things, maybe it's as simple as you do stupid things, too.
Nope, I never said that I am in favor of abortion restrictions as long
as they don't inhibit a woman obtaining an abortion. You must be
thinking of some other stupid person.
I'm sorry, you are correct, you actually didn't say that. More correctly
you said that you didn't object to restrictions or outright bans as long as
they didn't interfere with the ability to obtain an abortion. How cute of
you.
I didn't sat that either. Your dishonesty is not cute.
How is it "dishonest"? I didn't quote you, I paraphrased these words:
I have absolutely no objection to abortion restrictions or total bans
as long as they do not hinder a woman from terminating her pregnancy
at any time.
Remember saying that exactly?
Yeah. With a viable fetus and a healthy woman she can terminate her
pregnancy with an induced delivery with less risk to her health than
with a feticide/induced delivery. AFAIK, in states that allow third
trimester abortion, there is a requirement for a second physician to
care for any resulting baby (which would make the procedure not an
abortion.) In the future it may be possible to save dislodged
embryos. As long as the woman is allowed to terminate her pregnancy
the Pro-Choice position is satisfied.
I suppose you are going to argue that "terminating her pregnancy" is not
equal to "obtaining an abortion."
Several hundred thousand medical terminations of pregnancies occur
yearly in the U.S. that result in healthy living babies.
Technically you would be correct. I
see defending such a technicality is very important to you.
It is not a technicallity. It is the difference between Pro-Choice
and "pro-choice" with the latter meaning pro-abortion.
You are
correct. I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong to paraphrase your position in
such a way. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I do not care to be associated with a pro-abortion position.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
