You are just as inflexible as the other side. And you don’t even realize it. This is exactly what’s tearing us apart.
So I’m inflexible because I think people who already have the choice to live to their moral truth that want to limit others and their access to a medical procedure are ass holes? Got it.
Let me help you fda fe·tus [ˈfēdəs] NOUN an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
I see!!! Still a human though, right? mur·der [ˈmərdər] NOUN the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another: "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer" · killing · homicide · assassination · liquidation · extermination · kill · put/do to death · assassinate · execute · liquidate · eliminate · [more]
Not legally, the states that have laws punishing the death of a fetus like murder had to specifically pass laws decreeing it to be so, because the legal definitions of the words don't include the unlawful premeditated killing of a fetus as murder.
I wouldn’t call pro choice inflexible. Inflexible in my opinion is not allowing abortions under any circumstances, as some states are doing. The first trimester or viability standard has been fair and accepted for decades…..until the religious right decided to make it a major issue for primarily republicans.
So, your medical procedure is not killing anything? So first it is my Christian belief I'm imposing on someone else. Shot down It's not murder because it's not human it's a fetus. Shot down So now it is not murder because the words human fetus is not part of the law against murder? Ok, let me ask this. If not "murder", is it still killing of another human. Let me contort an answer for you, it is a medical procedure to remove a human fetus, that is not really an unborn child and even though it doesn't live, it is not murder, because the words human fetus is not in the law. Well then, you win!! Discussion over. Medical Procedures for any and all that want them!!
True, but states have defined it as such, though I personally think it is prior to viability, which seems a reasonable compromise.
You make a good point and I probably need to clarify my position. I do think the banning of any and all abortions is not the correct way forward. I do not know when life begins but I do believe that happens sometime early in the pregnancy. First trimester is recognized as the basic time of cell division and differentiation and very much can be assumed that a human life has not been formed yet. I think this time can be classified as a medical procedure, but at some point, it crosses the line in my opinion. That line to me is what the debate should be about. I don't think anyone believes late term abortion is a good thing and I think most can accept up to a certain point, or the other commonly accepted reasons is what the law of the land should be.
Less than 1% of abortions are late term and an overwhelming majority are because of medical complications. So why do you feel laws need to be made on a woman's reproductive rights? Which is exactly the point of my first post -- agree to disagree is letting people live, when you start to drift into lawmaking territory it is way past the agree to disagree stage.
I have no need to make any laws on a woman's reproductive rights. I merely want to stop killing unborn children and I don't believe any woman or man or anyone has that right. It is not hard. It is about preserving life, and I hope we can all agree at some point in the womb that unborn human should get some rights. Does a man have any say so in these reproductive rights? A part of the man has to be part of this growth in the woman, does he get any rights in it? I know I have opened an entirely different door and not asking for answers or arguments just posing the question. I do hope I answered yours though.
A man doesn't carry around a child for 9 months, we literally just shoot out goo. The woman has to do all the hard work. It's her choice. And we're circling back to the same point over and over. You can't kill something that isn't born. Third trimester is when a baby may be able to sustain life on its own, and no one is getting abortions that late unless there is a health risk. Lastly....you have the choice to live as you want regarding this to live in harmony of whatever moral code/god/being you want. Allow others to have autonomy of their choices in this matter as well. When you call something murder that isn't murder its harmful and unnecessary -- so keep it to yourself.
I am repulsed by the thought of extinguishing a life in being within a woman’s womb. I watched our primi daughter born and literally burst into tears at the utter miracle of it. I don’t feel quite the same way about a non-viable fetus probably smaller than my little finger. It’s somewhat arbitrary, I know, but I don’t view a fetus at that stage as a life.
You are inflexible because you are not even willing to have a conversation about it. The other poster was, but you shut them down, labeled them and continue to speak in absolutes. You are part of the problem.
I tend to think we probably think very similarly here on this. I'm just asking fda, who is firmly in the camp of it being a "woman's choice" to recognize at some point in the womb it becomes a human life. From his remarks, as long as it is unborn it is not a human being and therefore not afforded the rights of a human. When you call it what it truly is, most pro-abortion folks simply move the goal posts. Not many late term abortions, so why have a law against it is the reasoning used. It is a medical procedure. It is a woman's body. All these may be true, but still won't answer the basic question. WHEN DOES AN OFFSPRING IN THE WOMB BECOME HUMAN AND GET'S SOME RIGHTS? If they try to answer that question, their whole choice argument gets shaken.
The referenced poster claims an unborn fetus is not a baby. I see no mention of first trimester. Those types of extreme attitudes are what got us where we are. The majority of us just want common sense laws, the extremes on both sides are ruining this country.
I'm not willing to have a conversation with men who think they can legislate women bodies. If you think it is ok for people to call people who get abortions baby murderers, or its ok to call people who fight against oppressive regimes "the mob" or "woke" then you are the problem. People who hold those views don't deserve flexibility. I support his right to not believe in abortion, he needs to support others right to have access to resources to get one --> Agree to disagree. Which is what I was calling out in his first post and used RVW as an example, because he very clearly didn't understand the concept of agree to disagree. Or I can play your game: Sit in the middle like you are so everyone likes them or sees them as rational. People like you are the problem. You're playing the "like me" game while RVW just got overturned. Whats next? You should be angry. A fetus isn't a baby, a newborn is a baby and that is when it exits the womb. If said poster wants to believe a baby is in the first, second or third trimester, that is his right and he can live without getting an abortion. He doesn't get to use his belief system to support or help others pass laws that don't allow people to have that resource, or to call people baby murderers. My attitude is far from extreme. I'm willing to listen and discuss, but not with people who come out swinging with hot takes like "the mob" or acting like the social issues that are the topic of multiple protests aren't legitimate and saying things like they need to agree to disagree. We agree to disagree over what type of bread or music we like/dislike, not the legality of abortion, or LGBTQ rights, or common sense gun laws, or police brutality etc.
I answered your question. It becomes a human life when it leaves the womb. I haven't moved the goalposts once, nor has my argument been "shaken".
