Doesn't all of this show that the "pro-choice" label is fairly disingenuous? Since literally almost no one thinks aborting an hour before birth should be legal (unless the mother's life is in danger), then it seems at best it's "pro-choice up until the point I feel life begins", so it's more a matter that almost everyone is pro life, and it's just a debate on what is considered alive.

Take Spiral Stairs, for example - I believe you said in this thread or the shoutout thread that it's none of your business what a woman does with her body. I have to imagine that feeling changes at some point during the pregnancy, no?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that a fertilized egg is a living thing. So you can stop making that argument.

If your position is that a zygote/fetus/unborn child in the womb is a separate person just like a person living outside the womb, then it should follow that a zygote/fetus/unborn child should be entitled to all the same rights and protections as a person living outside the womb. And if that's the case then you DO open yourself up to a whole host of philosophical questions.

Because if you're treating a zygote/fetus/unborn child the same way as you are treating a child living outside the womb, then you also granting certain rights to the parents of that child. For example, the father of a child living outside the womb is entitled to visit with and make parenting decisions with respect to that child. If a zygote/fetus/unborn child is treated the same way, it should follow that the father of an unborn child would be entitled to visit with and make parenting decisions regarding his unborn child.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion because that is all it is.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Like I said, It's all about the science, until it disagrees with peoples world view.

I'm glad we had this conversation here. It's important that people are better educated about what is science and what is personal opinion with regards to abortion in this country.

Like I said, It's all about the science, until it disagrees with peoples world view.

I'm glad we had this conversation here. It's important that people are better educated about what is science and what is personal opinion with regards to abortion in this country.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Both labels are disingenuous. You could just was easily say that "pro-life" really means "pro-birth" because a not insignificant number of pro-lifers couldn't give less of a shit about the child the instant after is passes through the birth canal.

To answer your question, as a private citizen it is none of my business what another private citizen chooses to do with their bodies, children, whatever else. I certainly have an OPINION on what what a private citizen chooses to do with their bodies, children, etc., but unless that person violates the law it is none of my business what they do.

If you want to have a discussion about what laws should be decided and who should decide what laws get made then this thread is going to get hundreds of pages longer than it is right now.

I think we're all just sharing opinions here, so at the risk of this going on for several hundred more pages, it looks like there are seven states without any restrictions on when a woman can terminate. In your opinion, should there be?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

This is a fucking outrage, Alabama has gone libtard. I'm going to pray for this heroic DA before I send her flowers and a rosary.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/0 ... ar-ol.html

An Alabama court says a 12-year-old girl who was impregnated by a relative can have an abortion without a parent's consent.

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ruled Wednesday in favor of a girl seeking a waiver from a state law requiring that minors get parental consent before an abortion. The girl's name and home county aren't given in the opinion, which refers to her only as "anonymous."

The decision says a relative now charged with statutory rape got the girl pregnant, and the girl was removed from her home after her mother reacted violently. The girl doesn't know her father.

The girl sought a waiver from the parental consent law, but a district attorney objected.

A family court judge approved the waiver last month and the appeals court agreed.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.

The 12 year old doesn't need parental consent to abort a baby after a relative banged her, her mother (huge pos) reacted violently, she doesn't know her father. What's so hard to understand?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Which states have no restrictions? I have a hard time beliving any state would alow a person to abort a healthy child at 40 weeks. But maybe I'm wrong. I'll gladly research the issue.

EDIT: well I'll be damned. Colorado has practicality no restriction on abortion. Though the procean becomes more difficult after 26 weeks.

Kind of. You could say that by having a specific deadline(like 19 weeks, 6 days) allows the woman to make a choice even if she can't choose it later. It's not too different than being pro-life but being fine with adoption.

That's a tough question to answer. I would think that the "viability" time goes down before that though.

So that's a good example, too. If viability goes down to a week or so after conception, is that where you'd draw the line? I think that would be pretty difficult to label pro-choice. Overall I just don't see this as a pro-choice vs pro-life debate but more of a "when does meaningful human life begin" debate.

The idea is that eventually any pregnancy within reason can continue outside the body of the mother. She gets a choice when the only option for the child to have a better than remote chance of success. You are just way too hung up on the concept of choice. Choice never means unlimited choice. I can choose where I want to live. I can't choose to live in the White House. I can choose what I wear. I can't choose to not wear anything in public in most cases.

As was also pointed out, if you go extremely literal, then pro-life is also flawed as most of those same people think that you should be able to give up your kid the day it is born(as long as it isn't to a gay couple).

How is that flawed in an extremely literal sense? They're not saying kill the baby as soon as it's born. I completely understand the overall point point that many don't give a shit anymore the second it's born.

I disagree that I'm getting hung up on semantics. I've seen a ton of instances where a pro-choice-er screams that the pro lifers just want to restrict women's rights and wants the government to be able to control women's' bodies!" Well we do too, just a few months later. I just don't see that as the same as being for firearms but anti-tank.

It's flawed because pro-life people will let a person give up completely on that "life" the moment it is born but won't let that person give up completely on that life two seconds after it is conceived. This is in the context of you saying that basically any restriction of "choice" of the woman means that they aren't pro-choice. You are literally holding it against pro-choice people that they aren't as fanatical about it as they could be. What is the major reason why abortion would be wrong and why adoption is ok? You guessed it, viability!

Well, don't they? I mean, it shouldn't even be a question that the pro-life stance of "life begins at conception" is telling a woman that the thing that is growing inside her that has a 0% chance of surviving without her and her alone must be kept.

This seems like you are trying a backdoor pro-life stance

That's not my intent. I'm more giving some pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt that the reason they have their stance is they value what will eventually become meaningful life more than we do, and not that they are just looking to subjugate women. If we got to the point the fetus was viable almost immediately after conception, do you still want to give the woman the right to abort, or would the choice be carry to term or have whatever procedure would be done to extract?

I actually wasn't clear from your last reply on that. Again, I understand that pro-choice is giving more choice to a woman than pro-life, but it seems pretty clear that the overall determining factor is viability, not the woman's right to choose. Their right to choose is more a secondary benefit that comes with being pro-viability or whatever you want to call it.

That's not my intent. I'm more giving some pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt that the reason they have their stance is they value what will eventually become meaningful life more than we do, and not that they are just looking to subjugate women. If we got to the point the fetus was viable almost immediately after conception, do you still want to give the woman the right to abort, or would the choice be carry to term or have whatever procedure would be done to extract? I actually wasn't clear from your last reply on that. Again, I understand that pro-choice is giving more choice to a woman than pro-life, but it seems pretty clear that the overall determining factor is viability, not the woman's right to choose. Their right to choose is more a secondary benefit that comes with being pro-viability or whatever you want to call it.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

The choice would be for "extraction" that removes the women from the equation.

No, the right to choose doesn't mean the right to unlimited choice. Like I said before, I can choose to live wherever I want. I can't choose to live in the White House. You are misrepresenting what pro-choice is. It isn't always giving the woman the right to her own body. It is about giving her an option that isn't "You conceived and now you deal with it for 9-10 months".

Yes

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.

If the opportunity arose would you save one five year old or 1000 zygotes?

Save them all. I'm against murdering babies and kids. I know that is controversial.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I smell a bit....

I saw that same thing:

Would you save one 5-year-old child from a burning building, or save 1,000 embryos. You can only save one or the other. Option A or option B. There is no option C.

Does the child have rich parents?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Yes but they are addicted to marijuana.

If you need depth you go for the zygotes, if you're one kid away you save the kid.