[Pants-of-dog]

You already decided that every abortion is a medical treatment in your previous post.

It would be more correct to say that I think personal responsibility is not a relevant factor when deciding who has access to medical treatments.

And you still haven't answered the question - since, according to you, abortion must be an option at every stage of pregnancy - how it is ok to kill a baby two weeks before birth, but not two weeks after. Hell, if we go by your claim, "abortion" would still be ok one day before birth. But, obviously, not one day after birth. Care to adress that conundrum?

As I mentioned, any viable fetus removed from a woman should be kept alive.

-----------

How many women request abortions two weeks before their predicted delivery date that aren't a medical necessity?

In the decades in which I have been debating this, I have never come across a single example.

---------------

I suppose you believe Catholic and Protestant healthcare services should be forced to perform the service and/or reffer to another service.

Yes.

Both are a direct violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion(and it's a worse violation than the gay marriage cakebaking incident). As is forcing religious taxpayers to fund Abortion.

I think that a woman's right to control her own body trumps a religious right to impose those religious beliefs on others.

[Stormsmith]

That wasn't the point of the question. But since you think that killing a defective child two weeks prior to delivery is justified, do you also think it is ok to kill babies if the defect is only discovered after birth? Wouldn't that also be a "medical necessity"? Should we close the ICUs for these children now?

We do now.

Moms without insurance have, on occasion, given birth to babies who's brains are exposed or completely lacking a skull. Historically, they have not been fed and simply left to die. Is that preferable to an abortion ?



1 degree

As a woman, I am aware. I don't need you to remind me of anything, and I want statistics.

[Stormsmith]

Pants of Dog

I haven't, either, but have read of cases that, in my opinion, should have been.


Edit

I should add, there was a case, maybe 18 months ago, where a woman in Ireland died on the delivery table because the doctors refused to terminate, in spite of the husband begging them to save his wife.

[One Degree]

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 43 states currently have laws that prohibit abortions being performed after a certain number of weeks in a pregnancy.

Could this have something to do with so few late term abortion requests?

[colliric]

I think that a woman's right to control her own body trumps a religious right to impose those religious beliefs on others.

Except of cause in terms of taxpayers paying for it, the imposing is going the other way if you actually bother to think about it. The Pro-Choice view is being FORCED on Taxpayers that disagree with it, and believe they personally may "go to hell for it". Who's money is that supposed to theoretically be again? The money of the people. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS TO DO WITH WHAT THEY WILL.

Hence Trump making moves to get rid of this draconian situation again, thank god.

[Stormsmith]

Could this have something to do with so few late term abortion requests?

Yes, in the case of those 43 states, but not in the remains ones nor in those countries that allow late term abortions.


Colliric

And what about childless Folks? Should they have pay to educate children, pay for their health care, especially if they can't get themselves insured, etc

[colliric]

Yes, in the case of those 43 states, but not in the remains ones nor in those countries that allow late term abortions.


Colliric

And what about childless Folks? Should they have pay to educate children, pay for their health care, especially if they can't get themselves insured, etc

Yes, that's not a violation of the first amendment, so yes they should.

[Pants-of-dog]

Except of cause in terms of taxpayers paying for it, the imposing is going the other way if you actually bother to think about it. The Pro-Choice view is being FORCED on Taxpayers that disagree with it, and believe they personally may "go to hell for it". Who's money is that supposed to theoretically be again? The money of the people. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS TO DO WITH WHAT THEY WILL.

Hence Trump making moves to get rid of this draconian situation again, thank god.

Good. Force it on them.

I have no trouble forcing people to support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

Because if we do not, we are forcing women to do what we want with her body.

So, if we are talking about people being forced to do stuff, explain how a taxpayer's right to avoid paying taxes contrary to religious beliefs trumps a woman's right to control her own body.

I am fairly certain that allowing people to control their own bodies is more aligned with the basic ideas of liberal democracy. And since Canada, the US, and Australia are all liberal democracies, those rules apply.

Also, I am glad you support the Friends (i.e. the Quakers) in their bid to avoid paying taxes that support the military.

[colliric]

YES I DO....

If the Quakers strongly do not believe in funding the military, let them be exempt from that tax. There should be someway of stating "Are there any taxes you disagree with based on Religious Grounds? State your religious reasons for the disagreement in short point form" on taxation forms.

Also it's not as if a Woman can't still use private means to get an Abortion(Roe vs Wade is still on the books). Technically the service is still available and legal...... Why force someone who doesn't believe in paying for it, to pay for it?

[Stormsmith]

Yes, that's not a violation of the first amendment, so yes they should.

Well, I have no idea what the law is where you are, but in the US, abortion was declared a fundamental right, so in a 7-2 decision, it is a woman's constitional right

Go on believing what you like, and consider your medical dollars not going to abortion centres. Leave the people who are pro-choice to pick up the tab, but it is a medical procedure, full stop.

[Pants-of-dog]

YES I DO....

If the Quakers strongly do not believe in funding the military, let them be exempt from that tax. There should be someway of stating "Are there any taxes you disagree with based on Religious Grounds? State your religious reasons for the disagreement in short point form" on taxation forms.

But they currently do not, so allowing one religious group to do it while not letting another is inherently contradictory to the tenet of equality under the law.

Also it's not as if a Woman can't still use private means to get an Abortion(Roe vs Wade is still on the books). Technically the service is still available and legal...... Why force someone who doesn't believe in paying for it, to pay for it?

Because I also support public health care.

Now, seeing as how you have not attempted to rebut my argument concerning bodily autonomy, can we say that you agree that women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies?

[colliric]

Because this is the apparent "Damn, Trump is pro-life after all" thread, just want to share this inspirational speech, which I saw the other day, from Gianna Jessen, who's story I read about 12 years ago for the first time.

Of cause Eva Peron was also a Pro-life Catholic and wanted to reform social welfare so that motherhood was in fact an "attractive career option" for intelligent women(like herself). Wanted to give stay at home women a healthy salary(not welfare) for "securing Argentina's future generations".

Edit: Just saw your post Pants, Jessen gives a good response to that in her arguements.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does any of that support any claims you made, or addresses any of the other claims nade in this thread?

[Tewodros III]

There was nothing unexpected in this. Obama was an idiot for a second reinstatement in the first place. Hopefully it remains gone this time. His uncalled for reinstatement of this policy infuriated Catholic Groups, and other religious groups and voters. Not only was abortion legal but he was making Catholic and Protestant taxpayers pay for it in violation of the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Abortion shouldn't be publically funded, it is an elective surgery, there are taxpayers who religiously do not believe in being forced to fund it(believing THAT creates a sinful situation for them) and therefore it should be private. Most of the time a woman won't die if they don't have one. It's not an essential surgery.

These protesting woman are more terrified of the fact we are closer than ever to a Republican dominated Supreme Court, and the possibility of the repeal of the 1973 decision being closer than ever. They should be scared. Probably won't happen, but it's pleasing to see them squirm.

OK, if abortion is banned expect Blacks to take over.

[Tewodros III]

I suppose you believe Catholic and Protestant healthcare services should be forced to perform the service and/or reffer to another service.

Both are a direct violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion(and it's a worse violation than the gay marriage cakebaking incident). As is forcing religious taxpayers to fund Abortion.

Since when did regressive whites care about following their own laws?

[Ter]

Now, seeing as how you have not attempted to rebut my argument concerning bodily autonomy, can we say that you agree that women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies?

Well I certainly don't.
The whole concept of "bodily integrity" is a feminist concept.
Yes, everybody can do with their bodies as they wish but the foetus is not solely the woman's body.
The foetus is another person, unborn.

Late-term abortions are an abomination.
Abortion for flimsy reasons should also be discouraged.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well I certainly don't.
The whole concept of "bodily integrity" is a feminist concept.

I am not sure that feminists deserve the credit, but I applaud them if they did come up with it.

Yes, everybody can do with their bodies as they wish but the foetus is not solely the woman's body.
The foetus is another person, unborn.

Sure, but that does not change my argument in the slightest. My argument is that people other than the woman do not get to decide what the woman's body is used for. This includes the person of the fetus.

Late-term abortions are an abomination.
Abortion for flimsy reasons should also be discouraged.

Then I suggest that you never get an abortion.

[Ter]

My argument is that people other than the woman do not get to decide what the woman's body is used for. This includes the person of the fetus.

And my argument is that women don't get to decide who lives and who dies.
As I said, and you agreed. the foetus is not a part of her body, it is another person, unborn.

[Pants-of-dog]

And my argument is that women don't get to decide who lives and who dies.

Okay. What does that have to do with my argument?

As I said, and you agreed. the foetus is not a part of her body, it is another person, unborn.

Yes, and after that I pointed out that this has no bearing on my argument, as the personhood of a fetus means they have the same rights as anyone else. And since other people do not get to use a woman's body for their own ends, neither should the fetus.

[Ter]

Okay. What does that have to do with my argument?

It is relevant to your argument because you give the women the right to kill another person , albeit unborn, who happens still to be in her uterus.

Yes, and after that I pointed out that this has no bearing on my argument, as the personhood of a fetus means they have the same rights as anyone else. And since other people do not get to use a woman's body for their own ends, neither should the fetus.

And this is where we disagree.
A pregnancy is not an event that concerns only the female of the species.
There are three parties involved.
I do however not think that feminists would agree with that reality.