5 ms·

That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sent

That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sentence. I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues: First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it. Secondly there is a debate over states rights and what topics the federal government should get a say in.

feet 4y ago
In the US humans have rights on a sliding scale, a child does not have the same rights as an 18 year old I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles
- yucky 4y ago
  Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.
  - feet 4y ago
    At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily autonomy of women, its disingenuous
    - yucky 4y ago
      Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line. So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?
      - feet 4y ago
        Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always
        yucky 4y ago
        >Draw the line at 41 weeks. And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.
        feet 4y ago
        And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government make too much money off it and keep us peasants fighting about pointless shit like abortion while they loot the country I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement and can't bring up that example that you just know exists. Get off that clown shit and show me a real example So where is it? These examples of abortions where the mother didn't want it at 39 weeks Quit lying
        yucky 4y ago
diordiderot 4y ago
I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not. Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive? I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.
- edanm 4y ago
  I understand your point and it's a valid one, but you're not actually engaging with (part of) parent's argument. If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?
- yucky 4y ago
  How does a 39 week old fetus differ from a newborn? I think the point of contention for most people is on why a mother should be able to end the life of one and not the other. The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?

feet 4y ago

In the US humans have rights on a sliding scale, a child does not have the same rights as an 18 year old I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles

yucky 4y ago
Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.
- feet 4y ago
  At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily autonomy of women, its disingenuous
  - yucky 4y ago
    Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line. So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?
    - feet 4y ago
      Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always
      - yucky 4y ago
        >Draw the line at 41 weeks. And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.
        feet 4y ago
        And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government make too much money off it and keep us peasants fighting about pointless shit like abortion while they loot the country I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement and can't bring up that example that you just know exists. Get off that clown shit and show me a real example So where is it? These examples of abortions where the mother didn't want it at 39 weeks Quit lying
        yucky 4y ago

diordiderot 4y ago

I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not. Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive? I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.

edanm 4y ago
I understand your point and it's a valid one, but you're not actually engaging with (part of) parent's argument. If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?
yucky 4y ago
How does a 39 week old fetus differ from a newborn? I think the point of contention for most people is on why a mother should be able to end the life of one and not the other. The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?