Would This Be A Fair Resolution To The Reproduction Rights Debate?

[NYCQuestions1976]

Liberals in the United States are constantly saying that we should be more like Europe. Well when it comes to abortion laws, in most of the countries in Europe, the choice cutoff is between 12 weeks and 20 weeks. In Australia and Japan, the choice cutoff is 22 weeks, 6 days (basically 23 weeks). In all of these mentioned locations, there are the obvious exceptions baked into the law (rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera) if an abortion is medically and/or legally needed beyond the legal deadlines.

Since Dobbs Versus Jackson overturned Roe Verses Wade, I propose that the House and Senate pass a national law allowing each state to set their own abortion choice laws similar to most of Europe, Australia, and Japan, between 12 weeks and 23 weeks. This way, we avoid having states like Texas that are trying to completely eliminate abortions, and also avoid having states like New Jersey and Oregon where abortions are possible into the 39th week of pregnancy. No states would be less than 12 weeks, and no states would be more than 23 weeks (except in cases of rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera). Abortion medication would remain available and legal in all 50 states, up to each state's specified choice deadline.

For full transparency and disclosure, I'm personally morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term (3rd trimester) abortion. Basically I would hope that life is chosen in most normal and reasonable circumstances, but fully understand the need for everyone's legal right to choose one or the other, up to a reasonable point. In normal and reasonable circumstances, no normal reasonable logical person needs more than 23 weeks to make a decision.

I believe that this is a fair and reasonable resolution to the reproduction rights debate in the United States. What do all of you think and believe? Vote and post your opinions below!

Yes. I'm pro-life, and I believe that this is a reasonable compromise.

Yes. I'm pro-choice, and I believe that this is a reasonable compromise.

Yes. I'm pro-late-term abortion, and I believe that this is a reasonable compromise.

No. I'm an unreasonable conservative and believe that all pregnancies should be born.

No. I'm an unreasonable liberal and believe that all pregnancies can be terminated at any time.

I generally like your resolution, but it needs a few tweaks.

I've got no opinion and/or I don't care.

[Lliam]

I'm pro choice but always had similar views to the one you described. It's why I was in favor of Roe v Wade.

If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it should be terminated as early as possible.

Chemical abortion can take place up to 70 days (10 weeks) after the first day of a woman's last period. That should be enough time to realize that she is pregnant and make a decision.

I wouldn't mind if the number of abortions a woman can have was limited to two or three (unless there were extenuating circumstances), in order to prevent women from using abortion as a means of contraception. Exceeding the maximum number would result in criminal penalties.

I would also like contraception to be easily and readily available at very low cost.

In regards to abortion not being mentioned in the Constitution, women weren't even granted equal rights under the Constitution. Now that their rights have been recognized, the right to their bodily autonomy, as well as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should also be recognized.

Unfortunately, a Constitutional amendment would be required in order to give the federal government the legal authority to regulate abortion, and I don't see such an amendment passing both the House and the Senate, let along getting ratified by 38 of the 50 states.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I pretty much agree with everything you've laid out, but with HIPAA in place and medication options available, it'd be difficult to prove when a woman was deliberately using abortion as contraception as you described.

[monorprise]

Why is it soo important to you that other people in far away distant state live under laws which reflect your believes, values, and needs rather than their own?

Setting aside the legal and moral issue of you telling people 1000 miles away what they MUST permit or do in their own state in compete ignorance of their conditions and circumstances.

How is abortion even Good policy in a country that isn't even having and raising enough kids to maintain itself?

[Lliam]

@monorprise. For the same reason I don't think states 100 miles away should have the right to legalize slavery.

It cracks me up that some people can't imagine a scenario in which an early term abortion would be best for the mother, the potential child and everyone involved. But "right to lifers" don't care about people, they only care about fetuses. Also, they have no right to impose their religious views on others, which is what this right to life crap boils down to.

[monorprise]

@Lliam
There are countless situation where killing anther person would be advantageous regardless of your sex, that doesn't make killing other people acceptable.

When you act against anther human person you are indeed imposing your views upon them to the exclusion of that other person's equal right to their own views or in the case of abortion any future views at all.

This is a horrific and murderous act of supreme selfishness. That you have unilaterally choose to beleive other other person simply isn't real is psychopathic in your own arrogance bigotry.

You don't get to unilaterally dehumanize and kill other people simply because their life is inconvenient to you.

[Lliam]

@monorprise. Don't we unilaterally dehumanize and kill other people around the world because their lives are inconvenient to our economic desires? Of course, we spin that as self defense. They are a threat to our "national interests".

[monorprise]

@Lliam
Our presidents frequently kill them unilateral, we don't tend to dehumanize them

[SamIam96]

This question has been live for 8 hours and the only people that have expressed opinions are men.

Women are traumatized when they're confronted with the question of whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Men impose their flawed assumptions upon that decision and feel like they need to control the "situation".

Sure, every state can choose to outlaw reasonable reproductive healthcare. Before I would allow that, they would have to pay the full cost of relocating the overwhelming majority of their population that would leave if they could. Unfortunately, most of that population can't just uproot and leave a fascist state.

[Johnny4473]

You do realize that more women voted against abortion than men? Also, this argument is extremely short sighted.

[monorprise]

Babies are males too. No one gets the right to both decide the humanity and right to life of other people. Not even the the new "super sex".

[SamIam96]

@Johnny4473 what do you mean "voted against abortion". There's been no vote.

Polls repeatedly show that most women (and men) are in favor of a woman't right to control their own bodies. It's intuitively obvious that men have no business inserting themselves into that decision.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@SamIam96 We can't have states being as restrictive as Texas, but at the other end of the spectrum, is it right that you can get a legal abortion in the 39th week in New Jersey and Oregon?

[SamIam96]

Actually yes, it is right. I'd wager that women aren't terminating healthy fetuses at 39 weeks. They're badly deformed, unlikely to survive or worse.

This all boils down to religious zealots imposing their beliefs on others. THAT isn't right.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@SamIam96 Well I'm not religious. Those examples/exceptions, along with others (such as rape and incest) are already part of the law, as they should be. I'm talking about "normal" and "healthy" pregnancies being terminated in the third trimester. It may not happen very often as you pointed out, but common sense tells me that no one that's having a normal and healthy pregnancy needs more than 24 weeks to make a decision.

[Kori1236]

Abortion is a personal decision. It shouldn’t be dictated by laws. For myself personally I wouldn’t be able to terminate past 14 weeks (unless the above mentioned viability etc…) as that’s when chances of viability go up and chances of miscarriage goes down. I personally don’t agree with late term abortions (unless medically necessary) and if I disregarded my whole 14week rule I wouldn’t abort past 22-24 weeks because that’s when viability outside the womb can be strived for and attained for some. But that’s me, I can’t and won’t speak for other because they may have a different stance than I do and that’s okay.


I should also include I’m not from the USA, abortion is legal where I am, and abortion is legal up until full term, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a doctor to perform one passed 23 weeks and 6 days (which is oddly specific) but again makes sense based on viability outside the womb.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Canada?

[Kori1236]

Yup. So we have laws regarding it regulations as well but it’s not outlawed like some states have made it

[NYCQuestions1976]

Well as of now, there's no state that has completely outlawed abortion yet, but some are definitely trying to restrict it severely, which I believe to be unreasonable and wrong.

We also have states like New Jersey and Oregon, where abortions are possible into the 39th week of pregnancy (to full term), which I also believe is unreasonable and wrong.

Even though I'm a libertarian and legally pro-choice, having the choice deadline at full term is something that my common sense refuses to process. Unless there's a medical and/or legal emergency, there's no logical legitimate reason in a "normal" and "healthy" pregnancy that anyone would need more than 23 weeks to make a decision.

[Kori1236]

I personally maintain it’s no one’s business but the people involved in the conception. Family doesn’t need to know, the internet doesn’t need to know and lawmakers don’t need to know. Unless it is personally happening to you it’s none of your business, nor mine.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Well in terms of terminating an otherwise healthy late-term, third-trimester pregnancy, especially at full term, we'll have to agree to disagree. While you're generally correct that personally and medically it's none of anyone's business other than those involved, if the government is paying for it, financially it becomes my business, because you're using my tax dollars.

"My body, my choice, my wallet."
"Your body, your choice, your wallet."

[Kori1236]

Financially it’s dependant on where you live. If I were to have an unplanned pregnancy and terminate it, it comes 100% out of my pocket. It’s the same with any sort of cosmetic surgery that isn’t life threatening. If I wanted a breast reduction I pay for it, but if I needed my appendix removed it’s covered under our health care system

[Agape93]

No. The only fair resolution, is leave our bodily autonomy alone and stop fucking with our rights.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Some say the same thing about vaccination mandates (I'm pro-vaccination, anti-mandates).

Anyway, so New Jersey, Oregon, and all of Canada have it correct? Legal abortions possible into the 39th week of pregnancy?

[Agape93]

No idea, I don't live there. But I don't care if they want to wait to abort until the hour before birth, it is still her body on the line and her life and wellbeing at risk. It's her business, not mine, not pastor Dave and not some scum politician or judge.

Same for vaccinations

[NYCQuestions1976]

Even though I'm a libertarian and legally pro-choice, and I agree with your overall reasoning, sentiment, and explanation, having the choice deadline being at full term is something that my common sense refuses to process. Unless there's a medical and/or legal emergency, there's no logical legitimate reason with a "normal" and "healthy" pregnancy that anyone would need more than 23 weeks to make a decision. So I guess we'll agree to disagree on the placement of the goalposts. I will admit that as long as it can be guaranteed that my tax dollars aren't being used to fund late-term, third-trimester abortions, then it really is 100% none of my business.

[OlderAndWiser]

As a matter of Federalism and states' rights, this is not a matter for the federal government to decide. States adopt different laws about many different topics and I don't see a problem with states adopting varying laws on this subject.

[Wade12345]

Truth can't contradict Truth.

That proves states shouldn't have contradixtory laws. in fact, God himself commanded us to all have

[Wade12345]

ONE LAW.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Wade12345 No! In the US, every state has the right to decide what is the law in that state, except for those subjcts specifcally set aside for federal preemption. That is not my opnion; that is the Constitution!

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Wade12345 Also, there is a separation of church and state in this country.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OlderAndWiser Yes I know it's up to each state now. I was just suggesting a window for each state to work with, because I'm tired of this issue taking focus away from other important issues, and it's also generally an unwinnable legal argument that backfires on non-liberals in this country.

[monorprise]

@Wade12345
Law is not truth, law is public policy reflecting our different values, needs, and histories. Like it or not these united States are a continental nation with an entire content of diversity. It is extremely unwise for us all to follow 1 set of policies.
For the cost/benefit of said politics differ widely in different areas among different people.

I might agree abortion is murder and can see no modern circumstance where it is justifiable much less wise among a population that isn't even producing and raising enough babies to sustain itself.

But that doesn't change the fact that abortion is a form of murder or medical procedure that like all others such domestic issues is handled by state under our system.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976 There is no "separation of church and State" only a separation of State & Church from the Federal goverment.

Read the 1st amendment it says congress Not the state legislator.

Read history of the states when that amendment was passed and for 100+ years thereafter. There was defiantly a lot of established religion laws among them before and after.

Read the original note first coining that phrase by Thomas Jefferson (who didn't write or inspire the 1st amendment being in France). President Thomas Jefferson was referring to his inability as president to intervene against the State of Connecticut persecution of a religion minatory.

Under the Federal Constitution as written and practiced at the time and for a hundred + years thereafter a State absolutely can demand you attend church of their choosing.

[OlderAndWiser]

@monorprise I don't know of any states that required citzens to attend church as recently as 1923. The first ten amendments were made applicable to and binding on the states by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868.

[monorprise]

@OlderAndWiser
If your going to pretend the Federal Court has the power to rewrite the Constitution, then we need not entertain the idea of there being a Federal Constitution, as the "law" is re-decided on a case by case basis by said "court" AKA oligarchs.

The 14th Amendment as recklessly irresponsibly written as it was makes no mention of "The bill of rights", indeed the idea that it ever was referring to any particular set of rights was rejected by the first federal court to rule on the amendment.
They did so on the very obvious grounds that to make such a claim would give such a court the effective power to abolish said constitution via declaring anything and everything a "right".

It wasn't until 50+ years later after the people who wrote and allegedly radifed that amendment had largely all passed that a later more "progressive" federal court decided to very selectively "incorporate" the bill of rights.

And by selective That means only cherry picking the "rights" they wanted and not even nessarly from the text of the "bill of rights at al" as said "rights" later included unmentioned and broad concepts like "privacy" and "Abortion"?

But what is 50+ million dead on the account of no vote if we get an all powerful un-elected and unaccountable oligarchs able to impose whatever they want via such arbitrary means?

As it happens the term "bill of rights" is not in the federal Constitution, nor does it even make sense as the 10 amendment, popularly deemed apart thereof are very specifically prohibitions and clarifications of FEDERAL power. Only some of them even have a clear relation to any particular right.

[RealMarek]

@Wade12345 “One law” is literally unconstitutional. That would require a new constitution and a national super-state that controls state and local governments directly as part of one regime.

[ChillaxingLove]

I don’t understand why this is even a debate. The reasons they give for abortion:

• because they might have a rapist baby: the probability of that scenario is so low it’s become a weak excuse.
• It’s the right of the women because it’s her body: normally that would be true if it didn’t involve another life. Because the baby is alive it automatically has rights and the laws apply to that unborn child. This is my prediction: when Ai gets super smart we will start considering what makes a person a person and THAT is when we will revisit this unborn child thing again.
• The only reason to remotely consider the woman’s choice to kill the baby or not is if birthing the child will kill her and there’s no medical alternative. At that point no one can really tell her anything because that would be essentially execution on whoever makes the choice other then the woman.

[monorprise]

Self-defense is a valid exclude for killing other people in nearly every state. But different states have different standard in judging what constitutes self-defense.

In this regard abortion being just anther form of killing is quite naturally a matter of State law. It should be illegal just as killing people you invited into your house is illegal except in circumstances where your own life would otherwise be forfeit.

[imawfulatusernames]

1) No it’s not unlikely that woman would be pregnant from rape and rape is very common

2) If it was any other form of ‘life’ you couldn’t force anyone into risking their health, happiness and life for it so moot point

3) Abortion saves lives in many ways do stfu

[NYCQuestions1976]

@ChillaxingLove So all pregnancies should be born, no matter the circumstances?

[monorprise]

@imawfulatusernames @NYCQuestions1976 Is it right for a human to pay with their life because of the choices of anther?

We don't think that is so in any of our other laws made to protect our rights, why should the smallest and most innocent of our little citizens deserve such callous disregard of their rights?

[imawfulatusernames]

@momorprise There is absolutely no situation under law where a person is required to risk their life for the possibility another survives

[monorprise]

What is wrong with each state doing their own thing under the U. S. Constitution?

Why do we have to agree at all?

We don't agree on any other law regarding murder or medical procedure...

There is a good reason there is no more power in the 11 page "Federal" Constitution for congress to define the intrastate law on abortion than for its courts.

We are NOT in agreement on such key cultural issues, and there is no need for us to agree. If you want to have abortions don't live in a pro-life state.

[NYCQuestions1976]

We don't all have to agree. It's just frustrating having this topic take so much attention away from so many other important issues.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976 Then your only option is to leave it to the States where it might be settled among a more agreeable population, the minority of which can move.

To let such a contentious domestic issue exist at the Federal level will only guarantee the same drama which has defined the issue for 50 years since Roe V. Wade.

You may not realize this but before Roe v. Wade Abortion was NOT such a contentious issue. There were no large scale campaigns 1 way or the other.

Roe V. Wade made the issue contentious by forcing very large sections of the population into a ideologically and religiously intolerable position, in treating their most vulnerable citizens with callous disregard.

No matter how much you might try to rephrase the abortion issue as personal it can't be for the simple reason that the baby being murdered IS ITSELF PERSON, who had no choice!

This can never be tolerated among people, religions, and cultures that values life!

The only way you can ever have peace is to let those people at least vote with their feet.

[RangerBlue22]

I’ve said this for years now. The issue shouldn’t be about abortion. It should be about preventing white from meeting red in the first place.

We should be putting our entire focus on contraceptive science. While I am pro life I also am very pro contraception. We need to do more to focus on women not getting pregnant in the first place. But once she is pregnant then you are dealing with human life now. That changes the game. But why in the focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

[monorprise]

Are you nuts? Our population and culture is already dying because too few people are taking on the burden of having and raising children.

The focus on killing it faster rather than reversing the decades of such efforts that have put us in this position is masochist.

[RangerBlue22]

@monorprise i agree that the declining reproduction rates are very scary.

However there needs to be some sort of compromise to prevent the killing of unborn children. Contraceptives are not “murder” but abortion definitely is.

[monorprise]

@RangerBlue22
We might agree true Contraceptives which simply prevent conception is not murder. But many other 'pills' sold on the market such as the one disputed by Texas are actually just pills designed to kill an already conceived baby.

[RangerBlue22]

@monorprise like I said above. Anything to stop white from meeting red.

I swear if people put half the effort into developing and promoting effective contraceptives then we could prevent 50%+ of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

But I am fed up with people who just want to be reckless and then consider abortion as “sacred” form of contraceptive. But again there is never any talk about preventing the problem to begin with.

[monorprise]

@RangerBlue22 There is also something called "abstinence, it is 100% effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

But as with the case of less effective contraceptives we the west are in NO position to be promoting either. We need more not less babies desperately. People need to grow up and carry out their responsibility to their families and their country to carry the torch forward as it was carried for them.

Nature designed sex to be pleasurable so that people would actually carry forward that torch, our screwing with nature by allowing people to abuse that pleasure without consequence is a major problem for the future our species.

The objective is catastrophically bad policy which no human civilization on earth can afford.

[RangerBlue22]

@monorprise and it would be nice if that approach above would work and but it’s not.

Again I’m pro life. However everything is getting more and more and more and more polarized by the minute. You can yell your POV to these people until they are blue in the face. But if isn’t obvious already that’s not working nor is complaining about it.

There has be some sort of common sense compromise. I know the idea of “common ground” seems like an impossible ideal nowadays but our country is going to split in two (and probably get invaded) if we keep going down this path.

by the way the reason the republicans performed extremely poorly in the 2022 midterms is because huge swathes of brainwashed college grad women voted for democrats in response to the overturning of roe vs Wade. They are so fixated on their “sacred right” to abortion not even skyrocketing inflation and the f*cking recession can get through their thick skulls.

But again if republicans keep up with your viewpoint about then pro choice advocates will continue to vote in moron democrats who promise them pro choice bs. This why we need a different approach.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@RangerBlue22 Better contraceptives with fewer or no side effects would be an excellent thing.

[RangerBlue22]

And we need to put more money and effort into contraceptive R&D (NOT abortion).

[stepyo99]

It's better than what's currently on the books, but if it were up to me the only reason for getting an abortion would be rape or severe birth defects, etc. Elective abortions, which are the overwhelming majority of all abortions (something like 95%) would be outlawed.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Morally I agree with you, but legally that position is a losing battle for Republicans.

[monorprise]

How is it better?

1st: Your violating the u. S. Constitution in letting congress set a policy on a subject nowhere mentioned therein.

2nd: Your forcing very different populations with different cultural, geographic, and economic interest to fight over the issues of life and death in federal elections again.

Why can't abortion be addressed by the same State legislator that addresses every other form of murder and medical procedure in wildly different ways?

[slatyb]

It should be 100% available until 24 weeks. It's very rare that a woman waits that long for an elective abortion. There have never been elective abortions performed after 24 weeks. They are done only in extremis -- the fetus is not viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

[NYCQuestions1976]

New Jersey and Oregon has legal abortions available until the 39th week of pregnancy.

[Gingerbread_GB]

Here's the thing about compromise: Nobody's happy. Politicians all say they want to find middle ground, but in truth they don't. They only look for leverages over their opponents.

The two party system in the US push for binary solutions, moderate politicians and factions have failed to gain traction for decades now. Even though your proposal covers most of the status quo, I think it would fail in Congress because both parties want more.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Yes. Both sides want more. That's why this is never resolved. That, and because it generates money hand over fist.

[Wade12345]

The fact you are proposing a compromise proves you don't understand what Good and Evil are and proves you don't understand where LAW comes from.

Abortion is murder. period. your moderator deleting and banning me every time i say that doesn't' change the fact abortion is murder.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I haven't deleted anything. I don't believe in censorship.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Also, I understand good and evil just fine. However there's a separation of church and state in this country.

[joesheks]

I must have missed the part of the Constitution that gave Congress authority over this matter. Women have many choices - condoms birth control pills diaphragms injections etc. yet here we are in 2023, and women still want to KILL an unborn child despite having had all the aforementioned choices. Abortion activists aren’t really pro-choice, they are pro-death —- seldom do they emphasize all the choices women do have and the personal responsibility factor. We live in very sick times.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Congress has the constitutional authority to write and vote on bills for the President to sign into law, or in the event of a presidential veto, vote into law a congressional bill with a ⅔ majority.

[OddBeMe]

Honestly the 20 week ban is reasonable. As 99% of abortions happen in the first 8-12 weeks. And involve pills not vacuums.

But this issue is too much of a lightning rod to be decided reasonably. Both political parties make too much money fighting for their extremes. Though the Dems are fighting for bodily autonomy…like Repubs sometimes do if it’s for vax mandates. Lol

[monorprise]

Tell me how is it that you can have "bodily autonomy" over someone else's body?

How can civil sociality exist when individual have the right to simply dehumanize and kill anther person?

This is the position democrats are taking in claiming their "super sex" can dehumanize and kill our smallest and most innocent of children for their own convenience.

Abortion isn't a vaccine, it is the tearing apart and killing of a innocent little HUMAN life!

That is straight up murder, and if you demand said right for your personal convenience then we have every right to demand likewise rights for our convenience.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Big Green and Green Privilege are always driving the political machines in this country. I'm sure we'd never be able to find out for certain, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if secretly there are pro-abortionist fundraisers and activists that were extremely overjoyed about Roe Verses Wade being overturned.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise

1. Who’s the someone else?
2. Again what “person” are you referring?
3. Super sex? And again what “children”?
4. The abortion pill starts periods, so if you take that position, you also have to jail women for having miscarriages or just plain periods.
5. Again murder is against a “person”. What person are you referring?

[OddBeMe]

Big green industry has so much power in this country. Lol.
(Checking biggest companies) oh no actually it’s still ConocoPhillips….

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Not "green" like that. I meant "big money" and "money privilege" in general from either/all sides.

Some environmental/green companies might have more government money to use right now if not for Solyndra wasting billions of our money years ago.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
1: The baby your murdering.

2: The unique human being who's life you CHOOSE to conceive and subsequently choose to end for your own personal conveniences. That is a unique Human-being with their own Unique DNA and life no different than your own.

3: The "Super sex" is referring to the super citizens so defined in superior protection of rights in association with sex by The Goverment. Also known as women.

4: The trigger of my gun starts a small explosion which drives a bullet, if we are going to ignore the fact I knew you were standing in the way of said bullet and fired it for that reason, then sure you can ignore what your pill does. We can likewise ignore what countless other fatal poisons do for the same reason. For not one of them can be anymore said to directly kill a person beyond the circumstances of its use.

5: The word Person is defined as:
A: A living human. Often used in combination.
B: An individual of specified character.

Both of which define the very human infant in the womb by nature of their DNA and life processes which all life shares.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise your super sex comment is troubling me. Despite the fact you don’t know the definition of a “person” or “baby”. Both are born.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Well if you have demonstratively superior rights to the other sex then you are "Super" which is short for "superior".

Women today do have demonstratively and quantifiable superior legal rights and protections to men. Hence they are the legally "Super"ior sex.

This is of course presuming we accept our 'federal' governments definition of the "law" rather than that which we actual authorized under the 11 page constitution which speaks of not power for any of theses laws.
Otherwise women are only the legally "Super"iur sex in many states.

I've already given you the definition of person from the dictionary, that said it is the definition of human and life which is of supreme important.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise wait wait…how do women have superior legal status to men? Just because they have control over their own bodies?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Yes their ability to kill other people for their personal conveniences in many states is one example. 2 examples include Women get special treatment in family court and special business tax advantages.
.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise again what people?

[OddBeMe]

Sperm has ole factory system and is life. How much death have you masturbated?

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Sperm doesn't have a compete set of unique DNA, therefore is no more distinct from the guy who created it than any other cell. Less so in fact given its a haploid.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise and a fetus doesn’t have the complete requirements for personhood. We all can have insipid rules that go with our beliefs. But us liberals believe you don’t take away liberty until you have evidence of a problem.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Not even the first dictionary i could find agrees with your very narrow definition of person:
"A living human."

A fetus is certainly living "Possessing life." as the same dictionary, and a human as its DNA proves.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise “possessive determiners” may be two big words….

[OddBeMe]

Seriously tho you’re putting a narrow definition and unscientific one on fetal tissue. All because you believe in souls.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
I need not, and did not mention the idea of a soul, merely the physical biological reality.

Thou the definition of soul could be a little more vague and thus would be more useful to desire to have the right to kill people who inconvenient you.

Simply because if you were to use it as a qualification for the right to life you could arbitrarily pick any point for it to emerge, and therefore any point to kill that life which you find inconvenient.

My definition picks conception because that is the point where a unique human life comes into existence with the formation of unique HUMAN DNA in a living form needing only food and shelter to survive..

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise there’s actually no perceived point of conception. There’s the sperm wiggling into the egg. But no magic spark occurs after. Like an hour hand, we can’t identify a clear point of “personhood”. Like I’ve said before, a 20 week ban is acceptable because 99% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks. When it’s a speck.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
I just gave you a clear and precise definition, the point where the DNA successfully combines, at this point we need no more spesfic definition.

It very much depends on your definition of magic if you want to call that magic. I think science has already crossed the border in our understanding of how that works for it to still be deemed magic.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise is there a measurable point of where “dna successfully combines”?

[OddBeMe]

That’s the real issue here. There’s no single point we can…we’ll point at. Like a turnstile or clock reading. Like evolution it happens slowly and there are no real measurable “points”.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Yes there are mensurable points, Althou with regard to our current tecnoligy the safest point to measure it is when the cells start dividing. This had to have happened weeks before a woman would even be detectable in a natural pregnancy or in the cases of IVF it can safely be determined within a few days or less.

As mention the either way distinction is not meaningful as you could not have known to abort the child beforehand.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise so again…there’s no measuring points we can both see in a pregnancy?

Like “oh the pot of water is boiling now.” That’s a measuring point. And not a very complex one. Show me anything. But what you just said don’t count for shit as we can’t detect it.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
If your not prepared to accept indirect evidence as something you can see, then you really can't see anything at all.

For all you know from your eyes is that photons have hit them, you only infer that they came from some particular source to form an image.

We cannot directly see the behavior of atoms, only the results of said behavior. As such we can know that a woman is pregnant via such indirect evidence. But if your not prepared to accept that indirect evidence, then you defiantly have no reason to preform an abortion to end a pregnancy you couldn't accept existed.

But as a rule we know human life causes pregacy, were it something other than human life causing such symptoms then an abortion would be a pointless and dangerous procedure for the woman.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise we can with microscopes etc. You’re saying “indirect evidence” like that means something.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
You can see a embryo with a microscope, as you can with the egg and sperm and know that it had successfully fertilized into a unique human life when it starts spiting successfully within days. Such is generally the case with procedures like IVF.

We do not have the tecnoligy however to safely (without risking harm to the baby) know the instance that DNA had combined successfully.
Regardless the tecnoligy required to do even this makes the question somewhat academic.

In my state it is illegal at this point to simply kill the embryo.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise successfully fertilized isn’t the spark of life. Like I said it’s the hour hand. That’s like saying the seed has successfully landed in the whole in the dirt.

[monorprise]

A seed is alive whether it landed in the dirt or not, that's why we have to go thou such trouble to keep it that way.

Landing in the dirt much like successfully attaching to the womb is simply a necessary at present step for the embryo then blastocyst to take to continue living.

Unfortunately the odds for either are not generally great, but the odds of survival of any life on earth has always been difficult.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise a “step” does not mean “person”. This is what I’ve been trying to get through your thick skull. A person has consciousness. I’d even settle for just a brain and nervous system.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
Its correct a step is an action which a living human takes. We already defined Person with the dictionary as a "living human". An embryo is certantly living and its DNA is certantly human. Thou our first steps in life may be among our most difficult, that doesn't make us any less a person than any at any other stage of life which very well could include just as dangerous steps.

I understand your trying to dehumanize the embryo on the account of its age and perhaps lack of development of certain systems. To define your level of development you invent a metaphysical concept you call "Consciousness" to which you provide your own meaning.

Others might call this the aforementioned 'Soul' and would certantly not agree with you as to its origin, nature, or time of acquiring (historically it was viewed to come quite late and selectively to certainty people by some cultures).
Frankly I think the debate is pointless for whether or not the baby has yet achieved theses qualities for they are not what entitles the baby to the right to life.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise sorry got lost in the shuffle 12 days ago.

No, we didn’t if that’s the only definion of “person”. Which honesty is the entire argument of abortion. When does a person start? But looking up dictionary. Com or whatever, the word “individual” appears. And go into that a “thinking person”.

I’m really not trying to dehumanize an embryo uneccessarily. I think you guys are trying to make it a beautiful baby as soon as the sperm wiggles into the egg, which is ridiculous.

The real debate is when should a woman’s right to choose be hampered? I’m actually ok with a 20 week ban. As after that brain and nervous systems start to materialize. Still not a “person” to me, but regardless 99% of abortions are done by pill in the first 10-12 weeks.

[msc545]

@OddBeMe No - a person and a baby are both conceived. Birth comes later if they are not murdered first.

[OddBeMe]

@msc545 I’m getting it from both ends now? Lol

I mean basic definitions: baby is an infant, “little animal” (weird), and sentences used: “She HAD a baby.” Or of pregnant: She’s HAVING a baby. If pregnant you can’t count it as a dependent.

Person: human being regarded as individual. Technically, despite whatever bs state laws they pass, it’s someone born.

[msc545]

The bias in the choices that you provided in the polls that you posted invalidate essentially, all of the results that you might obtain. You should learn to present poll choices in an unbiased fashion. That said, I think that for the most part abortion is indistinguishable from murder.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Well I always need to have some levity or my eyes would glaze over.

Morally I agree with you, but I disagree legally, because I believe your position legally is unattainable.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976
Your poll question is indeed very biased, you also don't clearly define the issue as Federal vs. State. vs international.
You just assert that there is somehow a problem with the Federal goverment not defining a common law on a domestic issue.

If so why is the federal level where such an issue must be defined, why not state, or global?

What is soo unique about that middle level of organization, and soo problematic about the more local or global level of policy application?

How is laws on abortion different from any other form of murder which in the USA is a state crime?

An even bigger question is the institutional one, setting aside the fact our Federal Constitution contains No such power over abortion, institutionally it deliberately gives the Federal goverment no practicality to command the states.

There is a reason for this, the federal goverment is actually suppose to be a FEDERAL not state goverment its politicians are suppose to run on Foreign NOT domestic issues.

Having power over states lets them cherry pick whatever issue they want and ignore the issues they alone have sole real responsibility for. Letting the feds become involved in domestic policy just corrupts and undermines their ability to govern in every area.

[msc545]

@monorprise I understand it is annoying, but when the right-wing starts invoking policies at the state level that violate parts of the Constitution, the Federal government has to step in, like it or not, or the Constitution and The Bill of Rights become meaningless.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@monorprise I was suggesting the window of time as a possible national guideline. Then each state would take it from there.

[monorprise]

@msc545

The Federal constitution, and its associated amendments, have become meaningless BECAUSE our "Federal" politicians have not respected the limits of their own power and "Seeped in"!

Abortion is no where mentioned in the 11 page federal constitution, neither is any other kind of murder, nor the way you build you house, nor what latrine you use you buy, nor the car you drive, nor where you hunt.
Yet our "Federal" politicians have seen fit to impose their domestic idea on all of theses issue. To the exclusion the politicians who are actually elected to make said policy

To say nothing of the fact that it effectively crows out any accountability for their FEDERAL responsibility when they can simply choose to run on any popular domestic issue instead of the war they are losing, or the bad trade deal they made.

So we have been getting the worse of both worlds and ever larger amounts of corruption.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976

If the federal goverment doesn't require "guidelines" why on earth would our State goverment require "guidelines"?

Furthermore how is any "guideline" any different than any other law passed by either which imposes or restricts policy options?

We already have a law for guidelines to the limit we feel our governments require it, we call said laws Constitutions. The "Guidelines" for the Federal Goverment exclude them entirely from domestic issues like Abortion and every other form of murder inside the states.
The "guidelines " for our states are dictated by their people in State Constitutions.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@monorprise Without some window to work with, we've got states that haven't outlawed abortion yet, but are definitely trying to restrict abortion severely, which I believe to be unreasonable and wrong.

We've also got states like New Jersey and Oregon, where abortions are possible into the 39th week of pregnancy (to full term), which I also believe is unreasonable and wrong.

Even though I'm a libertarian, legally pro-choice, and against government in medical decisions, having the choice deadline at full term is something that my common sense refuses to process. (The same goes for having no choice at all.) Anyway, unless there's a medical and/or legal emergency, there's no logical legitimate reason in a "normal" and "healthy" pregnancy that anyone would need more than 23 weeks to make a decision.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976
Why is it your business what other people in other states do with their own laws?

You don't nanny forign nations nor do you seem to care about the vast differences laws on every other form of murder and medical procedure?

Why is it that the people of New Jersey and South Carolina must agree on anything within their respective borders?

You choose to live in a State you should be choosing that state for its laws and the opportunities said system affords. That we don't agree is an acknowledgement both that we don't know, and we are different.
This is the most important quality of freedom its inherit humility and respect for others. Without this quality there is no prosperity only a prison of the arrogance and ignorance.

[exitseven]

it is not a bad way of doing this. Maybe 22 weeks is a little much. I would like to be sure when a fetus becomes a sentient being capable of feeling pain.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Thanks. I appreciate the support. Morally I agree with your opinion.

[Juxtapose]

If you kill the damn thing before it develops a brain stem then there is no consciousness to experience pain or loss. It is a clump of cells.

But people are too caught up in their emotions to even accept this.

[NYCQuestions1976]

We can't have states like Texas, but we also can't have states like New Jersey and Oregon either.

[Bklynbadboy12]

This is really simple if you don't want an abortion then do get one but the government has no right to tell anybody what they can and can't do with their body. I don't like abortion either but I'm not gonna force my beliefs on anybody

[NYCQuestions1976]

I could support this as long as my tax dollars aren't being used.

"My body, my choice, my wallet."
"Your body, your choice, your wallet."

[Bklynbadboy12]

Well said bro as long as they pay for it I'm cool it's their life live it as they see fit cause I know I'm gonna live my life on my terms

[NYCQuestions1976]

I agree that the government has no business being involved in personal medical decisions. However it's the epitome of hypocrisy when people believe that, but then also want that same government to pay for those medical decisions with other people's tax dollars.

[Bklynbadboy12]

That's so true but no matter what they'll find something to spend our tax dollars on

[NYCQuestions1976]

Sad, but true.

[LiamJHayden]

I dislike abortion and would hope that the mother would choose life, but I despise a government with the power to intrude into people's lives at that level.

[NYCQuestions1976]

As a libertarian, I just about completely agree with you. I'm also pro-vaccination, anti-mandates. Also as a libertarian, I can't stand the hypocrisy that some people have, expecting the government to stay out of medical decisions (which it should), but then expecting that same government to use my tax dollars to pay for those decisions.

"My body, my choice, my wallet."
"Your body, your choice, your wallet."
"Her body, her choice, her wallet."

The only small part I can't agree with is the ability to have late-term, third-trimester abortions up until the 39th week of pregnancy in New Jersey and Oregon. Libertarian or not, my common sense just can't process that.

[msc545]

If women had any consistent inclination to choose life, there would be no need for this debate. They don't.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@msc545 Well more women than men are against abortion in the United States. I know it's not any consolation, but it is true.

[msc545]

Evidence?

[LiamJHayden]

@msc545 Cannot really dispute that. I just do not trust government officials with that level of power.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@msc545 I meant of the portion of the overall population that happens to be pro-life. I didn't mean to suggest that the majority of women overall are pro-life. My bad.

[Jamie05rhs]

I disagree. I think the way it is currently is the best and most rational solution. Blue states will do what they do, because they're blue states. And the rest of us will protect unborn children.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I agree with your opinion morally, but legally I believe it's an unwinnable battle.

[Jamie05rhs]

@NYCQuestions1976 The legal battle has already been decided, though. It's settled.

[BrookeS]

How can people claim that bacteria on mars is life but a fetus in a womb is not

[Johnny4473]

Because it makes it easier for them to kill it. And also i guess the bacteria on mars doesn't take away their body autonomy... so they are kinda biased

[BrookeS]

@Johnny4473 they shouldn’t be killing them it’s not right

[Johnny4473]

Yeah, but the question is how much authority do you really wanna give the government? Is abortion wrong? Absolutely.

Is murder wrong? Yes. Does the state still sanction it? Yes. Ehat are the criterion for the applicability of the sanctity of human life?

[monorprise]

@Johnny4473 If goverment isn't going to enforce laws against murder, there is hardly any point in Goverment existing at all.

After all if we are going to have to fend for our own lives all the time by ourselves what need do we have for the police?

[imawfulatusernames]

Life is a dependent term. No one is claiming there isn’t cellular life but this isn’t the same as a human life

[NYCQuestions1976]

@brookes Interesting example! It's a bit more complicated than that obviously, but still interesting nonetheless!

[BrookeS]

@imawfulatusernames life is life, you can't say one is less then the other.

[BrookeS]

@NYCQuestions1976 no its not it is atually one of the simpliest things, dont kill babys

[NYCQuestions1976]

@brookes Morally I agree with you.

[imawfulatusernames]

@BrookeS Yes I can, that’s how I can say it’s okay to get rid of tape worms or lice.

[BrookeS]

@imawfulatusernames but we aren't talking about tape worms or lice, we are talking about a persons child

[imawfulatusernames]

@BrookeS First if all thank you for admitting your point was ridiculous. Secondly that’s your opinion it’s by definition not a child, you haven’t made a point just feelings

[najekim]

I would recommend to make codified federal law instead of leaving it up to the states. Look at the mess we have already because of no federal mandate.

[monorprise]

Look at the larger mess we had for 50 years even when our dictators in black robes had codified a very complex law that congress could not repeal?

The Constituent is silent on the issue of abortion just like every other form of murder that means congress has no more right to codify a law on the subject than it's hand picked court.

Leave the issue to the states.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@najekim Having it be a states' rights issue is fine, to a point. I just want to give the states a choice window to work with. This way, we don't wind up with huge extremes like Texas (trying to completely eliminate abortions), and New Jersey and Oregon (legal abortions possible into the 39th week of pregnancy).

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976 @najekim
States have a choice, and the Federal court has once more decided to respect and protect that choice.

Your unconstitutional act of congress would only remove said choice in allegedly confining its domain by the will of a continental majority once more bound to fight endlessly over said issue.

If you want peace, remove the issue from Federal politics, ignore and oppose anyone who might try to return it there.

Federal politicians should be running in elections on FEDERAL they alone can control not Domestic issues. Not popular domestic matters we separately elect our states, actually capable of policing them to manage.

[Pohjolan]

Americans should make a compromise that abortion is illegal for registered Republicans.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Not sure what that does, but okay.

[CB-Raido-Time]

The only fair solution is to the unborn not murdering them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

I agree with you morally, but legally and politically it's an unpopular stance.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976 This is a republic not a democracy, If the majority of people wish to vote away your right to life you have every duty to contest the vote.

[CB-Raido-Time]

@monorprise Agree absolutely.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@monorprise I'm aware that the United States is a Constitutional Republic.

[monorprise]

@NYCQuestions1976
Then you understand why we don't care even if a majority doesn't respect the right to life. That right is essencal and inalienable, and we have little choice but to stand by it at all cost. For we have nothing left without it.

That a baby is helpless and cannot effectively defend his or her right to life does not make it ok for anyone to take that right from them.