True, but his use of the word "science" is what caused me to comment. I find it difficult to let such a blatantly false statement and misuse of the very quote he quoted go without comment. The only we can fight against such dishonesty is to call it out.
“While some people falsely claim that a preborn baby at 6 weeks’ gestation is just a clump of cells, science demonstrates the baby is already a complex human being,” said Dr. Tara Sander Lee, senior fellow and director of life sciences at the nonprofit Charlotte Lozier Institute. “A preborn baby’s heart is actively beating at 6 weeks and will have already beat nearly 16 million times by 15 weeks. In fact, at 6 weeks’ gestation, the baby’s heart rate is about 110 beats per minute, which can be easily detected by ultrasound.” https://lozierinstitute.org/science...rt-rate-is-approximately-98-beats-per-minute/ Thanks, I will continue to try It is my belief that in time, abortion will be seen in the same light as slavery is now
You do understand that: 1) this actually does not change what I wrote. The number of electrical impulses is not relevant to whether or not the thing causing the impulses is a heart (as it is not), 2) the person who wrote that quote is NOT a physician, despite having "Dr." in her title. She has a PhD., but is not a physician, she is the "lead editor" of the "Voyage of Life" anti-choice propaganda. and 3) The "Charlotte Lozier Institute" is a part of the radical anti-choice organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Correct? I mean you acknowledge that you chose a deliberately one-sided site to quote what you quote, yes? Still not good enough.
the cost and availability of contraceptives being what it is, I would hope that a woman (and the man involved) would make that decision before she is pregnant of course the health of the mother should always be considered and given priority if that becomes an issue in the case of rape, I'm willing to defer to the wishes of the woman cases of incest are so rare as to hardly need a mention, but once again, I would defer to the wishes of the woman are you ok with abortion up to and including time of birth?
Based on your previous posting, you are only concerned with the physical health of the mother. Yet both mental and financial health of the mother effect the child as well.
You are saying abortion is acceptable in some instances. Given you think abortion will be seen akin to slavery, we can presume that you think slavery is acceptable in some instances. If you don't think slavery is sometimes acceptable, then you have demonstrated you don't believe abortion will be seen in the same light as slavery, thereby invalidating what you think.
(Numbers are for your 5 points, just in case that is not clear) 1. I completely agree, but Justice Clarence Thomas said that legal right to contraceptive could be on the chopping block. Also, employers should NEVER be allowed to determine what health services, including contraceptives, should be excluded from coverage due to "religious exceptions" of the employer. 2. So, it is not about "killing babies" or the "viability of heartbeats," then? How relativistic of you. 3. So, it is not about "killing babies," then? 4. So, it is not about "killing babies," then? 5. Yes, I am okay with a woman's right to terminate up until the time of birth. Of course, if you think incest is "so rare as to hardly need a mention," this is significantly more rare. The ONLY time that happens is if there is a fatal (but to that point undiagnosed) condition or the mother is about to die. Frankly, that should not even be called an abortion. In fact, it is your second point. Since the health of the mother should be "given priority if that becomes an issue" then you ARE in favor of "abortion up to and including the time of birth," as well. Why am I okay with it? Because it is not my damn role to make any determination for the health care that a woman or any other person desires.
I've known someone who died giving birth. Those "pro-lifers" don't give a damn if the mother dies, all they care about is ensuring their version of "morality" intrudes on other people's lives, even if it means those people die for it.
And let's be clear, her PhD is in Biochemistry, not human biology or medicine. This is a very typical ploy by the religious right. I've seen it repeatedly when evolution is the topic - they never seem to appeal to people whose research involves a discipline directly related to evolution. I've got a PhD in Biological Anthropology. From the perspective of the religious right I guess I'm qualified to discuss matters related to Astrophysics!
And you would be qualified to discuss matters related to a woman's anatomy! (Well, except for the whole being gay thing, OF COURSE!)
seeing that you support abortion and that more then half abortions in the US are black or brown babies (way out of proportion of the population), we can presume that you support abortion to control the black and brown population in the US
1. just because one Justice says something does not make it a law and access to abortion and contraceptives should be argued about in Congress, you know, where they pass the laws and health insurance should be decoupled from work, that is another mess that the government has gotten us into and we would do well to sever that connection, then people can buy whatever plan suites them best 2. were talking about medicine here, where there are many trade offs, some are easier some are harder, this one would probably be one of the worst ones 3. its better to save most if not all then allow abortion at any time for any reason 4. its better to save most if not all then allow abortion at any time for any reason 5. should there be any stops on when or for what reason? and please correct me if I'm wrong... but if you have a late term abortion, the woman still has to deliver the dead baby, right? what is the degree of difference between delivering a dead or a live baby? and I would never stand in the way of a woman's medical choices for herself its when she start making choice for another (the fetus or baby) then it becomes an issue
Deflecting like the troll you are. What type of slavery do you think is acceptable, given you said you think abortion and slavery will be viewed the same in the future? Is slavery ok if someone's life is in danger? Is that what you think? Or are you dishonest, or perhaps just someone who makes outlandish statements without actually thinking them through? And for the record, you admitted to supporting abortion as well, so you are in no place to talk. You are a hypocrite.
Good point in that a proto-heartbeat is a really dumb way to determine whether or not a 6 week old fetus is an individual human being. The lack of a developed brain or multiple body parts you list is a better indicator that it is not.
yes, I am, sometimes, i'm only human, with all the human failings no one is perfect, except you I just listed what I thought was right and the best way to handle the situation in the right here and now there are many types of slavery... sometimes people think they are free but in reality they are enslaved by their lifestyle or their ideology
Does that mean miscarriage will then be ranked as the single greatest threat to human health? Because 20-25% of fetuses “die” via miscarriage perfectly naturally, by design, often before the mother is even aware she’s pregnant. Which, if you’re a religious person, makes God the biggest abortionist of all.
God thinks aborted babies are better off than ones who are born: "And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 In some French Bibles it translates it as the "aborted ones" (not distinguishing between natural and artificial abortions, given there were no medical abortions back in the Hebrew days).
Once again you are displaying your blatant hypocrisy. You on multiple occasions disingenuously wrote: "then allow abortion at any time for any reason". This, of course, is not what most pro-choice people advocate. You deliberately and intentionally create a straw man argument and then complain about people positing "arguments like that". You are a troll.
No, you didn't. You said in the future you believe that abortion will be seen to be the same as slavery. That was not an argument for how things should be handled in the here and now, that is a moral/philosophical argument for the nature of the activity. When called on it you were unable to defend it. It clearly shows you spout ridiculous statements without thinking them through. In no way, shape or form is abortion akin to slavery. The mere suggestion they are is abominable.
You are wrong and you have been corrected. No, there does not have to be a "delivery." There are surgical procedures that can be performed. If a fetus is not viable at, say, 7 months (it has been determined not to be developing its brain to any viable capacity), prohibiting a termination means that the woman would have to carry that unviable fetus for up to two more months, with ALL of the serious health risks associated with that (sepsis and a host of other conditions), to say nothing of the extraordinary and excruciating psychological risks and damage. Plus, the incredible costs in medical care, time off work, etc. And then watch as the "baby" passes in front of her. That is what you callously dismiss as a "late term abortion." "and I would never stand in the way of a woman's medical choices for herself its when she start making choice for another (the fetus or baby) then it becomes an issue" You do not see the essential contradiction there, do you? This is such a cop out it is surprising someone would write it. What choice is she making for the fetus, which is part of her body? Why should a fetus have a choice? What an odd statement.