you again deny science and life

"if one's underlying premise is that fetus is a child from the moment of conception, or some other arbitrary point, emotions will rule regardless of the facts."

I'm interested in any facts you'd like to bring to the discussion. Please elaborate.

And if you're pointing to the webmd article, you might want to read it. They state themselves that the facts aren't clear. Not sure how this bolsters any "scientific" claim...

you are simply beyond pity with your hatred of life

you deny life and want to destroy it
all for selfish reasons

I don't think the law actually permits such orders. There used to be a few organizations that offered to pay such women to either use effective contraception or be sterilized.

Did you read the link I posted above? It's one example. Also, if one's underlying premise is that fetus is a child from the moment of conception, or some other arbitrary point, emotions will rule regardless of the facts.

What science and reason precisely are being ignored? It seems to me that the emotional one is the one arguing that the desire for pleasure should come without the responsibility that naturally occurs. But maybe I have it backwards. Please enlighten me.

Why are you astonished or appalled? The power to create life comes with responsibility (cue Spider-Man) and society has tried to divest themselves of that responsibility to their own detriment. Grown-ups accept that sex has consequences. Teen-agers (I have more than a few) prioritize temporary pleasure over a lifetime of parenthood. Time to grow up.

It's no different than operating a motor vehicle. You do it recklessly and you end up in an accident refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. Mature people understand that risks are involved and they take responsibility to drive safely.

For me, it's not only religious, but physical: it is distinct DNA. And I don't buy the "viability" argument because children are like four years old before they can even partially take care of themselves. Children depend on their parents long after the womb.

Salvo #1: https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a...

I have two nephews (adopted) who were drug babies. One has a completely lobotomized sense of right/wrong. He literally doesn't get why something is wrong. He steals from his parents. He nearly got shot by a girl's mother because he was going over to her house to have sex with her. The other one is mentally damaged IQ-wise. His adoptive parents (my sister-in-law) are pretty sure that he'll never be able to be a responsible head-of-household and are resigned to the fact he will probably live with them for life.

I have heard of judges ordering drug addicts to get permanent surgery to render them infertile. Sounds like this woman was way overdue.

you are the one denying science
the unborn FEELS PAIN
HAS A HEAT BEAT
HAS A NERVOUS SYSTEM
HAS ITS OWN DNA

IT IS A LIFE!!!!!

I see that biological science and reason have nearly zero significance in this debate. Emotion rules, as usual.

no sale

tell us what crime the unborn commite4d to be killed for

no sale
at some early point
it has its own DNA
its own nervous system
its own heat-beat
it feels pain

Men have NO CHOICE once she becomes pregnant. I know someone who NEVER KNEW he was a father. They found him when the kid was 12, and made him pay 12 yrs of back-child support (NOT at the wage he was making 12yrs ago, but at his current wages). Then support until 18. Then he has to pay for some part of university... With NO rights as a parent, and no say in what they study.

That's some Carte Blanche. This is the pendulum swinging too far.

Back in the old days... Shotgun weddings were real.

The system is broke. People are broke.
Nature makes us desire sex when we are young and stupid... B/C otherwise our species would have died off over 1 million years ago...

If it is a CLUMP of cells as they argue.
Then the GUY should have the right to order the Abortion, or be ABSOLVED of financial responsibility.

Let's see how fast that "Clump of Cells" argument lasts.

My problem is that this has become a great Honeypot/Trap to snare a check...

In the UK, it is believed that over 30% of ALL children are not the husbands. So much so, it is ILLEGAL to do a paternity test without the mothers permission... MMmmm Why?

So, there is a strategy here. Lets take that away if we maintain this. What argument does a woman get if she agrees it's a clump of cells... UNTIL SUDDENLY they've trapped the right target... Then it's suddenly MY PRECIOUS!

I’m at the point where I’m just sick of arguing morality with the immoral. I can’t stop them. Short of violence. I don’t agree with it. We could write a law I suppose. But we’ve had those already. Bloody lot of good they did.
I’m left too at least be satisfied that the people who do it will not be able to pass their dysfunction on to another generation. If there is a silver lining to this dark storm cloud that would have to suffice.

I'm astonished and appalled that so many of those who post here adhere to irrational/religious postulates, especially those relating to sexual behavior, contraception, abortion, etc. What about a woman's rights to self-determination, self-defense, and to her own right to determine the course of her life? Yes, sexual activity is fraught with risks, which should be avoided to the extent possible. Contraceptive failures shouldn't condemn a woman to nine months of cruel and unusual punishment (including health issues and risk of death), followed by 18+ years of involuntary servitude.

The basis for my belief is religious. Otherwise I would use a biological argument and go with when the child could survive a reasonable amount of time outside the womb; therefore, around 24 weeks.

What is the basis for your belief? How do you define conception? Implantation doesn't occur immediately, after all.

Agreed. For me personally it is a baby at conception.

Or using effective contraceptives and insisting that her partners did likewise.

I'm quite familiar with Rand's rebuttal to Humanae Vitae. In fact, I primarily base my opinions on this issue upon her analysis.

Discussions like this are the only way minds will change--and it won't happen overnight. Ayn Rand fought this same battle decades ago when she distinguished herself from "conservatives." If you have time, you might read Ayn Rand's rebuttal to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. She was also very outspoken about her conviction that human life (as opposed to biological life) begins at birth.
https://courses.aynrand.org/works/of-...