By Donna May 6, 2022 11:47 pm Category: Opinion (5.0 from 1 vote) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

IMO European countries have sensible abortion laws, and they're very similar from nation to nation.

From Wikipedia:

Abortion in France
Legal on demand during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable. The abortion law was liberalized by the Veil Law in 1975.

Abortion in Germany
Illegal, though allowed during the first trimester of pregnancy provided certain circumstances are met. Pregnancy is considered to start with the uterine implantation of a fertilized egg. Exceptions later in pregnancy for physical or mental health reasons are also legal. Before an abortion, patients must undergo mandatory counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling") except in cases of rape. Counseling happens at least least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are illegal.

Abortion in the United Kingdom
Legally available through the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020.
In Britain, abortion is permitted on the grounds of:
- risk to the life of the pregnant woman;
- preventing grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health;
- risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family (up to a term limit of 24 weeks of gestation); or
- substantial risk that, if the child were born, he or she would "suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
In Northern Ireland, abortion is permitted on similar grounds although the law also permits abortion in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, for any reason, as is also the case in the rest of Ireland.

Abortion in Norway
On request in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days.

Abortion in Sweden
First legislated by the Abortion Act of 1938. This stated that an abortion could be legally performed in Sweden upon medical, humanitarian, or eugenical grounds. That is, if the pregnancy constituted a serious threat to the woman's life, if she had been impregnated by rape, or if there was a considerable chance that any serious condition might be inherited by her child, she could request an abortion. The law was later augmented in 1946 to include socio-medical grounds and again in 1963 to include the risk of serious fetal damage. A committee investigated whether these conditions were met in each individual case and, as a result of this prolonged process, abortion was often not granted until the middle of the second trimester. As such, a new law was created in 1974, stating that the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman until the end of the 18th week.

Abortion in Denmark
Fully legalized on 1 October 1973, allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger.

Abortion in Italy
Became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were allowed to terminate a pregnancy on request during the first 90 days. A proposal to repeal the law was considered in a 1981 referendum, but was rejected by nearly 68% of voters; another referendum aimed at eliminating the restrictions was rejected by 88.4%.

Italian women are eligible to request an abortion for health, economic or social reasons, including the circumstances under which conception occurred. Abortions are performed free of charge in public hospitals or in private structures authorized by the regional health authorities. The law also allows termination in the second trimester of the pregnancy only when the life of the woman would be at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term or the fetus carries genetic or other serious malformations which would put the mother at risk of serious psychological or physical consequences.

The law states that, unless a state of emergency requires immediate intervention, a period of seven days, not compulsory, has to occur between the medical authorization and the effective date of the termination. Although the law only permits pregnancy termination to women at least eighteen years old, it also includes provisions for women younger than eighteen, who can request the intervention of a judge when the legal tutor refuses the intervention, or there are reasons to exclude the legal tutor from the process. The judge has to make a decision within five days of the request. Women younger than eighteen do not need parental consent in case of urgent situation or after 90 days.

***

IMO the problem with allowing states to decide abortion laws is that there are a number of states that have passed IMO unreasonable abortion laws that effectively outlaw it altogether.

This year has seen several states sign stricter abortion laws, with Oklahoma, Idaho and South Carolina also banning the medical procedure at the onset of a fetal heartbeat.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed new legislation on Wednesday that will ban abortion at the onset of a fetal heartbeat, which can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The ban is one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, as most women are not even aware they are pregnant by the time of the onset of a heartbeat.

Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana are even stricter, as they ban abortion at six weeks, with Missouri not far behind as the procedure is prohibited at eight weeks of gestation.

Arkansas also passed legislation in 2021 that would make abortion in the state an unclassified felony unless a procedure is undertaken to save the life of a pregnant woman.

The strictest abortion law in the U.S. is in Alabama, as legislation signed in 2019 bans the procedure at any stage of a pregnancy, with doctors facing the possibility of life imprisonment for performing one.

Six states, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, South Dakota, North Dakota and West Virginia, only have one abortion clinic left, making it very difficult for residents to get the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Cited and related links:

1. msn.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 3:08 am Donna, Good post. Thanks. In the US, there's little sanity on this issue. Yesterday Guy Benson, that gay guy Curt's never heard of but who has the big show on Fox News Radio, who is very intelligently pro life, spent about a half hour explaining the radicalism of the abortion bill the House just passed, on which the Senate is preparing to vote. That bill allows no restrictions at all on abortion. It goes far beyond Roe. Abortion access would be protected from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that do not apply to other similar health care procedures. These restrictions include six-week bans, 20-week bans, mandatory ultrasounds, biased counseling, waiting periods, and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals. See link. No restrictions. The European approach is destroyed by the Dems in their bill. You suggest that SOME states would ban abortion. The Dems are hoping to infect the whole country with the sort of unrestricted access to abortion that civilized nations abhor. All of the purple district Dems in the House except one voted for the Dem bill. They'll certainly suffer for it. The bill is an affront to civilized Western thinking. Because, in the end, the American electorate wants something like what much of Europe has. The Dems are the ones to have weaponized the issue since the leak of the Alito draft. They're doing nothing good for women by doing that. They'll raise a boatload of money from radical donors and further imperil purple Dems. Ridiculous and, ultimately, harmful to women. actforwomen.org by islander on May 7, 2022 4:50 am Roe vs Wade already has restrictions and they are left up to each state. I'll bet most Republicans who are gleefully jumping up and down because they might be able to overturn it have never read it or don't know what it says. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 5:03 am isle, This is your sanctimony in a rather subtle form. Congratulations, I guess. Roe was foisted on America 49 effin years ago and GOPs have been fighting against it for most of that time and you imagine that GOPs don't know its content. Hmmm. GOPs are for what the Alito opinion presents as the bottom line: the regulation of abortion by citizens through the legislative branch of government. It's the Dems' way to foist their way on citizens against their will. Not us. by islander on May 7, 2022 6:01 am Hate, Roe doesn’t foist abortion on anybody. What you want to do is take away a woman’s bodily autonomy and that is a person’s ultimate right. It’s the right of ownership of one’s own body. You want to take that right away and hand it over to other people. You think a woman is not the owner of her own body. And you believe that you and others ultimately own it and can tell her what she can and can’t do with it. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 6:17 am It's true. Roe doesn't foist abortion on anyone. But, 49 years ago, 7 out 9 white males foisted the killing of unborn babies on America. What you want to do is take away a woman’s bodily autonomy and that is a person’s ultimate right. It’s the right of ownership of one’s own body. It never takes much time for a Blue MAGA progressive to display delusions of omniscience and to practice sanctimony. The problem with your, uh, argument is that when a woman is pregnant, two lives are involved. Hers and the baby's. In the US, far more...effin FAR MORE...people believe that life begins at conception than think it's a woman's right to have a baby's brain sucked out of its head up to one minute before birth. Far,far more...by a lot!!!!!! In terms of life in our representative republic, that's your side's problem. I can't see any alternative, now that it appears that people's representatives will settle the issue, that your side loses. by islander on May 7, 2022 7:42 am What you are doing, Hate, is arguing based on your false premise that a fertilized egg is a “person”. You then try to argue that the rights of that egg take precedence over the ultimate right of a human person. This is the method of deception you use, along with the emotional deception of calling a fertilized egg a “baby”. The egg develops into a blastocyst, and during the pregnancy it will develop into an embryo, a fetus, etc. Later in the pregnancy it will develop a brain and that brain will at some point grow to have the sufficient complexity to have "the capacity for thought". At that point, it will be a living “human person” with a mind, and a mind is the essence of a “person”. This is when we have to consider the fact that there are two persons involved in a decision for an abortion. Only 19% of Americans want a total ban on abortion. Roe recognizes the ultimate right of a woman’s bodily autonomy but also takes into account that in the late stages of a pregnancy we are dealing with two persons. You and the Republicans, for purely political reasons overlook all of this in order to gain political capital by tossing out Roe and removing a woman’s constitutional right to bodily autonomy. Not only is that morally wrong but it could backfire and have unintended consequences. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 7:57 am What you are doing, Hate, is arguing based on your false premise that a fertilized egg is a “person”. No. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. What I'm doing is reminding you that both of us are citizens in a representive republic one that, in the words of perhaps our greatest President, is a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." And, I'm reminding you that your view is that of an extremely small minority. Very extremely. By far. And, I'm suggesting that you pound sand. Previously, some time ago, I reminded you our founders were convinced that our rights are God-given. A notion you don't embrace warmly. Still, it is our national dogma that we have been granted by "our Creator" certain inalienable rights. When I reminded you of that, I noted that your beliefs are un-American. I remind you again. Perhaps, you should pound sand. You're already not far from our northern border. by islander on May 7, 2022 8:10 am You, Hate, for some reason keep forgetting that the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade for good reason, and that's why you can't form a coherent argument against it. pewresearch.org by Donna on May 7, 2022 8:47 am You're welcome Hts. I posted all of that on my Facebook wall too. It's my understanding that Roe simply guarateed that abortion would be available in every state, just like every European country guarantees access to abortion services. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 8:48 am If, in the end, if the practical implications of Roe becomes law...by the will of the people, I'll be much happier than your side will be for two reasons... 1. It will be illegal for a woman to have her unborn baby's brain sucked out of its head late into her ninth month. 2. It will be so because it's the will of the people. If Alito's draft becomes the decision, your days of foisting will be over, at least for the moment. But, my guess is that something like the 15 week limit of the Mississippi law will become the norm...or, maybe, 13 weeks. by Donna on May 7, 2022 9:01 am It's my understanding that late-term abortions are only performed in extreme circumstances, like when the mother's life is in jeopardy, as is the case throughout Europe. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 9:25 am Donna, Right now, all the DC Dems are offering is the Women's Health Protection Act, which would legalize abortion up to the moment of birth. Clearly, DC Dems don't want federal abortion legislation. They want to raise money, women's health be damned. usatoday.com by Donna on May 7, 2022 9:41 am That's legal now throughout Europe, but only under extreme circumstances. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 10:05 am But, not without restriction. And, the people of the US won't endorse it, as the fate of the Women's Health Protection Act demonstrates. by islander on May 7, 2022 10:14 am Donna, Right now Roe vs Wade contains the things that Hate says he wants (state qualified regulations). This is what makes me think he and many other Republicans have never actually read what it says. What Roe does is prevents states from having the ability to ban outright all abortions. Some states have been “effectively” trying to do this using extreme qualifications. These are the ones that have over time been brought up before The Supreme Court to see if they do indeed deny a woman her constitutional right to have an abortion. “ State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.” You can read the rest of what Roe actually says here: supreme.justia.com by Donna on May 7, 2022 10:28 am Exactly, islander. Hts, where does the WHPA specifically state that late-term abortions should be performed w/o restriction? by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 10:38 am Right now Roe vs Wade contains the things that Hate says he wants... No. Not wants. pb believes that life begins at conception. He wants preborn life to be protected always. He's comfortable only with abortion to preserve the life of the mother. But pb's a pragmatist. (BTW, this is what separates pb's disgust for Trump from your TDS loathing. pb can accept the practicalities of life in a real world.) Your side has gone insane, passing a piece of legislation that guaran-dang-tees that there will be no federal abortion law. Utterly insane... ...if DC Dems are genuinely concerned about the health of women... ...which, obviously, they ain't. pb would accept something akin to the codification of Roe, if it came to it. But, the blessing in this is that DC won't settle for that, even though they lie about wanting that.. So,, they'll fail at passing the ridiculous Women's Health Protection Act. Then, they'll call their donors. Women's health be damned. And, state legislatures will regulate abortion and pb's side wins. Hypocrites. by Donna on May 7, 2022 10:46 am You didn't answer my question. I'll also ask you this: Which state's have abortion laws that permit late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary? by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 11:33 am I was writing my last post when you entered your question. If you can show me where the WHPA contains any limitations on abortion, I'll be happy to be elucidated. I'm not aware that there are any. And, my understanding of the reasons why pro choice GOPs oppose it that the usual restrictions aren't present. I'm not familiar with the law of all of the states. I can't answer that question. by islander on May 7, 2022 12:02 pm Right now Roe vs Wade contains the things that Hate says he wants... No. Not wants. pb believes that life begins at conception. He wants preborn life to be protected always. He's comfortable only with abortion to preserve the life of the mother. You have been arguing and making a big phony hoopla all this time that you want the people and their legislators to decide abortion laws. Then you found out that is exactly what Roe vs Wade provides for… NOW you are saying that’s not what you want. You want your religious beliefs foisted on everyone else. I know you’ll deny that your religious beliefs have anything to do with this, but they do. In fact, your beliefs come virtually word for word from Roman Catholic Dogma. Even the language and terms you use...”Life begins at conception” is right out of the Catholic Catechism. “Life”, in that religious belief is equated with “human person”, although as a Catholic I was taught to stay away from the word person when arguing this issue because it “muddies the waters”. You cannot justify taking away the fundamental right of a human person to own his or her own body in favor granting that right to a fertilized egg without pretending that the egg is a person. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 12:36 pm NOW you are saying that’s not what you want. You want your religious beliefs foisted on everyone else... ...your beliefs come virtually word for word from Roman Catholic Dogma. Me. And, Roman Catholic dogma!!!!!? Bahahahahahahahahahaha. If there's correspondence between what pb believes with the Catholics, your side is in big effin trouble! You cannot justify taking away the fundamental right of a human person to own his or her own body... I have no wish to do so. But, if pb got his way, abortion would be safe and very extremely rare. It is an extremely important question for a disciple of Jesus to settle the "give to Caesar what's Caesar's and to God what's God's" issue. As a citizen of the US, I believe that "we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life..." And, I think Lincoln was all but inspired when he described this as a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." Those convictions define my approach to abortion politically. The Jesus follower is root of where the life begins at conception part comes...mostly. by Donna on May 7, 2022 12:53 pm Roe simply guarantees access to abortion. It allows the states to decide specific policy as long as people have access to it. The WHPA isn't aiming to write specific policy other than to ensure that women have access to late-term abortion. That doesn't mean the WHPA is advocating for abortion laws that permit late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary. We all know that there are people who are opposed to abortions being performed at any time and for any reason. They don't want anyone to have access to abortion period. So they advocated for and enacted laws that technically allow abortion, but are constructed in such a way as to impose a de facto ban on it. Cases in point: Oklahoma, Idaho, South Carolina, Texas Abortion is not allowed at the onset of a fetal heartbeat. In most cases a fetal heartbeat can be detected by 6 weeks. The problem is that many women don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. Most women don't know for sure until 4 weeks. So at the earliest, that leaves women 2 weeks to schedule an abortion and have it performed. So effectively, the law bans abortion. Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana Abortion is not allowed after 6 weeks. Again, this effectively bans abortion. Arkansas Passed legislation in 2021 that would make abortion in the state an unclassified felony unless a procedure is undertaken to save the life of a pregnant woman. So unless the woman meets that criterion, she can't have an abortion performed at any time during the pregnancy. Alabama Passed legislation in 2019 that bans abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, with doctors facing the possibility of life imprisonment for performing one. Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, South Dakota, North Dakota, West Virginia Only have one abortion clinic left, making it very difficult for residents to get the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The abortion laws that have been passed in these 13 states don't even remotely resemble the sane abortion laws of Europe. They essentially outlaw abortion. I personally don't agree with women who use abortion as a sort of after-the-fact birth control, and I don't believe that a woman should be allowed to end the life of a healthy fetus that could live on its own outside of the womb. OTOH I recognize that since a fetus is physically connected to the mother, the mother should be able to abort the fetus under reasonable conditions. For those reasons, I think the European countries have reached a good compromise. In fact it's the same compromise that most US states reached under Roe. No state laws ever permitted medically unnecessary late-term abortions. The loudest voices in the anti-abortion community have been scaring people to believe that medically unnecessary late-term abortions are widespread and are being advocated for implementation into law, which is a lie. by HatetheSwamp on May 7, 2022 1:19 pm The WHPA isn't aiming to write specific policy other than to ensure that women have access to late-term abortion. That doesn't mean the WHPA is advocating for abortion laws that permit late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary. That's not my understanding. But, if you can link me to the text of the bill that could enlighten me, I'll appreciate it. From my earlier link: Abortion access would be protected from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that do not apply to other similar health care procedures. These restrictions include six-week bans, 20-week bans, mandatory ultrasounds, biased counseling, waiting periods, and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals. See link. I see nothing except freedom from all restrictions and, without a doubt, many pro-abortion hope for the passage of that sort of law. actforwomen.org by Donna on May 7, 2022 4:04 pm "If enacted, WHPA would protect abortion access nationwide by creating a statutory right for health care providers to provide, and a corresponding right for their patients to receive, abortion care—free from restrictions and bans." Wow. I can't go along with that. Sheri's ex-wife, who we're close friends with, sent me a screed earlier today which argued that abortion restrictions were all about men wanting to control women's bodies. That's one of those arguments I'm supposed to automatically support as a liberal. Anyhow, I responded by saying, "Actually I think the main problem people have with abortion is that they believe it's immoral", to which she replied "What a simplistic take", to which I replied, "Well, it's ending a human life. But sometimes bringing the child into the world is worse." She hasn't responded to my last response. What I was alluding to in my last response is bringing a severely developmentally disabled child into the world, which I think should be up to the parents of the child, even if it involved a late-term abortion. Usually they know much sooner than that, though. I know a very devout Christian whose sister is severely developmentally disabled, and she said that if she knew that the child she was carrying was going to have birth defects as severe as her sister's, she would abort. But to your point, I stand corrected. This may cost me some friendships. Oh well. I'm not going to support something just because the loudest voices on the left say I should support it. reproductiverights.org by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 4:34 am Donna, My hope is that when the emotion of the moment passes, clearer heads will prevail but I'm not optimistic. There are ways that what's been normal recently has been turned upside down and, suddenly, it's the left that is protesting. I am, of course, a GOP. So, it's not.hard to understand that I am disgusted by the way the congressional Dems are handling the leaked opinion. This is a cynical attempt to rile up the base and to motivate donors...not work to promote women's health. I do want to say this about you, based on what I've learned about you over the years. I believe that you are a genuine idealist with a good heart who tries to think the best about people. Hence, your initial unwillingness to believe what the WHPA is. We disagree about many things and I regularly accuse you of being conveniently naíve. I think you are just that but that your naívete is a function of your desire always to think the best. To live life that way makes one vulnerable. You say that this...presumably the WHPA...may cost you friendships. Perhaps. I hope not. I was, say, 14 years old when the 60s race riots erupted and when the Vietnam protests got ugly. I've been a news junkie since I was a kid. I was young then, and impressionable. I'm afraid that this abortion fight may get uglier than anything we saw in the 60s. by islander on May 8, 2022 5:09 am Hate wrote: “As a citizen of the US, I believe that "we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life..." And, I think Lincoln was all but inspired when he described this as a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." As citizens of the USA we all have and should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That however does not match with your desire to have the Supreme Court take away one of a woman’s rights [body autonomy]* even if you, personally, wish that no woman would or could exercise that right and/ or personally feel that according to your religious beliefs it is immoral. *Body autonomy is the right for a person to govern what happens to their body without external influence or coercion. “Those convictions define my approach to abortion politically.” But in this country, we have freedom of religion, and unfortunately there are some who do not accept that concept. Freedom of religion means that you can believe that it is a sin for a woman to have an abortion and you can freely live your life accordingly. What you can’t do, is use that belief politically…That is, you cannot use the power of the state to compel others to live in accordance with your religious beliefs…That is the part that many people with various religious beliefs cannot and/or will not accept. ”You cannot justify taking away the fundamental right of a human person to own his or her own body...” ..isle “I have no wish to do so. But, if pb got his way, abortion would be safe and very extremely rare.” As do I. But neither you nor I own another person’s body and we cannot gain ownership by using state to act as our proxy. Those of us who are pro choice (and are in actuality pro life), have been working steadily to reduce the rate of abortions and make them safe. Without using the power of the state to take away any woman’s fundamental rights, we’ve been successfully doing exactly that. We have seen abortion rates steadily go down and are now at the lowest rates in over 40 years. The right way to do this is to help insure that the number of unintended pregnancies is reduced through education and the availability of contraceptives. Those are the two things that actually work. Like divorce, each abortion is a tragedy for those involved. Sadly, some are necessary, but making them illegal would fix nothing and would simply compound the existing tragedy. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 5:36 am isle, If the Alito draft forms the basis of the Court’s opinion, all that you're claiming about the right to an abortion based in Roe is a pi$$ into a strong gust of wind. It's the argument for the right of a woman to have her baby's brains sucked out of its head while she's in effin labor but before the birth takes place. On a philosophical level, you may be correct but an extremely low percentage of your fellow citizens agree with you. By all means, travel from state to state and join with others who share your opinion that: "neither you nor I own another person’s body and we cannot gain ownership by using state to act as our proxy." And, that an unborn baby is a nonentity. It seems extremely likely that abortion will be regulated by the people through their elected representatives. And, that DC congressional Dems are going to prevent the passage of federal abortion legislation. It seems that there's no common sense in your view of a pregnant woman's ownership of her body and that, among real people, your view will not prevail. In any case, we are entering interesting times. by islander on May 8, 2022 6:07 am Hate wrote: ”It's the argument for the right of a woman to have her baby's brains sucked out of its head while she's in effin labor but before the birth takes place.” No, it isn’t. I sometimes think you only read and see what you want and disregard the rest. I described to you the difference between a fertilized egg and a human person. You ignored it so I’ll have to repeat it for you: ” The egg develops into a blastocyst, and during the pregnancy it will develop into an embryo, a fetus, etc. Later in the pregnancy it will develop a brain and that brain will at some point grow to have the sufficient complexity to have "the capacity for thought". At that point, it will be a living “human person” with a mind, and a mind is the essence of a “person”. This is when we have to consider the fact that there are two persons involved in a decision for an abortion.” You ignored the part about the later stage of the pregnancy. That is when we have to take into account the fact that we are now dealing with two persons and we have to balance the rights of each person. Your sick example is why I can’t take what you post here seriously. This is a very serious and complex matter. You’re not interested in any kind of serious discussion. Nobody here and nobody that I have ever known would ever argue that a woman should be able “to have her baby's brains sucked out of its head while she's in effin labor but before the birth takes place”. You lose all credibility with statements like that. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 6:39 am You ignored the part about the later stage of the pregnancy. What I did was focus on your constitutional argument that a woman "owns her body." If she owns her body, as you suggest, to limit access to abortion is to take her right over her body... ...AND, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT PROTECTS. That bill has been passed by the House and is being promoted by Senate Dem leadership. by islander on May 8, 2022 7:14 am “ What I did was focus on your constitutional argument that a woman "owns her body." If she owns her body, as you suggest, to limit access to abortion is to take her right over her body...” I absolutely agree that not only a woman, but each of us owns our body. Apparently you don’t seem to agree. What we can do and have always done is legally protect one person from harming another. In this situation each person owns his or her body but we can legally prevent that person from using their body even by proxy to harm another person. In the early stages of pregnancy there is no “other person” involved. The woman’s decisions are between the doctor and the woman. In the late stage of the pregnancy “another person” is involved and we have to balance the rights of both. In such cases there is no easy simple one answer fits all situations. It’s extremely complex and a one-answer rule doesn’t work since it ignores those complexities. The decisions we must make in life demand that we recognize that the real world is not simply black or white. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 7:31 am In the early stages of pregnancy there is no “other person” involved. The woman’s decisions are between the doctor and the woman. In the late stage of the pregnancy “another person” is involved and we have to balance the rights of both. While you're pretending to be stating fact, you're not stating fact. It's my belief that life begins at conception. Many people do. As far as this issue is concerned, belief is all that matters. We could SCREAM AT EACH OTHER, pretending that our beliefs are universally accepted fact. What I've preferred to do is focus on the political reality. While voters will still, most likely, cast their vote based on the state of the economy and concern over the rise in crime, abortion will be over-discussed...and, certainly, be the focus of fundraising on both sides. Dems are promoting a bill that will legalize abortion up to the moment of birth. Really. I'm watching the morning shows right now. Lindsey Graham says he has a bill that will legalize abortion up to 20 weeks. I'm tellin you, bro. The GOPs are the side that hasn't lost its mind. They are going to win politically. by islander on May 8, 2022 8:25 am We’re talking about two different things; to you this is all partisan politics. I’m talking about real life human beings and the choices that so many mothers and woman have to make. I don’t care whether it is a Republican or Democrat Congressman or Senator, neither you, nor I, nor the politicians in Washington have the wisdom to force women and mothers to accept the choices we think we have the right to make for them in all situations and circumstances surrounding this issue. Do you know anything about Trisomy13 for instance? I’ll use this as just one example of the kinds of things I’m talking about. What right do you or your senator think you have to tell any mother that she must carry these fetuses to full term? Go to the sites below and read and learn a little about this genetic disorder. healthjade.com hindawi.com by Donna on May 8, 2022 8:51 am Abortion access would be protected from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that do not apply to other similar health care procedures. These restrictions include six-week bans, 20-week bans, mandatory ultrasounds, biased counseling, waiting periods, and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals. - Act For Women "If enacted, WHPA would protect abortion access nationwide by creating a statutory right for health care providers to provide, and a corresponding right for their patients to receive, abortion care—free from restrictions and bans." - Reproductiverights.org What's in the WHPA bill? The bill would prevent state governments from limiting a health care provider's ability to prescribe certain drugs, offer abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health, according to CRS. It also prevents states from requiring patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or forcing women to disclose their reasons for obtaining abortions and related services. WHPA would ban states from prohibiting abortion services before or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. WHPA also prohibits other governmental measures that single out and restrict access to abortion services, unless a state government can prove the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive ways, according to CRS. It also allows the Department of Justice, individuals or abortion providers to bring lawsuits against violations of the bill, regardless of whether restrictions were put in place before or after the bill becomes law. - ABC News *** In sum, I'm still confused about what the WHPA bill actually means. Hts seems convinced that it codifies on-demand abortion at any time for any reason. I'm not sure that's what it's saying. I couldn't find anything from the WHPA that clarifies that. What the WHPA has said about the bill so far is ambiguous. actforwomen.org reproductiverights.org abcnews.go.com by islander on May 8, 2022 9:02 am Donna, I can't find anything on the WHPA sites I visited that clearly says it will allow unrestricted abortion on demand, or anything that says it doesn't. Naturally, I wouldn't support it if it did since, obviously I don't support unrestricted abortion on demand. by Donna on May 8, 2022 9:10 am "Dems are promoting a bill that will legalize abortion up to the moment of birth. Really." So if a pregnant woman at the end of her 9th month falls and injures the fetus' brain to the point of rendering the fetus a vegetable, abortion is still out of the question? The woman should be still forced to deliver the baby? Is that what you're saying? That could happen at any point in the pregnancy. Or her doctor could discover at any point in the pregnancy that the fetus has a rare and devastating developmental condition. This is why we need abortion to be legal up to the day of delivery. I do not think, however, that a woman should be able to abort the fetus for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. The WHPA needs to clarify that. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 9:33 am Donna, I read most of the bill itself. As a piece of legislation, even the text of the bill comes across as the sort of woke talking points that you'd see with Joy Reid on MSNBC. I can see nothing in the bill that allows for restrictions of any type on abortion up to the moment of birth. More than that, I've been watching Sunday's morning shows where at least on GOP or Dem is on the panel. The GOP always talked about "abortion on demand to the day of birth" and the Dem never challenged that. If you're doubtful ask yourself why moderate Dems and pro choice GOPs in the Senate will vote against it. I've read the Bill now. I'm not experienced in reading the language peculiar to pieces of legislation. But, near the end, in a sweeping summary, the Bill says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." Pretty clear, eh!? Much of the Bill details existing prohibitions on abortion and states that, under this law, those restrictions will be illegal. It's a radical piece of legislation. It will be difficult for a moderate Dem to vote for it and impossible for a pro choice GOP to vote for it. If you're interested in digging into what the Bill actually says here's a link: congress.gov by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 9:41 am I can't find anything on the WHPA sites I visited that clearly says it will allow unrestricted abortion on demand, or anything that says it doesn't. Read the effin bill, isle, which says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy," ...as I wrote to Donna. It just stuns me how happy you Blue MAGAs with being uninformed. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 9:42 am ...if a pregnant woman at the end of her 9th month falls and injures the fetus' brain to the point of rendering the fetus a vegetable, abortion is still out of the question? No. If a woman in her 9th month decides, "Heck, I don't want to be bothered, for any reason, she has the right an abortion." by Donna on May 8, 2022 10:06 am "The Women's Health Protection Act would override state restrictions on third-trimester abortions. It's been introduced in every session of Congress since 2013. The federal measure would get rid of state restrictions on abortion even after a fetus is deemed viable, meaning no restrictions on late-term abortions. - Source: CBN News What I haven't seen -- and I've spent a lot of time searching -- is anyone pushing back and saying "That's not what the WHPA says". by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 10:09 am Donna, From the text of the bill: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." The language could not be more clear. by Donna on May 8, 2022 10:15 am I saw that the first time you posted it. It probably means what you think. But I've read other legislation and thought it meant one thing only to find out that that wasn't what it meant. I'm being thorough before I go on a tirade against the WHPA bill. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 10:20 am Please don't go on a tirade. I'd suggest that you take a look at the bill. Read the introductory parts and concluding parts carefully and skim the guts. It means what it seems to mean. No Dem is denying that. by Donna on May 8, 2022 10:50 am I just read the WHPA bill. I direct your attention to the following provisions: SEC. 4. Permitted services. (a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements: (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health. (10) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient’s health. *** What that means is if, after fetal viability (late-term), the pregnant patient's doctor determines that it would be dangerous for the patient to continue the pregnancy, then no government will be allowed to insert itself between the patient and doctor and delay or stop the patient from receiving an abortion. If the bill meant what you believe it means, Hts, then there would be no reason to specify (9) or (10). Actually I'm surprised that there's no specification in the bill to allow the pregnant patient to abort the fetus after fetal liability if it's found that the fetus has a serious defect. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 11:02 am Yeah, I read #9 several times. The General Rule is about the provider having the right to provide the abortion and the patient the right to receive it under all the following instances: "A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:" by islander on May 8, 2022 11:11 am Hate, the bill doesn’t say unrestricted abortion on demand is or should be the law. You quoted: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." The bill supports Roe vs Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. Roe vs Wade never made unrestricted abortion on demand legal. The act lists restrictions that were used as attempts to get around Roe and it makes those restrictions illegal. The part you quoted simply states that nothing in the act shall be construed [interpreted in such a way] that it can be used to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. It says nothing about unrestricted abortion on demand. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 11:31 am isle, Show us, from the text of the bill, the restrictions on abortion. by Donna on May 8, 2022 11:40 am I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the bill, Hts. Right at the beginning it reads "AN ACT To protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services." Its purpose isn't to determine specific policies that are decided by each state, it's to prevent state governments from de facto outlawing abortion as 13 red states have already done. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 11:44 am Donna, I think it's purpose is to override, from the federal government, all state restrictions on abortion. Again: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." by Donna on May 8, 2022 11:48 am There's your OCD again. We already read that several times, guy. After reading the actual proposed bill, I've concluded that your interpretation is incorrect. by islander on May 8, 2022 11:51 am "Show us, from the text of the bill, the restrictions on abortion." As Donna said, the bill wasn’t written for that purpose. It was written to prevent states from circumventing Roe VS Wade thereby denying a woman her constitutional right to abortion as specified in Roe. And Roe did not grant a woman the constitutional right to “unrestricted abortion” right up until birth. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 11:57 am Well, guys, this is an issue of fact. We'll find out. No real life facts I know support your take. If the WHPA merely codified Roe, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would be the first in line to vote for it. They LOVE Roe. They are voting against it. I've read the Bill. I know how the votes are lining up. Nuthin I know to be true supports your take. by Donna on May 8, 2022 12:22 pm Don't you mean "No wing-nut sources (like CBN) support your take"? Btw, I didn't base my conclusion on an liberal news or opinion sources. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 12:28 pm Donna, What? I read the bill. And, I watched MEET THE PRESS, FACE THE (effin) NATION and FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Hardly CBN. by Donna on May 8, 2022 12:35 pm Well good for you. I still disagree with your conclusion. by HatetheSwamp on May 8, 2022 12:37 pm Good nuff. As I said, this is a matter of fact, not opinion. We'll find out. by Donna on May 8, 2022 12:47 pm The WHPA bill simply says that after fetal viability, the decision to abort should be decided on by the patient and her doctor, not big brother. by Donna on May 8, 2022 3:49 pm Murkowski and Collins want to change the bill to allow big brother to put the kibosh on any late-term (after 4 or 5 months) abortion. by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 7:02 am Donna, The WHPA does permit a woman to have someone suck the brains out of her baby's head up to the moment of birth. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 removes all restrictions and limits on abortion and allows for abortion up to the point of birth. Additionally, this bill removes all pro-life protections at the federal and state levels and eliminates a state’s ability to legislate on abortion. This bill also fails to protect the consciences of American taxpayers and would force taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. erlc.com by Donna on May 10, 2022 7:43 am Right. I implied that 2 posts ago when I said "The WHPA bill simply says that after fetal viability, the decision to abort should be decided on by the patient and her doctor, not big brother." You should actually read what I post. I personally think the amendment to the bill that was proposed by Collins and Murkowski is a good compromise. The problem, though, it that some states are going to abuse that and interfere with abortions that would have saved the mother's life or prevented the birth of a child with grossly severe disabilities. If I lived in a red state and was planning to start a family, I'd move to a blue state rather than leave myself and my spouse vulnerable to overzealous state legislatures that would interfere with our decision to abort a fetus if such a situation I described ever arose. There are plenty of conservatives and Republican voters who support abortion rights. I hope all of this out-of-control Republican big brotherism backfires and costs them enough elections so as to allow the Democrats to retain control of at least one house of Congress. by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 8:01 am I did read your post. I love your definition of Big Brother...everything government does Donna doesn't like, popular opinion be damned! I am a person who doesn't believe in outlawing abortion. Still, the last pro choice person I voted for is Michael Dukakis. I'll probably never vote pro choice again. Very few pro choice candidates would restrict women from having someone suck out the brains of their baby up to the moment of birth. I'd just as soon vote for Nazi death camps. by Donna on May 10, 2022 9:55 am I don't use the term "big brother" any differently than you. by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 10:20 am I'm pretty sure that pb never used the term Big Brother here before the Dems began using the pandemic to abuse Americans' Bill of Rights liberties. by islander on May 10, 2022 12:19 pm "Very few pro choice candidates would restrict women from having someone suck out the brains of their baby up to the moment of birth." That's just a bogus emotionally inflammatory assertion. That isn't something that happens even in those states that have no abortion restrictions (similar to WHPA). Late term (3rd trimester abortions) are extremely rare and the tiny fraction that are performed, are for extremely serious medical reasons...Do you have any idea what those conditions might be? If not I'd urge you to check into it and find out for yourself. Nobody provides abortions on a healthy third term fetus just because the woman decides she doesn't want a child. For example; Vermont is one of the states that has no restrictions (very similar to WPHA). ""Late term” abortion is a social construct introduced to create an image of an abortion that happens closer to 8-9 months, which does not happen and is not a term that is used medically. There are no third trimester abortion providers in Vermont. “Late term” abortions typically refer to abortions that take place above 20 weeks gestational age. Currently, there are only 2 providers who provide abortion services above 20 weeks in this state and they practice at a hospital which offers services up to 23 weeks. There are no abortion services available for patient’s seeking termination past 23 weeks in Vermont (with a few rare exceptions at one hospital for significant threats to maternal or fetal health)" legislature.vermont.gov by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 12:27 pm Nobody provides abortions on a healthy third term fetus just because the woman decides she doesn't want a child. But the WHPA, passed by House Dems and supported by Chuck You Schumer and nearly all Senate Dems, does. by islander on May 10, 2022 1:15 pm No one who voted for the WPHA provides abortions on a healthy third term fetus just because the woman decides she doesn't want a child. Nor do any doctors or hospitals in VT which has no restrictions on abortions. I doubt you can even begin to imagine why that is. by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 1:35 pm The WHPA allows a woman to have her baby's brains sucked out of its head up to the moment of birth. The House enables them. Senate Dems support it. by islander on May 10, 2022 2:23 pm Hate, Just as I thought, it appears as though you can't even begin to imagine why the states that don't have the restrictions on abortions that you want politicians to impose, but do have rules similar to the rules WHPA is proposing, don't perform the kind of abortion you describe. So I suppose you'll just keep repeating your mantra that we need the politicians to ban late term abortions because if they don't make them illegal mothers and their doctors will suck healthy baby's brains out at the moment of birth. You must believe that's what they will do even though in states where there are no explicit laws against it, they "don't perform them". Odd thing is, you can't explain why they don't. And I guess you didn't bother to check out what kinds of conditions and complications might require a late term abortion. Is it because you don't want to know (willful ignorance)? Because if you did check them out you'd know and understand why none of those conditions would apply to a healthy mother and fetus, "and" you'd then know why, if WHPA is passed, doctors and hospitals wont perform the kind of abortions you still claim they will do . by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 3:37 pm All pb's saying is that your legislators seem to think that, to please you, they need to enable women to tell their doctor to suck out their baby's brains up to the time of birth and, curiously,... ...none of you Blue MAGAs here oppose the WHPA and DC Dems are on board. Prove your argument by declaring your opposition to the WHPA. BE A, um, MAN!!!!! by Donna on May 10, 2022 4:32 pm It's like talking to a brick wall, islander. by islander on May 10, 2022 5:09 pm Hate wrote: ”none of you Blue MAGAs here oppose the WHPA and DC Dems are on board.” Of course we don’t oppose it. Because it’s vital to a woman’s health and her bodily autonomy…She doesn’t have to and she absolutely should not hand ownership of her body over to you or anyone else, and that includes the politicians you or I vote for. You still don’t get that. My only guess is that it’s impossible “for you” to grasp why a mother and her doctor don’t need to have a law preventing them from sucking the brains out of her healthy child at the moment of birth, unless you really do have a distorted vision of motherhood and what a mother feels for her child in those last months of her pregnancy. I DO know! Such a needless law would give your politician the power to step into the doctors office with your wife, or any woman, take over the position of her doctor, and with no medical training or knowledge of your wife’s medical condition, tell her what medical procedures she needs and/or is allowed to have done. How does that politician know whether an abortion is needed to save your wife’s life or not, and/or even if delivered whether the child will have any chance of surviving more than a few hours, and whether what little time it might have will be spent in needless suffering and agony. Neither you nor the politician is capable of making those kinds of decisions for a woman. And those kinds of decisions must be made all the time and they are all different. Keep politics out of medicine! This is all just political to you, us vs them, isn’t it. by Donna on May 10, 2022 5:25 pm I want my physician helping me make medical decisions, not Ted Cruz. by HatetheSwamp on May 10, 2022 5:31 pm So, in the way you usually put it, I don't UNDERSTAND! No. I get it. You are, precisely, enabling a woman to have someone suck the brains out of her baby's head up to the moment of birth. And, that's fine. It's what you believe. What you don't UNDERSTAND is how loathsome that is to many, many people. Politically, it's suicide for every Senate candidate in a purple state or House candidate in a purple district. As I pointed out, according to an effin WSJ poll, a comfortable majority of people are content with restricting abortion at 15 weeks. But, I UNDERSTAND. You're a person of principle. Go for it. You da man! by islander on May 10, 2022 5:32 pm And that's exactly what I want for my wife as well, Donna. In fact, it's what I want for my daughters, my son, and myself !!! by islander on May 11, 2022 5:35 am ”So, in the way you usually put it, I don't UNDERSTAND!” You’re right! You don’t seem to be able to understand why women and doctors don’t wait until the moment of delivery and then suck a baby’s brains out. You have avoided answering the question of "why" they don't…Even in states without restrictions. Why don’t they suck baby’s brains out? You do know, I hope, that only about 1.3% of abortions take place on or after 21 weeks. Why do you think that is? The vast majority, 93%, take place before the 13th week. Lets call after 21 weeks a late term abortion. Do you know any of the reasons why any woman might have to have an abortion after 21 weeks? Would you be able to diagnose whether or not a fetus had a condition that would make it incompatible with life or that continuing a pregnancy would pose a significant danger to the life of the woman? And would you know what to tell the woman in those kinds of circumstances what she had to do? How about your congressman, would he be able to do that? This is precisely why such diagnosis and decisions should only take place between a woman and her doctor. And it’s the woman who should be able to decide what to do. ”What you don't UNDERSTAND is how loathsome that is to many, many people.” Of course I do ! A woman or a doctor would have to be insane to want to suck a baby’s brains out at the moment of birth. I find the very idea loathsome. by Donna on May 11, 2022 7:58 am When the mother and her doctor resort to such extreme measures, it's a last resort. "Pro-life" advocators never frame it that way, though - they distort it. Actually I can't imagine being in the position of the mother or the physician in such a scenario. by HatetheSwamp on May 11, 2022 12:27 pm isle and Donna, You must know a lot of pregnant ladies and doctors. by islander on May 11, 2022 3:00 pm Yes I have known a lot of pregnant ladies and doctors. My wife is a retired RN who worked in the OR, ER, and hospice. So I got to know many of the doctors she worked with. I also have two daughters, a son, 10 grandchildren and two great grandchildren, we were 18 and 19 when we married. And fortunately none were ever forced to have make the agonizing choice that you think politicians should have the power to make for them. by HatetheSwamp on May 12, 2022 4:46 am Still, isle, every woman who's been her ninth month of pregnancy? It seems to me, isle, based on what you're saying now: Would you support a ban on abortion but with an exception to protect the life of the mother? by islander on May 12, 2022 6:08 am No, of course I would not support such a ban. I have nowhere near the wisdom nor the authority to force such a ban on a woman. Nor do the politicians in this or any other state. If Roe is struck down, it won't stop abortions. In some states it will still be legal. Those living in the other states, if they have the means, will travel to a state where they can have a safe abortion. The poor will have to go back to the black market, back alley, and coat-hanger days. What the ban on abortions will do for the women in those states is ban "safe abortions". I've had several people express the opinion that if a desperate woman has a back alley abortion and dies...Well that's just too bad, can't say she didn't deserve it. I hope you're not one of those people. I'll be gone for a few day and might not have internet access during that time. by HatetheSwamp on May 12, 2022 6:39 am I won't presume to speak for everyone who's been advocating for the overturning of Roe. Of course, many believe that life begins at conception and that all abortion should be banned. Others simply understand that Roe was a foolish decision, one that, for the sake of constitutional integrity, needed to be set aside. I love it how Gavin Newsom and Lori Lightfoot and now that Murphy guy, governor of New Jersey, are pledging to create a "sanctuary" for women who want to kill pre born babies, like they're a part of the glorious Underground Railroad that offered to assist escaped slaves! You pro-choicers are a tragic hoot. by Donna on May 12, 2022 7:32 am It doesn't matter to me whether or not life begins at conception. Without Roe, women in red states could very well be forced to give birth to badly brain damaged and developmentally disabled children, which IMO would be a bigger tragedy than aborting them, even at late stage. by HatetheSwamp on May 12, 2022 8:31 am It became obvious to me shortly after I showed here that progressives don't have an ounce of respect for people who hold opinions at odds with their own. They can just be damned! by Donna on May 12, 2022 8:42 am I stand by the right of any woman who doesn't want to abort a fetus, for any reason. IMO preventing a woman from aborting an unborn child in order to protect her own life or to prevent a horribly damaged unborn child from being born is an astonishing violation of freedom. by HatetheSwamp on May 12, 2022 10:42 am This morning I stumbled on a brief video of Bill Maher with Michele TaFoya and Paul Begala with Begala letting loose about pro life people creating unreasonable laws that make it impossible for women to get an abortion. Unreasonable. The thing is there's nothing unreasonable about those laws. All of those laws are perfectly reasonable. Unless, of course, you disrespect the opinions that pro life people hold...if you judge them only by yourself and what you believe. You lose a lot when you are so obnoxious and sanctimonious that you don't treat others as people. Which is what many pro-choicers do with the unborn as well as with people who are pro life. I stand by every preborn baby to live. by Donna on May 12, 2022 5:36 pm "The thing is there's nothing unreasonable about those laws. All of those laws are perfectly reasonable." I disagree because of the reason I stated in my previous post. Bill, do you think it's right to prevent a woman from aborting an unborn child in order to protect her own life or to prevent a horribly damaged unborn child from being born? by HatetheSwamp on May 13, 2022 5:27 am Donna, This is a part of the agony that people who actually think and who have a heart experience. When we bought the apartment at the independent living community, management wrote an article about us and front paged it in their newsletter. Long story why. One of the people who saw our picture, is a woman who's in her mid 50s. She asked for the opportunity to meet us. Sheeeeeeeesh. It turns out that she is, what's the woke way of saying it?, intellectually, uh, challenged? Impaired? She's her parents' youngest child. As the song says, she was born that way. She's got the mind of, maybe, a five year old. She's delightful. When you see her, you have to smile. Over time, Evie developed a relationship with her and visits her once a week to play UNO. Evie, somehow always loses. Nancy is far from normal but she's sweetly gregarious and, unquestionably, enjoys life. She's one of those preborn who would certainly be abortable by the standard you raise. I couldn't support such a condition easily. by Donna on May 13, 2022 11:06 am And I stand by any mother's right to give birth to such a child. Now answer my question. by islander on May 13, 2022 11:14 am It's not the pro choice progressives who are disrespecting the beliefs of the anti choicers. It's the anti choicers who disrespect the pro choicers views. We respect your views and your right to live your life according to them. We are not forcing nothing on you, but you are ignoring our views and trying to force us to live our lives according to 'your' beliefs. You believe that a fertilized egg, which is a living human cell, is a 'person'. We don't believe a person exists until the egg has developed and evolved into a human organism with the capacity for thought, that is until it has a mind, since the mind is the essence of a human person. Nature discards up to 24% or more of such undeveloped organisms, spontaneous abortions, often times before the women even knows she is pregnant. These are not 'people' that usually end up unknowingly getting flushed down the toilet. I don't think even you believe they are. by HatetheSwamp on May 13, 2022 2:45 pm Re: Now answer my question. I (it's Friday) effin did. I couldn't support such a condition easily. by HatetheSwamp on May 13, 2022 2:48 pm isle, I do believe they are. by islander on May 13, 2022 3:24 pm You're free to believe anything you want, Hate, just like I am. And I believe you are wrong. I don't believe a single cell with recombined DNA is a person. You think it is and that's your right. I also don't think that a hen's egg is a chicken or that a brain dead living human body is a person. This is why we can pull the plug on the life support system of that biological living human. Another living human body capable of thought that is on life support is a person and cannot be disconnected. I think you know why. by Donna on May 13, 2022 4:42 pm "I couldn't support such a condition easily." I was looking for "yes" or "no". I guess you can't make up your mind. by Donna on May 13, 2022 5:37 pm You can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax return because the government doesn't consider a fetus to be a person. by HatetheSwamp on May 14, 2022 5:22 am isle, I UNDERSTAND. I believe differently than you. I could state my case and splain how I define what life is. No doubt, you'll UNDERSTAND. And, profoundly disagree. by HatetheSwamp on May 14, 2022 5:32 am I was looking for "yes" or "no". I guess you can't make up your mind. I've said this is agonizing for me. I guess you don't really sympathize with that. One reason the abortion issue is so vexing for some people is that they can't always offer a "yes" or "no". It's the fact that everything is so black and white for some of you that is disconcerting and troublesome for careful thinkers. by HatetheSwamp on May 14, 2022 5:53 am You can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax return because the government doesn't consider a fetus to be a person. But, if you're driving drunk and kill a pregnant woman, you'll be charged with double homicide...in Pennsylvania at least. by Donna on May 14, 2022 6:12 am "It's the fact that everything is so black and white for some of you..." For me, not everything. But yeah, I think that such an important decision like aborting a fetus shouldn't be decreed by big brother. by islander on May 14, 2022 6:28 am You seem to realize how complex his question is and that is why it is so vexing not only to you, but to all of us. This is why the question can't be ansered by politicians and why neither you nor I can make that decision for a woman. It is the woman who is living through this experience and ultimately is the only one who has the right to make this decision for herself. That is the pro choice position. by HatetheSwamp on May 14, 2022 6:29 am I understand that, for me, living in a pretty much down the middle purple state, bottomlining abortion law is difficult. It's probably the same for you in Arizona, Donna. Certainly, much more than in California. For Curt, in Oregon, to squawk about abortion being banned is silly. Here, though, I'm guessing that abortion will probably be the issue that determines who wins the US Senate election. by Donna on May 17, 2022 5:56 pm This is the topic thread I was referring to. 1,361 views. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2022 4:21 am isle, Re: It is the woman who is living through this experience and ultimately is the only one who has the right to make this decision for herself. That is the pro choice position. It ain't the woman, of course, in the real world. I know that you love to groove on the writings of Heather and other Blue MAGA Swampcultists and, in that world, thinking at odds with your own deserves no consideration nor respect. But, if this leaked opinion becomes the decision, you are going to have to deal with the truth that few people agree with you that abortion is about "the woman who is living through this experience." Clearly, you believe that with conviction but the reality that your view is a minority, radical, opinion will settle in. For others such as yourself, the real world is impinging, hence the proclamation of the "Summer of Rage." That's the initial emotional realization that other diverse thinking must be acknowledged. BTW, did you notice that the woke gang is now thinking that talking about "choice" ain't enlightened. Now it's, what?, "decision?" You're soon going to be pro decision. by islander on May 18, 2022 5:37 am ”I know that you love to groove on the writings of Heather and other Blue MAGA Swampcultists and, in that world, thinking at odds with your own deserves no consideration nor respect.” No you don’t “know that”, Hate. You have always tried to use false and insulting claims like that one, asserting that if your opponent in a debate disagrees with “your opinion”, it’s disrespecting your opinion and showing that your opinion deserves no respect. What I actually have no respect for, are people who sanctimoniously try to use false and insulting assertions like that as tactics to avoid actually engaging in any kind of meaningful and honest discussion or debate. Frankly, it’s getting a little boring. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2022 6:09 am Wow, isle, sorry. Just to clarify, will you please summarize the three things you respect and admire most about the pro-life opinion. Honestly, while it's you and I who are dialoging here, it's not you per se to whom I refer. What I've noticed, since the opinion was leaked, on your side, is the framing of the issue solely in terms of your side's belief that abortion is solely about the pregnant woman's choice...and the other side's determination to keep her from being free and exercising the right to control her body. I'll praise you personally for arguing that life doesn't begin at conception. You did it only when pressed. But, you did it. However, as I read and view Blue MAGA Swampcult SwampMedia, I'm not seeing: "Now, to be fair, pro-life people frame the issue around their conviction that what we demean as a fetus is, to them, a preborn human being. We need to acknowledge that and respect it and make our case against it." On our side, we do take what you believe very seriously and we acknowledge it and respect the fact that a decent sized minority of Americans hold your opinion. by islander on May 19, 2022 4:01 am ”Honestly, while it's you and I who are dialoging here, it's not you per se to whom I refer.” Since I’m the only one here who quotes Heather Cox Richardson and posts the link to her site, you most assuredly were referring to me when you made the insulting remark, ”I know that you love to groove on the writings of Heather and other Blue MAGA Swampcultists and, in that world, thinking at odds with your own deserves no consideration nor respect.”... You also write, ”I'll praise you personally for arguing that life doesn't begin at conception. You did it only when pressed. But, you did it.” I have no idea what you are talking about since it has “always” been my position, and I’ve expressed it before, that the terms, “life”, “new life” and “human life” do not mean “human person” and that at the moment of conception the newly fertilized egg lacks what is the essence of a human person. I’ve also said it before that ‘when the meaning of words is imprecise, so too is thought’, and the whole pro-choice-anti-choice debate hinges upon the meaning of the terms life, human life, and “human person”. The apologetics of the anti-choice position depends on the imprecise meaning of the words and the language they use, and I can say that because I was taught how to argue the anti-choice position using those very tactics, and I can use them quite well...except that to do so I would be destroying my internal integrity. Until you can make clear what you mean when you use such terms, discussing this issue with you is a waste of time, and right now is the time for preparing and planting the vegetable and flower gardens so that time is very valuable. If you’d like to try and make the meaning of the words you use more precise, I’d be willing to continue this discussion...If not...Like I said, it would be a pointless waste of time. by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2022 4:19 am If you’d like to try and make the meaning of the words you use more precise, I’d be willing to continue this discussion...If not...Like I said, it would be a pointless waste of time. By all means, isle. Your own personal history, related to this issue, interests me, or, at least, what I've learned about it over the years. All we have on SS is words and, as the BeeGees sang, "...words are all I have..." (Back in the day, I bought that 45.) So, please. Where my use of terms is inadequate, let me know. I attempt to clarify. I'll be happy to learn how you embrace my opinions on life with respect. by islander on May 19, 2022 5:37 am You claim to believe that that at the moment of conception, that single cell (the fertilized egg) is a person. I define a person as a living human being with the capacity for thought, “a mind”. And as I said I believe the mind is the essence of a person. My mind is the essence of “me”. Without a mind or the capacity for thought it is possible to have a living, biological human, physical body, a living human organism, but that “body” or single cell, without a mind, is not the person or a person. My body would not be me “the person”. The fertilized egg, under the right conditions, has the potential to develop into a living human person. How do you define a person? by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2022 6:37 am Just yesterday, Donna observed that we don't read each other's posts carefully enough. I acknowledged for myself that I'm guilty of that charge. You claim to believe that that at the moment of conception, that single cell (the fertilized egg) is a person. What I...we...say is that life begins at conception. Your question: How do you define a person?, scares me. I think it's a dangerous question. I define a person as a living human being with the capacity for thought, “a mind”. I'll splain from the other end of the life cycle. My dad knew my wife for more than 45 years. At one point, early in his dementia, our family paid my wife to provide care for mom and dad. Evie saw dad every day. She cooked meals and drove him to appointments. Up to the end, dad saw her nearly every day. A couple of years before he died, dad forgot her. For his last year, dad had absolutely no idea who she was. For the better part of a year, he forgot my mom, whom dad adored. Dad knew mom for more than 65 years. Understand. Dad pooped and peed up to the end. At what point, by your definition, did he cease to be a person? Your beginning question scares...offends...me. Sorry. At what point could dad's life been aborted? by islander on May 19, 2022 7:25 am Your dad, as with my wife’s mother, suffered from dementia at the end of their lives...but both had the capacity for thought, the fact that their thoughts and thinking abilities were not what they were before has no bearing on the fact that they were still persons with the capacity for thought. Our person-hood is not diminished or enhanced by how well we do on an IQ test. As I mentioned before, we can pull the life support plug on a living human once the capacity for thought is gone (brain death) because that living human body is no longer a person. Since you seem afraid to answer the question of whether a single human cell, the fertilized egg, is or is not a human person. How is it then, that you believe you yourself can be the judge of whether the rights of that cell should trump the rights of a living human person, the right that a woman has over the ownership of her own body? By calling a fertilized egg, “life” you are still keeping the meaning of the words ”life” and "person" imprecise which is why your thoughts on this also seem to be so imprecise and makes discussing this so unfruitful. by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2022 12:04 pm First, let me just say this about that and let me make this perfectly clear. If Mr Bojangles were still around, you two would make quite a pair doin the old soft shoe. I'm not afraid to answer your question as to whether or not a single cell fertilized egg is a "human person." I think that question is dangerous and the highway to abuse. I will say that if the issue of personhood is something you'd groove on, you should consider reading some Kierkegaard. What I will say about a single cell fertilized egg is, and, again, let me make this perfectly clear: It is a human life Re: "By calling a fertilized egg, “life” you are still keeping the meaning of the words ”life” and "person" imprecise which is why your thoughts on this also seem to be so imprecise and makes discussing this so unfruitful." I disagree. It's true that I'm fearful of where you definitions lead, i.e., to a holocaust. How many preborn babies have been destroyed since Roe? by Donna on May 19, 2022 12:22 pm Hts, I can see that you're stopping short of calling a fertilized egg a "person". Our government also doesn't consider a fertilized egg a "person". I'm confused by your stance on abortion. Maybe you can clarify it for me. You've said that you and most Americans agree that abortion should be permitted if giving birth would put the mother's life in jeopardy. So what's your objection to Roe? by islander on May 19, 2022 2:58 pm Yes, Hate, you are afraid to answer the question because you say the question “scares you”. You use false logic to try and justify your fear but it doesn’t work. You try to use the logical fallacy of the “slippery slope”. Go to Wikipedia to see what that means (I posted the link) and you’ll know why you can’t justify applying it in this case. Having no definition of “human person” is what is really dangerous, since, without being able to say what a person is, you cannot defend against the horrors of the Holocaust, or as in past history, the justification for slavery. A slave was not considered the same as a human person by those who justified it and made it legal. A slave did not have the rights of a person, and if you are unable to define a person you would be unable to say why a slave “is” a person...or why a a human sperm is or is not a person, or why we can harvest donor organs from a living human body but not from a living “person” even though the living human body and the sperm are human “life” as you would say. I’ve given you my definition of a human person...perhaps you can tell us why you think having the capacity for thought, a mind, is not the essence of a person. I highly doubt you can tell us what it would be like to be a living human body without a mind, unable to think, feel, or experience anything at all. A fertilized human egg, although it is not a person, is not “just another human cell”, the egg has the potential, under the right circumstances, to develop into a human person and this is what gives it it’s value and why we (should) have such great deal respect for it. But it is not a person who has rights that trump the absolute right of a person (the woman) to govern what happens to her own body...bodily autonomy. Oh, by the way, as you know I have read Kierkegaard and studied other philosophers as well, but Kierkegaard’s philosophy based subjectivity is of no help here since, without a mind, subjectivity could not exist in any living organism...There would be no “subject”. by islander on May 19, 2022 3:04 pm Here is the link to the fallacy of the slippery slope. en.wikipedia.org by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 6:45 am Ba effin hahahahahahahahaha. I'm sure that you can't see the sanctimony in your post. I'll splain. You begin with the premise that your position is correct and mine incorrect. Then you argue, because I start out being wrong, I slide down a slippery slope. Nice! I'm certain that the a fertilized egg possesses DNA different than its mother, the DNA that will develop, for you, into a unique person. For gazillions of us, from the moment of conception, that being is a unique life. It's not part of the mother's body. It is its own self. No mother, no doctor can end its existence without committing murder... ...to deny that truth is to think about that being in the same way southern slave owners thought about African slaves and Nazis think about Jews and people of color. Talk about your slippery slope! by Donna on May 20, 2022 7:00 am Valiant effort there, islander. by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 7:15 am Donna, as I noted in the other thread. More and more all the time, you seem to feast only sources that feed your prejudices. All of you Blue MAGAs here do. isle's effort is "valiant" and will convince everyone who already agrees with him. It, as you progressives often do, beats anyone who disagrees over the head with woke propaganda. And, because people on your side thinks that's enough, that's how none of you are condemning the "Summer of Rage." Many millions of people consider isle's argument perfect hogwash. And, all he does is dump his argument on, in this case, me and essentially tell me to effin take it or leave it. If I don't take it, of course, it's my loss. As you "damn well" know, Dem polls have tanked since two things happened lately. 1. The Alito opinion was leaked. 2. All Dems but one voted for that gruesome WHPA. We're winning the battle for hearts. by Donna on May 20, 2022 7:19 am none of you are condemning the "Summer of Rage." You're just making up shit. by islander on May 20, 2022 8:25 am Hate wrote: ”You begin with the premise that your position is correct and mine incorrect.” If I didn’t believe my ‘position’ was correct, I wouldn’t be explaining to you ‘why‘ I think it is correct. A “premise” would be something we both agree upon and use as a given in arguing our position, for instance we both agree that a fertilized egg is a living cell, from there we can debate whether or not it is a person and explain why. Neither your position that it is a person nor mine that it is not a person is a premise that we both accept. ”For gazillions of us, from the moment of conception, that being is a unique life.” It IS a unique living human cell...We are not arguing that point. What we are debating is whether or not that cell is a “person”. A person is a subject (my position), if you know Kierkegaard as you claim, you’d know why, without a mind, that unique cell cannot be a subject. What you should be able to do is justify your position iand explain how the cell can be a subject, or explain how something can be a person but not a subject. .to deny that truth is to think about that being in the same way southern slave You don’t seem to realize the major flaw in that statement, you are unable to define what a person is. Therefore you cannot explain to the slave owner what makes the slave a person, just as you cannot explain how a cell without a mind can "be a person". I already explained to you the importance of being able to say what a person is but you were unable to refute it so you ignored it. Here it is again: ”Having no definition of “human person” is what is really dangerous, since, without being able to say what a person is, you cannot defend against the horrors of the Holocaust, or as in past history, the justification for slavery. A slave was not considered the same as a human person by those who justified it and made it legal. A slave did not have the rights of a person, and if you are unable to define a person you would be unable to say why a slave “is” a person...or why a a human sperm is or is not a person, or why we can harvest donor organs from a living human body but not from a living “person” even though the living human body and the sperm are unique human “life” as you would say. by Ponderer on May 20, 2022 8:28 am "Hate wrote: 'You begin with the premise that your position is correct and mine incorrect.' If I didn’t believe my ‘position’ was correct, I wouldn’t be explaining to you ‘why‘ I think it is correct." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Isn't it hysterical what has to be explained to him, Isle??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 10:00 am It IS a unique living human cell...We are not arguing that point. What we are debating is whether or not that cell is a “person”. ~isle No. WE'RE not debating that. YOU are. I'm not claiming that that cell is a "person," by anyone's definition of a person. To make that claim would absurd. What I am claiming and many millions of others, too, is that that cell is a life. I know you want to define the terms by which the issue is understood but neither I nor the other many millions are going to allow that. We get to think for ourselves, even though you hate that reality. We don't say, "Personhood begins at conception." Life does, though. You don’t seem to realize the major flaw in that statement, you are unable to define what a person is. Right. I don't UNDERSTAND. Got it. by islander on May 20, 2022 11:51 am Last Friday on post #88 I wrote: by islander on May 13, 2022 11:14 am “You believe that a fertilized egg, which is a living human cell, is a 'person'. We don't believe a person exists until the egg has developed and evolved into a human organism with the capacity for thought, that is until it has a mind, since the mind is the essence of a human person. Nature discards up to 24% or more of such undeveloped organisms, spontaneous abortions, often times before the women even knows she is pregnant. These are not 'people' that usually end up unknowingly getting flushed down the toilet. I don't think even you believe they are.”... And you (Hate) replied on post # 90: by HatetheSwamp on May 13, 2022 2:48 pm “isle, I do believe they are. “ ================================================ Today, May 20, 2022 you wrote: ”I'm not claiming that that cell is a "person," by anyone's definition of a person. To make that claim would absurd.” 👍 👍 👍 Very very good Hate !!! You’ve made the first step toward participating in a sincere dialogue! As I’ve already made clear to you a number of times, “It [a fertilized egg] IS a unique living human cell...We are not arguing that point.” In fact, I told you that was a premise we both accepted. My next question to you would be; Do you believe that at some point during the pregnancy, that fertilized egg develops from the single cell that it is to a multi-celled human organism (fetus) with a brain, and that brain grows in complexity to the level where the fetus has the capacity for thought and is now a "human person" and should be acknowledged and treated as such? by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 12:11 pm My next question to you would be; Do you believe that at some point during the pregnancy, that fertilized egg develops from the single cell that it is to a multi-celled human organism (fetus) with a brain, and that brain grows in complexity to the level where the fetus has the capacity for thought and is now a "human person" and should be acknowledged and treated as such? Bless your heart, isle. I'm never going to UNDERSTAND in the way you want me too. Nor will the remainder of the many millions... ...and, we're right. I know that I'll never convince you...or Donna or the rest of y'all. We will win, politically, because we're for life and joy. Your side? Yours is the Summer of Rage gang. by islander on May 20, 2022 2:25 pm Hate wrote: ” I'm never going to UNDERSTAND in the way you want me too.” Ok. I can accept that you are telling me the truth and that you really don’t understand my position. I explained it as clearly as I could and if you are being honest with me when you say you’re never going to be able to understand it I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. Like I said, I have better things to do with my time, like putting 24 tomato plants in the ground tomorrow morning and preparing more of the raised beds for the cucumber, squash, pole beans, and pumpkin plants. by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 2:41 pm Ok. I can accept that you are telling me the truth and that you really don’t understand my position. I explained it as clearly as I could and if you are being honest with me when you say you’re never going to be able to understand it I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. No, no, no, no, no. Don't blame yourself. You splained yourself very adequately. I know what you think. You were crystal clear. But, no matter how often you say it, I will not understand the issue in the way you understand it. I think of you as UNDERSTAND MAN because of your constant refrain that people who disagree with you would agree with you if they were capable of comprehension...that you're smart than we are and, if we could just have your clarity on mind, we'll all just got along. That ain't so. by islander on May 20, 2022 4:10 pm ”I think of you as UNDERSTAND MAN because of your constant refrain that people who disagree with you would agree with you if they were capable of comprehension...that you're smart than we are and, if we could just have your clarity on mind, we'll all just got along. That ain't so.” I know that ain’t so. I’m not the slightest bit interested in or bothered by the idea that someone might think they are smarter than me, and I’ don’t think I’m smarter than anyone else here. Why does that kind of nonsense seem to bother you so much, that someone, somewhere, might think they are smarter than you ?? ” I know what you think. You were crystal clear.” Then why did you say you’ll never understand what I said? Did you mean that you’ll never “believe” what I said? Why not just say you think that what I said wasn’t true and you’ll never believe it to be true? If what I said was crystal clear to you then you understood it exactly how I wanted you to. You don’t have to believe it...However in these kinds of discussions it would be interesting if you could explain why you don't believe what I said or what parts of what I said you don’t believe. by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2022 4:25 pm This is the problem Donna mentioned t'other day. We don't read each other's posts carefully. What I said is that I will never understand the issue in the way you do, i.e., in terms when one becomes a person. For many more than only me, we understand this to be about when life begins...at conception. by islander on May 20, 2022 5:25 pm ”What I said is that I will never understand the issue in the way you do, i.e., in terms when one becomes a person. For many more than only me, we understand this to be about when life begins...at conception.” If what I said was crystal clear to you then you did understand it the way I do. It sounds to me like you simply don’t want to think about what I said and would prefer to block it out and think the simple uncomplicated and imprecise thought that “ life begins at conception”. The problem with that is that there are people who will make laws claiming that a fertilized egg is a person so the state can charge a woman who has an abortion, no matter how early, with murder. And you won’t know how to challenge those people...But perhaps you’re ok with that ?? by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 5:06 am The problem with that is that there are people who will make laws claiming that a fertilized egg is a person so the state can charge a woman who has an abortion... Y'know. Sometimes I think I'm wrong and it's not sanctimony. It's narcissism. Though the two often go together. You are such a narcissist, claiming that your wims center the universe! Hence, your sanctimony seems justified. Am I right!!!!? isle, I'm confident that I'm correct when I claim to take pro-life thinking more seriously than do you... ...and, to have taken it to heart while you haven't. We call ourselves pro-LIFE because that's what we are. We do not make law claiming that a fertilized egg is a freakin PERSON. We acknowledge it to be a LIFE! Period. by islander on May 21, 2022 6:46 am ” We do not make law claiming that a fertilized egg is a freakin PERSON. We acknowledge it to be a LIFE!,/b> Yesterday was the first time you were able to finally acknowledge that a fertilized egg was not a person, before that you claimed to believe that a fertilized egg was, indeed a person Do I need to re-post our discussion again for you? You can go back and read it, your post is still right there. Your argument that a fertilized egg is ”life” is a perfect example of why such imprecise language results in exactly the fuzzy and incomplete thinking you are engaging in when you try to justify your anti-choice position. My position and that of the millions of other pro-choice people provides a much clearer and precise definition of a fertilized human egg, ”It [a fertilized egg] IS a unique living human cell, capable, under the right conditions, of developing into a human person”. Are you claiming that the pro-choice position is false? Your incomplete description simply calls a fertilized egg “a life”. Can you explain the difference between a living human cell and life? In fact, I very much doubt that you can explain what life is, it’s not as easy as you might think. “We do not make law claiming that a fertilized egg is a freakin PERSON. We acknowledge it to be a LIFE!” Obviously you are unaware of what your side is doing. They are trying to pass laws making abortion a homicide. Killing a human cell is not homicide but killing a person is murder. Louisiana Republicans advance bill to make abortion a crime of murder 17.22 EDT Republicans in Louisiana have advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of murder, as a draft decision that would end abortion rights continues to spark nationwide protests and police in Washington raised “non-scalable” fences around the supreme court. Supporters admitted the bill, under which a woman terminating a pregnancy or anyone assisting her could be charged, was unconstitutional – as long as Roe v Wade was law. You people have worked very hard to undo Roe v Wade. theguardian.com by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 6:57 am isle, I would be profoundly blessed if you'd quote my post in which I acknowledged that a fertilized egg is a "freakin person" or just a "person." In all my born days, I don't recall ever engaging the "person" category in my own mind. In my mind, the question is about when LIFE begins. So, bless me with that quote. I'd be, well, blessed, by your assistance. by islander on May 21, 2022 7:28 am I posted it just yesterday...but I’ll post it again for you: Last Friday on post #88 [of this thread] I wrote: by islander on May 13, 2022 11:14 am “You believe that a fertilized egg, which is a living human cell, is a 'person'. We don't believe a person exists until the egg has developed and evolved into a human organism with the capacity for thought, that is until it has a mind, since the mind is the essence of a human person. Nature discards up to 24% or more of such undeveloped organisms, spontaneous abortions, often times before the women even knows she is pregnant. These are not 'people' that usually end up unknowingly getting flushed down the toilet. I don't think even you believe they are.”. And you (Hate) replied on post # 90: by HatetheSwamp on May 13, 2022 2:48 pm “isle, I do believe they are. “ by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 7:44 am Okay, isle. I reread it. We were being sloppy. Or, I'll admit to it. You were rambling a tad and my reply was terse. I was acknowledging that they are "people," i.e., living entities worthy of legal protection. I was not suggesting that a fertilized egg, in so early a stage of development, possesses personhood. I apologize for the imprecision. by islander on May 21, 2022 8:55 am ”We were being sloppy. Or, I'll admit to it. You were rambling a tad and my reply was terse.” No. “We” were not being sloppy and I was not rambling. In two short paragraphs I was clearly and precisely explaining why the pro-choice side does not think a fertilized egg is a person. Your response was also quite clear. "Now" you even disrespectfully claim that it would be absurd to believe a fertilized egg is a person. You seem to be completely unaware of much of the thought regarding this extremely complex question. I don’t think you realize how important this question of personhood is or even why it is important. Yet, for “millions of people” this is the foundational belief behind their whole ant-choice position. The largest Christian denomination in the world, for example, the Catholic Church, teaches the personhood of the fertilized egg from the moment of conception as part of it’s dogma and millions fully believe it. The CDF, with the Pope’s approval, declared in 1987 that: “Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of human life: The human body shares in the dignity of the “image of God”: It is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit. (364; emphasis added) How could a human individual not be a human person? “ Note their reasoning... It is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul... The “life” as you call it, according to Catholic teaching is the human soul. by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 9:37 am isle, I thought all of us here at the moment know that I'm far from being a Roman Catholic. Understanding something of your past, I sympathize with your inclination to think through and respond to the statement from the church. Please do. But it carries no weight with me. I believe that the fertilized egg is unique from the mother, that from the moment of conception, she can't claim is a part of her body. It is a separate life. by Donna on May 21, 2022 9:55 am Pew Research Poll| How well does this statement describe your views? "Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights." Extremely well: 15% Somewhat well: 19% Not too/not at all well: 65% pewresearch.org by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 10:02 am So. A whopping 35% believe that life begins at conception!!!!!? Wow. To read the SwampMedia, you'd think it was what, 10? 12%? This is THREE TIMES that. Oy. by Donna on May 21, 2022 10:17 am 34% I never got the impression that only 10 to 12% believe that. Most of the media, left and right, are trying to convince their audiences that the other side is evil, which is a distortion. The reason they do that is to increase viewership and thus profits. I think we should, as a nation, reject that narrative and focus instead on healing and what we have in common. Sheri and I just had a long phone conversation with her sister who's coming to visit us from Missouri next week. She holds all of our views. Anyhow, she's been getting along with conservatives there, even though she doesn't hide that she's a democratic socialist. She had a few stories about conservatives she knows telling her how much they like her even though she's a liberal. I think more conservatives would feel the same if they knew us personally. That cuts the other way, too. I think that more liberals would like conservatives more if they knew them and spoke with them personally. The media and the political parties are fomenting divisiveness. Reject it. by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2022 10:25 am Wow, Donna. I could not possibly agree with you more. Right on. Except for three years in New Jersey, I've spent my entire life in purple states. That's how I have come to agonize over policy and law as far as abortion is concerned. We still have friends from high school. One of them could be your ideological twin. We love her dearly. As strongly as I hold my views about life, I know that the people who disagree with me are real people. I agonize. by Donna on May 21, 2022 10:56 am I generally hold the same views as you on life, Bill. I can't even bring myself to kill an insect unless our home is infested with them. I'm a meat eater, but I resolve my apparent hypocrisy by acknowledging the fact that most animals eat other animals, and always brutally. Like it or not, that's the way of the world, and it has always been that way, call it God's will or the natural process. In the case of abortion, I think the fact that a fetus is physically connected to the mother presents a unique situation, and for that reason, the mother should have full control over what happens to it. In the overwhelming majority of cases, though, it's an agonizing decision for the mother, and in only extreme situations will a mother pursue a post-viability abortion. I think the law should respect the mother's decision. by islander on May 21, 2022 12:00 pm ”I thought all of us here at the moment know that I'm far from being a Roman Catholic.” I didn’t post that to try to sway you to accept any Catholic teaching or beliefs. I posted that to show you that when you use the “millions believe what you do (new life)”, as if numbers justify your position, what the foundational belief is for many millions of your fellow ant-choicers, and what a ‘good argument’ for your position might look like. Granted, the Catholic explanation is based on based on a religious belief which is why it shouldn’t and can’t be used in our country to base laws against abortion. But it does show what a powerful force it is for millions of anti-choicers. Your argument, that a fertilized egg is a “new life”, therefor it supersedes the absolute right of a person, in this case a woman, to govern what happens to her own body which she alone owns (bodily autonomy) and this “new life” argument gives you and/or your representative the right take that right from her without even defining what a new life is or means...The Catholic Church’s argument at least does do what you can’t or won’t. First, life is a continuum, life doesn’t start from nonliving matter, so a fertilized egg can’t be a new life since the life of the newly fertilized egg flows from existing life. The sperm and the egg are already alive before conception, at conception they combine their DNA to form a cell with a "new combination of DNA”, not a new “life”. What “life itself” is, is something you don’t know and haven’t been able to explain. The Catholic explanation is that after conception the life that animates the fertilized egg is the spiritual soul of the human person. All of this and more demonstrates why the imprecise and fuzzy explanation of the “new life” argument is so weak for the anti-choicers. Although I disagree with it’s conclusion because it relies on an article of religious faith as its premise, the religious explanation provide a much stronger and more cohesive argument than your own. by HatetheSwamp on May 22, 2022 5:25 am because it relies on an article of religious faith as its premise, the religious explanation provide a much stronger and more cohesive argument than your own. "An article of religious faith." Good point. Getting to the foundation. Fair enough. Subjectivity is, after all, truth. So here's a question. What genus of "faith" is the premise of your view...which is so fuzzy and seems so weak to me? by islander on May 22, 2022 6:33 am What genus of "faith" is the premise of your view that my view is based on "faith"? by HatetheSwamp on May 22, 2022 7:04 am Sadly, isle, I'm afraid you believe that. You're as firm a believer in what you believe as anyone. You ain't a blank slate, bubba. by islander on May 22, 2022 7:23 am Did you notice that you couldn't answer my question? LoL ! Now I'll ask you another one. How do you form "your" beliefs? by HatetheSwamp on May 22, 2022 7:55 am isle, How do I form my own beliefs? The teachings and incarnated reality of Jesus form my intellectual core. Emotionally, I begin with an ongoing search for understanding my own subjectivity. How do you form yours? If you know...and can be honest with yourself. by islander on May 22, 2022 8:33 am Using reason and logic, for the most part I base my beliefs on evidence. Since I believe there is such a thing as objective truth, I look for evidence that conforms to objective reality as the strongest method upon which to form my belief. Again using reason and logic I know that any one of my beliefs could be wrong and/or overly influenced by my emotions, so my beliefs are tentative. With little or no evidence I usually remain agnostic. My faith, if you will, is the belief that some of my beliefs, based on objective evidence do conform to objective reality. How long do you think our ancestors would have survived if none of their beliefs conformed objective reality? by HatetheSwamp on May 23, 2022 6:06 am isle, You are from a Catholic background. As you know, my degree is in, uh, "church" history. The Protestant Reformation was driven by several fuels, one of which was the Renaissance and its rediscovery of knowledge...along with the application of reason and logic...not church tradition...to the interpretation of logic. It's a common myth among many of your ilk that the West wallowed in myth and tradition until science woke up our brains. The truth is that Christian theists...convinced that the universe is the creation of a God of order...created discernable laws of nature for humanity to discover and use. Descartes, Pascal, Newton?, were all devoted believers in Jesus. It was their Christian conviction that aroused their search for the natural laws that order our existence. From their theism came the science you worship. Now, this subjectivity thing. The practical reality is that we all, not only you secular, uh, freethinkers haha, apply logic and reason to an issue such as abortion, and groove on logic and reason from people who share our presumptions... ...and conclude that the logic and reason of people employed by people with different presumptions is somehow flawed or fuzzy or inexact. We all do that. It's human. The difference between us is that I know that, as important as logic and reason is, we bring ourselves to every moment of our lives. And, I'm humbled. I grasp context. You? Not so much. by islander on May 23, 2022 7:46 am ”...and conclude that the logic and reason of people employed by people with different presumptions is somehow flawed or fuzzy or inexact...” That’s where you are completely wrong. I showed you the clear and precise teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion. Using logic and reason they showed that a fertilized egg is person which is why its rights are equal to the mothers. The language they use is precise. I disagree with some of the premises they base their conclusions on which is why I don't believe a fertilized egg is a person, but their use of logic and reason is excellent and the language is precise. What I find fuzzy in your position is the imprecise language you use, such as your description of the fertilized egg simply as a (human) life. The words, a human life or even life itself can have many different meanings. The Catholic’s teaching in this case is that the term human life means a "human person". by Donna on June 24, 2022 8:33 pm "Most European countries ban or have heavy limits on abortion" - Katie Pavlich My opening post lists the abortion laws of quite a few European countries. None of the countries listed ban or have heavy limits on abortion. Which European countries was "the smartest person on Fox News" referring to, Hate? Anyone? by HatetheSwamp on June 25, 2022 2:43 am Donna, I was thinking about digging this thread up. It's more timely than ever. As far as what Katie said, I was watching THE FIVE when she said that. What about the whole comment do you find objectionable? I ask because I'm guessing you got this 2nd or 3rd, 4th hand. or worse... ...and from some, as Rush used to say, "feminazi" whose thought processes were baked by hate. View Video by Donna on June 25, 2022 9:06 am "What about the whole comment do you find objectionable?" If she said what you reported she said, I think she's wrong. Read my opening post. No European countries listed there have "banned" abortion, nor do they place "heavy limits" on it as about 20 US states already have or are expected to. I didn't research every European country when I posted that. I just looked at the major European countries. Maybe there's a country in Europe that has banned or heavily limited abortion - I don't know, but I doubt it. by HatetheSwamp on June 25, 2022 12:31 pm Donna, What's a major European country? I think there are some countries in Europe that have, essentially, pb's Law: abortion only to preserve the life of the mother. Based on what I know, Ms Pavlich's statement is accurate. In fact, when she said her whole thing, I immediately thought of this thread, which makes, more or less, the same point. by Donna on June 25, 2022 1:27 pm "I think there are some countries in Europe that have, essentially, pb's Law: abortion only to preserve the life of the mother." - Hts Which ones? Btw, I don't expect you to research that. You rarely do. By major, I mean the European countries most Americans are familiar with because of their size and prominence. by HatetheSwamp on June 25, 2022 1:39 pm Poland comes to mind. Lichtenstein. There are some others. by Donna on June 25, 2022 2:01 pm Thank you, Hts. Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk.[1] The last change in the Act on Pregnancy Planning of the Republic of Poland took place on 27 January 2021, when publication of the judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal in the Dziennik Ustaw RP took place.[2] Poland is one of the few countries in the world to largely outlaw abortion after decades of permissive legislation during Polish People's Republic.[3] In 2010 about 10 to 15% of abortions on Polish pregnant women were carried out outside Poland due to the strict restraints in their own country.[4] Poland's abortion law is one of the most restrictive in Europe, along with a group of other traditionally Roman Catholic countries of the region (Malta, Liechtenstein, Vatican, Monaco and Andorra).[5] en.wikipedia.org by HatetheSwamp on June 25, 2022 2:25 pm I was only sayin Ms Pavlich and you are on the same page. by Donna on June 25, 2022 2:38 pm According to you, Pavich said "Most European countries ban or have heavy limits on abortion". I doubt that "most" are. Many are, though. by HatetheSwamp on June 25, 2022 6:29 pm Donna, You say almost the same thing! Wassup!!!!!? Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page