Free market, low interest, late term?
Of course. No one has such rights over their body as to commit harm. With respect to abortion, the breakpoint for causing harm is generally conceived as being roughly the start of the third trimester, although later term abortions are also performed.
Good heavens, I don't know: within the same limits of law and process that we're all subject to? I realise I'm talking to something that supports an effective open season, but I think even you probably get that the citizens of any given nation are all theoretically bound by laws. This variation on laissez-faire is interesting; you feel that there should be no boundaries on abortion, so that it can be undertaken at any point. What else are you advocating a free market system on? This is a dialectical departure for you and I'm curious about it.
Well, what do you mean by "up to a point"? I mean, we could get into the etiological here, and ask you what you think that means. I'm not allowed, much as I'd like to, to simply stomp the accelerator all the way down to the mat every time I have to run out for bread. Beyond the legal limit, I'm at fault. So what do you think "up to a point" might mean? Is there some kind of legal, moral or ethical responsibility that could be invoked here?
And past the 27th week of gestation, it's still really only her own body. I mean, it's not as though one could take the fetus out and have it live unsupported by the mother from that point on, right? If it's attached to her, well, its hers. Eminent domain be damned; this is Don't Tread On Me.
And you really think someone argued that the deadline was based on a mythical stuff it back in limit? You really think that? I don't think even Capracus believes that. Am I supposed to believe that you really believe that? Really?
Here's a thought: what's the murder rate in Merry Ol' Auz for conventional murder: you know, the kind where victim and assailant both have 'dry feet' (what a cutesy phrase you've invented here!). It's about 1.3 in 100,000, right? Well, that's much less than 1% as a proportion of the population. So, because murder is so rare, clearly no laws against murder are required in Australia, owing to its incidental rarity. Compared to the abortion rate in Australia, which is probably between 10-20 per 1,000, not 1.3 per 100,000.
Even on an absolute scale there were maybe 70,000 abortions nationwide annually compared to about 300 murders. If 1% of all abortions in Australia were late-term then that's 700, or more than double by all accounting. So, clearly you must feel that no murder laws are required either; a kind of laissez-faire system is surely better than none. After all, how few people are we really talking about?
Actually, the 'DF' policy is where the woman has absolute decision at all points. So the first part of your sentence is weasel wording. It's the DF policy that's essentially evil, or permissive thereof.
Why the hell should I? And what do you have to do with it? I have absolute control of my opinions, my sense of justice and my appreciation of comedy, even black comedy. It affects no one... but maybe what you're saying is that it should be regulated. Is that right?
I laugh to ask, but where did I say that "women's rights is an issue for religion"? And what else do people have absolute - really absolute - rights on, with respect to society? Can I set my own interest rates? They only affect me, surely. Or, maybe it would be better to ask: where else do you think this laissez-faire system of yours works? What else is totally free, and why?
Now, what you need to do is go back and review where I expressed the above in bold. You can't 'make it fit' into the position you're arguing, so you'll have to start from scratch. Have you resigned yet?
Sooooo... The woman has rights, up to a point? The woman has rights over her body, up to a point?
Of course. No one has such rights over their body as to commit harm. With respect to abortion, the breakpoint for causing harm is generally conceived as being roughly the start of the third trimester, although later term abortions are also performed.
How does that work within the context of women's rights?
Good heavens, I don't know: within the same limits of law and process that we're all subject to? I realise I'm talking to something that supports an effective open season, but I think even you probably get that the citizens of any given nation are all theoretically bound by laws. This variation on laissez-faire is interesting; you feel that there should be no boundaries on abortion, so that it can be undertaken at any point. What else are you advocating a free market system on? This is a dialectical departure for you and I'm curious about it.
So how does 'up to a point' fit into that? Do you think women are incapable of making rational decisions that affect them and their bodies? Or can they only do that, up to a point?
Well, what do you mean by "up to a point"? I mean, we could get into the etiological here, and ask you what you think that means. I'm not allowed, much as I'd like to, to simply stomp the accelerator all the way down to the mat every time I have to run out for bread. Beyond the legal limit, I'm at fault. So what do you think "up to a point" might mean? Is there some kind of legal, moral or ethical responsibility that could be invoked here?
What is "evil" about allowing a woman to have rights over her body full stop? Why do you think your up to a point is more valid than her wishes and her rights over her own body?
And past the 27th week of gestation, it's still really only her own body. I mean, it's not as though one could take the fetus out and have it live unsupported by the mother from that point on, right? If it's attached to her, well, its hers. Eminent domain be damned; this is Don't Tread On Me.
To reiterate, no one ever suggested that a deadline existed up to the point where the mother can stuff it back in. The only people who made such arguments have been pro-lifer's like Capracus.
And you really think someone argued that the deadline was based on a mythical stuff it back in limit? You really think that? I don't think even Capracus believes that. Am I supposed to believe that you really believe that? Really?
As actual pro-choice argue, what woman do you know waits until she's pushing the baby out to change her mind about having a baby? Can you name me one? Cite a single one? What woman can you name has waited until she's at full term to abort because she's simply changed her mind, as so many pro-life people try to claim? As the figures show, late term abortions are approximately 1% of all abortions done in the United States. 1%.
Here's a thought: what's the murder rate in Merry Ol' Auz for conventional murder: you know, the kind where victim and assailant both have 'dry feet' (what a cutesy phrase you've invented here!). It's about 1.3 in 100,000, right? Well, that's much less than 1% as a proportion of the population. So, because murder is so rare, clearly no laws against murder are required in Australia, owing to its incidental rarity. Compared to the abortion rate in Australia, which is probably between 10-20 per 1,000, not 1.3 per 100,000.
Even on an absolute scale there were maybe 70,000 abortions nationwide annually compared to about 300 murders. If 1% of all abortions in Australia were late-term then that's 700, or more than double by all accounting. So, clearly you must feel that no murder laws are required either; a kind of laissez-faire system is surely better than none. After all, how few people are we really talking about?
Now, you seem to find that allowing women to decide for themselves is "evil", because that is essentially what the 'dry foot policy' is, the woman determines for herself.
Actually, the 'DF' policy is where the woman has absolute decision at all points. So the first part of your sentence is weasel wording. It's the DF policy that's essentially evil, or permissive thereof.
Although I do find it interesting that you don't find the ridiculous and unrealistic analogy of stuffing it back into the womb and aborting it to be sick
Why the hell should I? And what do you have to do with it? I have absolute control of my opinions, my sense of justice and my appreciation of comedy, even black comedy. It affects no one... but maybe what you're saying is that it should be regulated. Is that right?
Interesting. And you believe that women's rights is an issue for religion? Riiigghhhttt... Next time, you should explain that it's women rights up to a point. Which is more hypocritical?
I laugh to ask, but where did I say that "women's rights is an issue for religion"? And what else do people have absolute - really absolute - rights on, with respect to society? Can I set my own interest rates? They only affect me, surely. Or, maybe it would be better to ask: where else do you think this laissez-faire system of yours works? What else is totally free, and why?
Do you think that forcing her to endure a pregnancy against her will and without her consent and go through childbirth against her will and without her consent (since she wanted to have an abortion but is not allowed to) less evil for you? How does forcing a woman to have a baby against her will fit into 'women's rights' in your opinion?
Now, what you need to do is go back and review where I expressed the above in bold. You can't 'make it fit' into the position you're arguing, so you'll have to start from scratch. Have you resigned yet?