Again, learn what an analogy is.
Oh I know what an analogy is. I just find your choice very interesting and telling.
Hold on. Yes it is sometimes the case that they have late-term abortions because they can't decide. I linked to a study from 2013 that said precisely that. But what you continually fail to comprehend is that this is not why Kitt or anyone else Is against late-term abortions.
And I have linked numerous papers and interviews with people who provide such abortions who clearly show it is a myth.
As basically everyone in this thread has said, any woman who is forced into making such a decision should have the option to terminate the pregnancy, just as anyone who finds out their chils has severe birth defects (most defects can't be screened for until that point). But not all women who have late-term abortions are forced into such a decision. It's a choice.
Which just shows the hypocrisy. It is apparently less of a child and living person as everyone has tried to claim in restricting women's rights to their bodies if she is forced into making such a decision and definitely less human and less of a person if it has a birth defect.. Does that mean she is more human if the child has a birth defect? And the child is more human and has more rights to life over her rights if it does not have a defect?
How does that work exactly?
Why does the mother get more priority than the living person inside of her?
Because one is an actual person and the other is the potential to become a person? Because her rights and her personhood does not disappear because she is pregnant? Fark me Balerion, you actually asked that question?
Really?
Your wife has a car accident and she is 8 months pregnant. The doctor can only save one. Who do you pick? The person in her belly? Or her?
What if they don't treat her for fear of harming the person inside her? Is that acceptable for you? Because if they treat her, then it could harm the person living inside her. Is this okay with you?
What about
if she has cancer?
A pregnant 16-year-old in the Dominican Republic died from complications of leukemia, according to CNN. The young woman was forced to wait nearly three weeks to begin chemotherapy to treat her disease as hospital officials initially refused to treat her fearing it could terminate her pregnancy. In the end she lost her life and the pregnancy, and may have died because of the delay in her treatment.
Under an amendment to the Dominican Republic's constitution which declares that "life begins at conception," abortion is banned, effectively for any reason. The girl's leukemia was diagnosed when she was just nine weeks pregnant.
First diagnosed with cancer many years ago, Amalia was treated and went into remission. She moved on and lived her life. She had a daughter, now 10 years old, for whom she wants to stay alive.
In the first week of January, she was hospitalized and after testing was diagnosed with metastatic cancer for which her doctor stated aggressive chemotherapy and radiation would be needed to save her life.
However, because the chemotherapy might affect or lead to the death of the fetus, no doctor will treat her because they fear the consequences of a law that leads to imprisonment for doctors who even deign to think that women like Amalia–merely an incubator under Nicaraguan law–have the right to be treated as aggressively as they would a man.
Providing a therapeutic abortion–one intended to save the life or health of the mother–would give Amalia a fighting chance to live to raise her daughter. Amalia, wanting to live, is fighting for the right to have this abortion. Without it, she is denied the treatment she needs to live. Ironically–or perhaps not–without treatment she is not likely to live long enough to carry this pregnancy to term.
Why does the mother get more priority than the person living inside her indeed..
So under the guise of why should she get more priority over the "person" living inside her, this would be acceptable to you, wouldn't it? Since you know, you don't care about her safety if she's trying to kill her child and all..
Or is her
personhood null and void once she's pregnant?
And now the Republican-dominated Kansas House and Senate have added another provision to its already prodigious collection of regulations seeking to give the state sovereignty over women's wombs. The Republican governor is certain to sign the monstrous bill in which this provision is contained. As the Kansas City Star warns in an editorial:
That bill [...] extends the state’s “conscience” provision for medical personnel to include the right to refuse to refer a woman to an abortion provider, or prescribe or administer a prescription or treatment that terminates a pregnancy.
Taken to its extreme, the legislation could empower doctors and medical staffers to refuse to provide birth control or even chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient.
Not only will this allow physicians to refuse to provide treatment on "moral" grounds, they will not be required to explain why they aren't providing the treatment, and they can also refuse to refer patients to other physicians would provide the treatment.
An outrage? That hardly covers it. This is downright evil.
So, yeah, you'll excuse me if I find your position to be exceptionally vile.
They're not being denied access to safe health care. They're being denied access to abortion procedures.
Oh, so safe abortions isn't health care?
Right..
Pregnant women are already being denied access to safe health care because of the "person" living inside them. You want to make sure that not only continues, but gets worse by declaring the foetus is a person and asking questions such as "why should she get more rights"?
If they are denied to safe abortions, then more women will die.
Is this an acceptable measure for you? Or do you think these women deserve to die?
When did I say it was an appropriate solution? I don't think restricting late-term abortions is a solution, I think it's a moral duty. The solution to decreasing abortions lies in better sex education and access to contraceptives. Progress on both of those counts has lead to
the lowest abortion rate in the US in 30 years .
So now you consider it a "moral duty" to endanger the lives of women.
You just get better and better.
Mischaracterization and outright lies. For one, I didn't say I don't care about a pregnant woman's safety past 27 weeks. I said that her safety isn't important to me when she's trying to kill her child.
So it's okay if she dies.
Got it.
What about if she has cancer? Is it okay for her to "kill her child" then? Is her child less of a person then? Or do you agree with the Bill in Kansas and laws in South American countries that deny women the right to even have a chance at life if they are diagnosed with cancer while pregnant? You know, because she'd have to abort to start her chemo and all.. And as you just said, her safety is not important to you when she's trying to kill her child..
Secondly, this isn't a women's rights issue. No more than it's a women's rights issue that mothers should be able to drown their kids in the bathtub. Once a fetus is past a certain point, it's a child, and the mother has responsibilities. Sorry that this is the hand nature dealt you, but acting as if you should have the right full-stop to terminate a pregnancy no matter what is horseshit.
So pregnancy and right to choose is not a woman's rights issue?
So not only do you reduce her personhood and elevate her unborn child's personhood to be above hers, you don't care if she dies if she's trying to access an abortion because as you claim, she's trying to kill her child, but now you also believe that it's not even a woman's rights issue because well, she stopped being a full person with rights once she got pregnant, right Balerion? And you complain about Islam and Muslims abusing their women? You can't even give a shit if women die because they can't access safe abortions. Hypocrite much?
You'd be right at home in Saudi Arabia. They go for the crap you just spouted in a big way there.
