Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[billvon]

However, that way around it would be to make a rational argument justifying the personhood of a zygote and answering the conflict of assertions of equal rights that give one "person" precedent and authority over another person's very body.

That's it? So the only way to avoid FAPing is to declare the zygote a person.

Exactly. If a half-delivered, bawling baby is a person, then a zygote must also be a person. They must be exactly the same. That's the only possible rational argument you can make.

 

[Kittamaru]

Like how he removes the man from that entirely?

So... now the woman is too weak to say no? Or are men supposed to make all your decisions for you Bells? If that is your viewpoint... well, sorry love, but the dark ages called... they want their philosophy on a womans role in the world back.

Why doesn't the man not have sex, use protection or have his tubes tied?

Why doesn't the woman ask the man to use protection? Or say no to sex? And men can't get their "tubes tied" (tube Ligation) as they don't have the parts for this... they can, however, get a vasectomy. All of these are valid options... at no point did I say they were not, though it is interesting that you, once again, attempt to misrepresent what I said in order to try and paint me as a misogynist.

But in the eyes of these people, if she gets pregnant, then she was irresponsible. It is her job to prevent falling pregnant.

What do you mean "these people"? Are you sexist Bells, or just intentionally offensive to anyone who doesn't support your ideals?

You know, the irresponsible woman who deserves it and must be made to pay for her irresponsibility argument?

Oh... so if a woman who doesn't want children gets pregnant during consensual sexual intercourse, it isn't her fault? Interesting... what, did she just accidentally fall on top of the mans penis and it just so happened that seminal discharge occurred? Lets break it down: The woman can 1) Use birth control pill/patch/implant 2) Utilize a diaphram and spermicide 3) Utilize a vaginal ring 4) Utilize a cervical cap 5) Utilize the Morning After pill 6) Utilize a spermicidal sponge 7) Use an IUD 8) Use a female condom 9) Require the man to use a condom 10) Tube Ligation 11) Abstain from sexual intercourse 12) Utilize non-vaginal sexual intercourse (both 11 and 12 are likely to leave her unfulfilled)

Lets see what the man can do: 1) Use a condom 2) vasectomy 3) Require the woman to use some form of birth control (note, it is much easier to prove a man has a condom on, than it is to prove a woman is using birth control) 4) Abstain from sex 5) Withdrawl Method (not even close to a reasonably effective solution as pre-ejaculate can sometimes result in pregnancy) 6) Request non-vaginal sexual intercourse (which more than likely isn't going to be as satisfying for the woman)

Of these options, both tube ligation and vasectomy are pretty much considered permanent, though they can be undone with some difficulty. Requiring the woman to use birth control... well, she can lie about it and say she is when she isn't, and most forms of birth control take some time to take effect; as a result, this means that the woman must be responsible, take the pills/shots/et al as prescribed and wait long enough to ensure they are functional - unless of course you feel the man should control her life to the extent that he ensures this to be true. Realistically speaking, the ONLY options the man has that are entirely in his control are A) Condom B) Abstain and C) Non-Vaginal Sex... so three options, two of which would leave the woman unfulfilled. Conversely, the woman has nine options (as one is permanent and two are likely to leave her unfulfilled)...

So, yeah, I would say that, unless you want the man to be "controlling", it is up to the woman to be responsible in this case.

The language has changed, well sort of. When it comes to the foetus, it is now a feeling, conscious and aware child or baby. The language for the woman remains the same though. She's just the irresponsible woman who has sex, falls pregnant and then murders her baby.

Well... yeah. If she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be... considering all the ways she could AVOID getting pregnant, I would say she has been irresponsible. Obviously, if she is raped or in an abusive relationship then that's another story altogether (and the man in question should simply be castrated as to ensure he NEVER procreates) but I am focusing on that which we can reasonably modify - intentional, deliberate, and consensual behavior. Then again...

People who support the woman's right to choose her reproductive options are supporters of murdering babies, as I have been accused of apparently being.

We have people that go absolutely hysterical when their motives are questioned...

These are the confines of the language of their argument. They cannot operate outside of that, even when shown the scientific proof that they are in fact wrong.

It is interesting you keep referring to this "reality check" website...
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/12/good-dose-unreality-rhrealitycheckorg

http://wrtl.org/lifevoice-blog/pro-abortion-ultrasound-hysteria/

The website rhrealitycheck.org, a fave of the pro-abortion crowd, went overboard with name-calling and distortions, knowing that their stated "objection" to the Virginia ultrasound legislation, that it required transvaginal ultrasound abortions, was specifically untrue. Turns out that rhrealitycheck.org opposes not only transvaginal ultrasounds, but all ultrasounds.

Lies? How can I count them all. The worst, for me at least, was (as a Washington Post editorial implied) that the Virginia legislators were trying to slide something by the public, something as “obtrusive” as a transvaginal probe. In fact, even a veteran pro-abortion lobbyist confessed she didn’t know they were used in early pregnancies—and, to repeat, their use is not “rape,” it is customary.

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews....distortions-lies-and-effrontery/#.U3GWBPldUfU
Effrontery—defined a lot of ways but “barefaced audacity” captures it best in this context. PPFA and NARAL and the National Partnership for Women & Families and a host of zealots who hang out at the pro-abortion website rhrealitycheck.org knew they were lying through their teeth. Knew that their “objection” was not only shamelessly untrue in its specifics, but to ultrasounds as such, not just to transvaginal ultrasounds. Knew that names they called Virginia legislators to their face had nothing to do with their (imaginary) righteous anger and everything to do with stampeding them into making a “change” to something that did not exist.

This website looks to be quite... irrational... in many ways. They also support Planned Parenthood, an organization that has not only advocates having teenagers lie to their parents about their pregnancy, but also try to coerce them into having an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/li...passes-for-counseling-at-planned-parenthood-a

In one incident, a young woman named Alicia went to Planned Parenthood to see if she was pregnant. She arrived for the pregnancy test with her husband and mother, yet when it came time to see the pregnancy counselor, she was ordered to go in alone and to leave her support people behind. According to Alicia, the clinic worker then asked her if she intended to have an abortion. Alicia indicated that she would want to keep her baby.

“You can be honest with me, are you being forced to keep it against your will?” I said, “Absolutely not. I wasn’t expecting to get pregnant so quickly, but if I am pregnant I want to keep my baby” and again she asked “So your husband or mom are not forcing you to keep it if you are?” I said, more aggressively and upset, “NO!”

When she was asking me if I was forced to keep the baby she looked like she was reading from a script. I remember her saying that if I kept “it,” it would be very expensive and life changing. She was poking at the fact that I didn’t seem like I could afford to have a baby. She also asked if I was scared to say that I wanted an abortion, and that if I had any questions I could talk to someone that can ease my nerves. She never really said baby she said “it” a lot.”(4)

Alicia turned out not to be pregnant. She later commented:

“I have not been able to shake that experience, it was very disturbing that I had someone trying to convince me to abort my baby especially after telling her over and over again that I wanted to keep my baby. I didn’t sleep for a week!”(5)

19-year-old “Barbara” went to a clinic at her mother’s insistence after becoming pregnant. When she went, she wanted to keep her baby.

“The woman at the clinic started spewing facts so fast. They told me just enough to scare me….they mentioned all three points but made adoption sound negative and birth tragic, then really pushed abortion. I told them I was more than 14 weeks. She said they had to do it really quick because they couldn’t do more than a 14-week limit and pushed me to make the appointment for absolutely that day.”(6)

When Jennifer Clifford went to Planned Parenthood and found out that she was pregnant, she did not want to have an abortion. In her article “UN-Planned Parenthood” she tells her story:

“Next, the nurse asked me how I felt about the possibility that I could be pregnant. I let her know that I was excited at the idea but unsure of my future. She honed in on that uncertainty and probed further- what would I do with the child? Could I support it? What would my parents think? These were issues that I had not yet allowed to enter into my mind; I was taking the whole thing one step at a time. Consequently, I could not answer her questions as quickly as she blurted them out. As I floundered for responses, a look of smug resolution came over her face, as if she had already decided what I was going to do. I was a textbook abortion customer to her- young and afraid, and not knowing where to turn.” (7)



Clifford continues, describing what happened after the pregnancy test came back positive:

“She reminded me of my age and of my state in life. I knew I could not support the child on my own, so I asked her for a number I could call for government assistance. She claimed she didn’t have one to give me. It struck me as odd that she couldn’t provide me with a point of contact. Surely other women had been in this same situation before me and had needed information on how they could get help to keep their children as well. Why did Planned Parenthood, then, not keep such an important number handy?”

Clifford then asked for a referral to an obstetrician, which Planned Parenthood refused to provide. She goes on:

“The nurse breathed a heavy sigh of disapproval and curled her lip, as if I wasn’t understanding her point. ‘We don’t deal with pregnant women.’ Shocked, I wondered how this company could call itself ‘Planned Parenthood’ when it was unable or unwilling to deal with expectant parents….She seemed to sense my uneasiness and pressed some more.

She mentioned my parents again, appealing to my utter terror in having to break the news to them. The nurse bombarded me with negativity, playing on my fears and concerns and continuing to offer me the ‘easy way out.’… When I disagreed, she thrust a package of pamphlets at me on abortion costs and procedures, adoption information, and a small excerpt on prenatal care. She presented this to me and told me to come back when I had made up my mind…” (8)

This, then, is informed consent at Planned Parenthood.

Even some pro-choice activists have admitted that counseling at abortion clinics leaves something to be desired. Jennifer Baumgardner, who started the t-shirt campaign “I Had An Abortion” told the story of an abortion patient in her book “Abortion & Life.” She quotes the young woman saying:

“I went with my boyfriend and friend to Planned Parenthood. I think I was headed into my eighth week at that point. I went into a room for pre-abortion counseling- five quick, terse questions. I had assumed that I was going to get a half-hour and I would finally be able to tell someone or talk to someone about how freaked out I was, but I didn’t get to.”(9)

Another powerful source of information about how clinics really counsel women comes from former clinic workers who have left the abortion field and are now willing to describe how their clinics attempted to sell abortions to women using biased counseling and inaccurate information.

In an article in the Christian Herald, former clinic worker Kathy Sparks said the following about her response when abortion patients asked questions about the developing baby:

“Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say ‘It’s not a baby yet. It’s just tissue, like a clot.’(10)

While medical science has not yet determined exactly when the baby can feel pain, it is clear that Sparks was withholding vital information that would help pregnant women make a decision that they would have to live with for the rest of their lives. An unborn baby at 12 weeks does indeed have fingers and toes, a beating heart, and developing fingerprints. To characterize such a well-developed human being as “tissue” or “a clot” is outright dishonest.

According to Joy Davis, another former clinic worker whose testimony appeared in the Pro-Life Action League’s DVD “Abortion: The inside Story”

“When I first started working there [at the clinic], I had to sit and listen to women answering the phone for at least a month before they would allow me to answer the phone. We had to know exactly what we were doing when we were talking to these women. We had to find out very quickly what their problem was, play on that and get them in the clinic for an abortion. We were very good salespeople.”

Former Clinic Worker Deborah Henry elaborates on this theme:

“Many women could not afford to have babies, so we would use examples - like the price of babies’ shoes, the price of clothing, how much it cost to raise a baby. If they weren’t finished with their education, the hindrance it would have on their education, how would they find a baby sitter, who was going to take care of that baby for them? We would find their weakness and work on them….All they were told about the procedure itself was that they would experience slight cramping similar to menstrual cramps, and that was it. They were not told about the development of the baby….The women were never given any type of alternatives to the abortion.”(11)

In a rare moment of candor, abortion clinic worker Sallie Tisdale says the following in an article in Harpers Magazine. Tisdale was still working in the clinic at the time of the quote:

“It is when I am holding a plastic uterus in one hand, a suction tube in the other, moving them together in imitation of the scrubbing to come, that woman ask the most secret question. I am speaking in a matter-of-fact voice about ‘the tissue’ and ‘the contents’ when the woman suddenly catches my eye and says ‘How big is the baby now?’

These words suggest a quiet need for definition of the boundaries being drawn. It isn’t so odd, after all, that she feels relief when I describe the growing buds bulbous shape, its miniature nature. Again, I gauge, and sometimes lie a little, weaseling around its infantile features until its clinging power slackens.”(12)

Sometimes pro-choice publications also reveal the bias that is all too prevalent in abortion counseling. Planned Parenthood has a training manual called “The Complete Guide to Pregnancy Testing and Counseling.” It presents a hypothetical situation in which a woman comes to the clinic with ambivalent feelings about having an abortion. It suggests that the clinic worker:

“Tell her that no one makes the decision to have an abortion easily or ever feels really ‘good’ about it. Acknowledge that feelings of discomfort and sadness are normal. Ask about the reasons for which she and her husband decided on an abortion. Help her to reaffirm that this is the best decision for them right now. Remind her that feelings of guilt, sadness or loss do not mean that a wrong decision was made.”(13)

Life Dynamics discovered another document meant to train abortion clinic providers. The Reproductive Health Access Project gives “Pregnancy Options Counseling Points for the Ambivalent Patient.” Here are some of the points.

“2. Normalize feelings of ambivalence.

3. Acknowledge common feelings such as shame, disappointment, guilt and regret.

4. Reframe the situation – she may be making the most responsible decision by NOT continuing the pregnancy.

5. Be conscious of time – you do not need to know everything about the patient to help her make a decision.

6. Refer to the pregnancy, not the baby.

7. Elucidate that the patient’s choice not to be a mother now does not mean she is choosing not to be a mother in the future.”

Many, many more sources could be cited to prove that abortion clinics fail when it comes to abortion counseling. Numerous former clinic workers, beyond those quoted here, have testified that their former employers told them to lie, mislead, and withhold information. Many more women have testified to such deceit and coercion. This article only presents a fraction of the evidence that these deceptive practices go on in clinics all around the country.

Sources for the above:
4. Susan Michelle Tyrrell ““‘They kept asking me if I was being ‘forced’ to keep the baby’: Alisha’s Planned Parenthood visit” Life Site News December 1, 2011http://www.lifesite.net/news/they-kept-asking-me-if-i-was-being-forced-to-keep-the-baby-alishas-planned

5. Ibid.

6. Trish Diggins “Selling Lies: Deception & The Abortion Industry”, The Forerunner Mar 1, 1992 http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0433_Deception__Abortion_.html

7. Jennifer Clifford “UN-Planned Parenthood” The Catholic Resource Network, EWTN 1998 http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/UNPLAN.TXT

8. Ibid

9. Jennifer Baumgardner Abortion & Life” (New York, NY: Akashic Books, 2008) 127

10. Gloria Williamson “The Conversion of Kathy Sparks” Christian Herald January 1986 p 28

11.Personal Testimony “Meet the Abortion Providers” Convention 1993

12. Sallie Tisdale “We Do Abortions Here” Harpers Magazine Oct 1987 p 68

13. “The Complete Guide to Pregnancy Testing and Counseling” Planned Parenthood 1985 (p 24-25) quoted in “Achieving Peace in the Abortion War” by Rachel M MacNair, Ph.D., published by the Feminism & Nonviolence Studies Association January 2009.

Rather disgusting in my opinion... but they are not doing anything technically illegal, so it is allowed to continue. Immoral yes... but laws are not always formed based on moral guidelines.

 

[Bells]

So... now the woman is too weak to say no? Or are men supposed to make all your decisions for you Bells? If that is your viewpoint... well, sorry love, but the dark ages called... they want their philosophy on a womans role in the world back.

Sorry love?

Firstly, stop using such terms when speaking to me. Your use of such terms towards me is demeaning and as you and I both know Kitta, you use them only to demean and insult and remind me of my place. I have repeatedly told you that this is unacceptable, stop doing it.

Secondly, you keep blaming women who get pregnant with unwanted pregnancies. It's the woman's fault. She's irresponsible if she falls pregnant. And all the sexist clap trap you keep saying.

Why doesn't the woman ask the man to use protection? Or say no to sex? And men can't get their "tubes tied" (tube Ligation) as they don't have the parts for this... they can, however, get a vasectomy. All of these are valid options... at no point did I say they were not, though it is interesting that you, once again, attempt to misrepresent what I said in order to try and paint me as a misogynist.

Well you are a misogynist. How lucky for you I respect the moderator's forum to not list all the sexist and misogynistic names you have called me or referred to me by.

What do you mean "these people"? Are you sexist Bells, or just intentionally offensive to anyone who doesn't support your ideals?

Anyone who deems such women who are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy irresponsible.

Can you say where I said "men" in that comment to Fraggle?

Oh... so if a woman who doesn't want children gets pregnant during consensual sexual intercourse, it isn't her fault? Interesting... what, did she just accidentally fall on top of the mans penis and it just so happened that seminal discharge occurred? Lets break it down: The woman can 1) Use birth control pill/patch/implant 2) Utilize a diaphram and spermicide 3) Utilize a vaginal ring 4) Utilize a cervical cap 5) Utilize the Morning After pill 6) Utilize a spermicidal sponge 7) Use an IUD 8) Use a female condom 9) Require the man to use a condom 10) Tube Ligation 11) Abstain from sexual intercourse 12) Utilize non-vaginal sexual intercourse (both 11 and 12 are likely to leave her unfulfilled)

Lets see what the man can do: 1) Use a condom 2) vasectomy 3) Require the woman to use some form of birth control (note, it is much easier to prove a man has a condom on, than it is to prove a woman is using birth control) 4) Abstain from sex 5) Withdrawl Method (not even close to a reasonably effective solution as pre-ejaculate can sometimes result in pregnancy) 6) Request non-vaginal sexual intercourse (which more than likely isn't going to be as satisfying for the woman)

Of these options, both tube ligation and vasectomy are pretty much considered permanent, though they can be undone with some difficulty. Requiring the woman to use birth control... well, she can lie about it and say she is when she isn't, and most forms of birth control take some time to take effect; as a result, this means that the woman must be responsible, take the pills/shots/et al as prescribed and wait long enough to ensure they are functional - unless of course you feel the man should control her life to the extent that he ensures this to be true. Realistically speaking, the ONLY options the man has that are entirely in his control are A) Condom B) Abstain and C) Non-Vaginal Sex... so three options, two of which would leave the woman unfulfilled. Conversely, the woman has nine options (as one is permanent and two are likely to leave her unfulfilled)...

So, yeah, I would say that, unless you want the man to be "controlling", it is up to the woman to be responsible in this case.

And if that is the case, it is entirely up to the woman what happens afterwards.

Well... yeah. If she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be... considering all the ways she could AVOID getting pregnant, I would say she has been irresponsible. Obviously, if she is raped or in an abusive relationship then that's another story altogether (and the man in question should simply be castrated as to ensure he NEVER procreates) but I am focusing on that which we can reasonably modify - intentional, deliberate, and consensual behavior. Then again...

Then again her reasons for getting an abortion are none of your business. Since you know, it's "up to the woman to apparently be responsible in this case", if she feels it is responsible to get an abortion when she wishes, it's none of your concern.

We have people that go absolutely hysterical when their motives are questioned...

Indeed.

Kind of like the hacks who disregard science and start arguing that a 27 week old foetus is a conscious, feeling child or baby.

It is interesting you keep referring to this "reality check" website...
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/12/good-dose-unreality-rhrealitycheckorg

Yes. It is a great source of news about how pro-lifer's/anti-abortion supporters are denying women their bodily rights. The latest news is the heartbeat laws and attempts to ban abortion pills commonly used as the morning after pill or emergency contraception pill or in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

So someone disagrees how one story was reported.. Okay.. And?

He disagreed with her dismissal of the study that advised of the risk of men who father children after they are 35. Paul Raeburn, the author of the article you linked has written a memoir about raising children with depression and bi-polar disorders, which the study being discussed appears to be connected to. It is hardly unusual that he would take umbrage at someone dismissing the risks.

http://wrtl.org/lifevoice-blog/pro-abortion-ultrasound-hysteria/




This website looks to be quite... irrational... in many ways. They also support Planned Parenthood, an organization that has not only advocates having teenagers lie to their parents about their pregnancy, but also try to coerce them into having an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/li...passes-for-counseling-at-planned-parenthood-a

Hardly. They believe and support it is a woman's right to choose.

They also believe that forcing women (even rape victims) to have probes inserted into their vagina's without consent because they want to have an abortion, in the bid to try to convince and shame these women against aborting in the first and second trimester is unacceptable.

In most societies, using coercion and forcing women to have things inserted into their vagina's without consent is sexual assault and/or rape. However for the pro-life crowds, this is acceptable. Even if the woman is a rape victim.

Rather disgusting in my opinion... but they are not doing anything technically illegal, so it is allowed to continue. Immoral yes... but laws are not always formed based on moral guidelines.

LifeSiteNews huh?

I think it is disturbing that anyone, especially a moderator of this site would even refer to or use that site as a basis for their argument. Do you want to know why?

They are so vocal that they made it onto the Ring Wing Watch site for their rampant homophobia, their arguments to ban abortions completely, to restrict sex education and to restrict access to contraceptives.

Some examples of who you are now using as reference points in your argument:

The Religious Right website LifeSiteNews today published an essay from Obianuju Ekeocha of Culture of Life Africa praising Uganda’s brutal Anti-Homosexuality Bill and urging other countries to adopt similar measures.

She said that the “courageous” supporters of the draconian bill rightly resisted the “totalitarian commitment to the hegemonic homosexual agenda.”

The courageous Ugandan MP's have chosen to please God instead of men (or women!). And they have chosen to protect their citizens from the corrosive effects of moral decadence and unrestrained sexual lisence [sic]. They have voted their Christian values.

…

Indeed, these Ugandan MP's have decidedly hoisted high the flags of virtue and values today even though they will surely come under unspeakable pressure in the days ahead. The "modern" world that we live in today is one of totalitarian commitment to the hegemonic homosexual agenda and in this hegemony, there is zero tolerance for anyone who believes in traditional moral values. The social engineers of this world are ready and willing to cut off, knock down or completely demolish the virtues that stand against their vision for their new world where sexual morality, marriage, motherhood, faith and family life are becoming redefined to embrace a more amorphous, fluid and "free" design. And everyone is expected to blend in, those who cannot blend in must bend, and those who cannot bend will surely be broken and burnt for good measure. In this way they have already broken so many. They have shut down businesses, closed down religious adoption services, terminated work contracts, sued dissidents, sacked workers, suspended movie stars, attacked churches, harassed Christian preachers, expelled students, threatened small businesses, punished big businesses , stifled free speech, taken away conscience rights and violated religious liberty. Yes, those who will not blend will bend , those who will not bend will be broken.

I cannot help but wonder if they will bend or break Uganda for trying to uphold their biblical values and for trying to protect their minors and disabled.

Will Uganda be bent or broken or burnt? Or will their show of strength inspire leaders from other African countries to raise their own flags of virtue and value?

I hope so.

I pray so!​

[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lifesitenews-praises-ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill]

With students and alumni of a Catholic school in Pennsylvania rallying around a teacher who was fired for planning to marry his partner in New Jersey, where same-sex marriage is legal, a state lawmaker proposed an amendment to prevent such discriminatory practices.

But anti-gay activists are defending the firing, Patrick J. Reilly of The Cardinal Newman Society told LifeSiteNews today that the proposed legislation is “as ludicrous as it is dangerous to basic human freedoms,” adding that the gay teacher “scandalized students” by hoping to marry his partner.

“Senator Leach’s bill to legislate away morality even within the walls of a Catholic school is as ludicrous as it is dangerous to basic human freedoms,” Patrick J. Reilly, president of the Catholic education watchdog organization The Cardinal Newman Society, told LifeSiteNews.com.

“The facts of the case are quite clear. Holy Ghost did not fire a teacher because of same-sex attraction,” he said. “They fired him because of his public and serious sin, which has scandalized students whose families are privately paying for Catholic formation.”

…

Francis Viglietta of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference said the law “in effect would limit our ability to serve the people of this commonwealth in ways that are consistent with Catholic teaching.”

Amy B. Hill, communications director for the state's Catholics, called the bill “an inappropriate use of governmental power to coerce religious institutions into abandoning their faith.”​

[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/conservative-catholic-group-gay-teacher-scandalized-students]

I thought to myself, surely they must be wrong. Surely Right Wing Watch must be wrong. So I went back to LifeSiteNews, off the link you provided and read up about them.

3. LifeSiteNews.com’s writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

4. LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the big picture and the most useful and up-to-date information on this conflict.

Ermm okay..

If they're publishing essays praising the anti-gay laws in Uganda that basically call for killing gays is anything to go by, that is somewhat terrifying.

Moving on..

Who Produces LifeSiteNews?

The service was originally started by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, was one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.

CLC’s international dimension spurred the development of LifeSiteNews as an international news service. LifeSiteNews.com U.S. and Canada are now separate incorporated non-profit organizations, are not involved in direct political action and do not support or oppose political candidates or parties. LifeSiteNews is strictly a news and information service.

The 1997 founding staff of LifeSiteNews are current Managing Director Steve Jalsevac and Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen.

Okay...

In addition to opposing abortion, Campaign Life also launched a vocal campaign against same-sex marriage in 2004-05.[7]

In 2005, the coalition criticised the Conservative Party for nominating same-sex marriage supporters John Baird and Peter Kent to run as candidates.[8] It expressed support for John Pacheco's "independent conservative" candidacy against Baird in Ottawa West—Nepean, and for Greg Watrich's independent candidacy against sitting Tory MP James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam), a supporter of Bill C-38.[9]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Life_Coalition]

*Cough*


You really need to start double checking your sources Kitta. Using a homophobic website that is not only anti-all abortions and want to ban it completely, but are also against sex education and against making it easier to access contraceptives, to support your claims...

Wow Kitta

Good work.

Perhaps you really should just stick to yahoo answers.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Who the fuck are you to it?

Its mother. Its carrier. Its life force. The person who decides. The person who triumphs and controls because its very sustenance depends on her life and therefore her sustenance. In short a woman is to a fetus its god. Its the god that can grant it good health or bad, future or no future, protection or no protection, life or death. She is the "mother goddess" who can grant it "personhood" or oblivion. That's who 'she' is to 'it'.

 

[Bells]

Giggity..

Women rejoice!

We should rejoice, because of men like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska.

Why should we rejoice because of men Like Pete Kelly?

The stupid started here:

Alaska state Sen. Pete Kelly, a Fairbanks Republican, announced last week that he wants to use state funds to supply bars with pregnancy tests to help combat the state's epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome.

That's right ladies. He wants bars to hand out and/or provide pregnancy tests so women can nip down to the loo, pee on a stick before she buys a drink.

If you thought the queue for the women's toilets were bad before, imagine it after that.

Correction.. It's not a bad goal to try to drive home the message about the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant.. However it is costly. There are more cheaper options available that would reduce the numbers of children born with FAS. So did he go for this option. Oh no. Good old Pete had more left to give women..

But Kelly told the Anchorage Daily News he would not support the same measure for birth control, noting that "birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly."

---

If you have people who are binge drinking or chronic drinkers, we're hesitant to say 'use birth control as your protection against fetal alcohol syndrome,' because again, as I say, binge drinking is a problem...If you think you can take birth control and then binge drink and hope not to produce a [baby with fetal alcohol syndrome] you may be very wrong. Sometimes these things don’t work. Sometimes people forget, sometimes they administer birth control improperly and you might produce a fetal alcohol syndrome baby. That would be irresponsible of us until we get better information on that to say that well, maybe that is a good idea.​

Soooo.. Pete..? You think women should be peeing on a stick each time she goes to a bar, but you don't think birth control to prevent falling pregnant is a good idea?

Yes, I know, the desire to hold up a 'you're a dumbass' sign is strong, but really, Pete, well he's looking after us girls. He's happy for the State to fund pregnancy tests in bars, but provide funding for birth control to actually not fall pregnant - especially if you are an alcoholic or frequent binge drinker, as Pete seems to believe many women are? Well fuck that.

Let us check what 'science' says on the issue..

Medical experts say that, in fact, relying on birth control to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome is an excellent idea. The Department of Pediatrics at NYU Langone Medical Center says that in order to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome, women should "use birth control until [they] are able to quit drinking" and "avoid heavy drinking when not using birth control." The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism recommends that social workers advise women who are likely to drink if they become pregnant to use birth control.

Poor Pete Kelly.

He even had a good cry at everyone laughing at him..

At the Senate session, Kelly expressed dismay over how people have fixated on his birth control comments. "Because it got kind of caught up in the blogosphere, it got turned into something like a war on women or something like that. That's not important. What is important...are these pregnancy tests kiosks," he said.

Pregnancy tests kiosks?

Bahahaaa..

Yeah okay, you can hold up the sign now..

 

[GeoffP]

So you're not demanding restrictions and bans with exemptions for the 3rd trimester?

Well now that's very curious. Very curious indeed. Was I tired when I wrote that, and did I miss your inference, or is it a little too strange? Or did I catch you in the middle of an edit? I'm going to have to have that one checked. Very odd indeed.

"One of us... One of us... One of us"..

How appropriate..

Appropriate to what?

But this social panic is in evidence again:

In other words, when she's being a good incubator, then she's fine. But if she chooses to assert her rights over her body, then her safety within the context of possible death if she has to resort to a backyard abortion if a ban is in place and she does not fit your pathetic little criteria, then it is wholly unimportant.

Your frustrated rage is starting to leak out. Those pathetic little criteria in which I ask only for some semblance of a threshold representing the onset of identity. Tch! Here's the existential panic again:

And that's the thing about your combined freakish attitude. You care so little about the mother that you don't even care if she dies. She is unimportant. The only thing that matters is the child in her womb. And when that child is born, then bleh, fuck it, onto the next pregnant woman.

A third trimester abortion takes days, is exceptionally painful and traumatic.

In places where there are no restrictions, the figures are still below 1%.

So because the numbers are low, there should be no law regarding it.

I wonder if, for a moment, you've ever just stopped and thought about what you're trying to argue: because it's rare, there should be no law about it. The willful way in which you just dismiss the moral implications of the argument based on incidence are startling: not even so much as a whiff at the concept of personhood in late development, the kids are not all right because it just doesn't happen that often. Well, hell, neither does murder, or kidnapping. I suppose those don't bother you either.

So why this panic about 3rd trimester abortions?

I don't think we've established exactly why you're panicking.

Why do you wish to restrict it when it actually does not need restricting?

Has that been established?

I am the one carrying it in my uterus.

Who and what are you to me again?

Ah: so because you are an incorporate person, I have no say on any of your actions. Excepting of course the putative person in the uterus. I realize that until it springs from the womb and hates you for thinking about pre-emptively killing it, it's just a mass of cancerous cells, but I think there might be reasons to think that it expresses elements of 'personhood' (ooh, that word!) possibly slightly before the second it crosses the dim firebreak of the human crotch so that you can lay eyes on it. Or do I malign Tiassa's concept here?

Why the fuck should I care about what you think or want? You are a complete stranger. You are not the father or my doctor. You have nothing to do with me or with it. So why should I care about what you think or want?

Well, most societies include what we conventionally refer to as laws; you may have come across these in your work. Now, I'm all for the infrequent scofflaw. Cross against the lights, snarking off a cop, a little speeding and throwing eggs at Halloween - all good fun, and to hell with the social fascists. But when more serious matters are on the table, I have a little more respect for it. I recognise and appreciate its protections. You could argue that a murder or a rape a few counties over doesn't affect me either, but I don't think I'd see it that way. Whether or not my people are safe, it is a moral failing that other people are not; this to my mind is the basis of individual sociality. I'm sure your head must be tumbling over how it's possible for an agnostic to have such a position - where could it possibly come from? you might ask, God? - but I assure you that it is there. I merely base my hold on this morality on what I hope is an unflinching requirement for even behaviour. (Hence some of my recent complaints regarding moderation on SF; I think you have noticed these also.) Let me illustrate this with a question for you to answer, for a change: if a woman I don't know is murdered by her boyfriend, why should I care? She's not my girlfriend.

Your emotive mystical psycho babble and "sentience", etc, mean diddly squat to anyone who is not your wife.

Not a great believer in sentience, are we? I'm not hugely surprised by that; but I wonder if complex things are 'babble' to you when it's convenient to represent them as such, and not at other times. Do you think you've ever attacked someone for calling one of your points 'babble'?

Well if I am 27 weeks pregnant and I don't want it there, I'll just abort it. What is it to you? Who are you to me and to the "baby" again?

No need to be stupid or use such stupid and emotive and unrealistic arguments.

Saith the pot. Anyway, if you are 27 weeks pregnant and you don't want it there and abort it, you will probably be arrested and go to jail unless you have a valid reason for doing so. I appreciate that, as a socialist, you're deeply immersed in the laissez-faire philosophy of the free-market, but I think you have to appreciate where things are now and the moral and intellectual basis on which my recommendations are being posed to improve them. Mind you, under my system you might well have such rights, depending. But absolute assertion is not going to carry the day. We're a social society, Bells. We regulate.

You can't even answer who or what are you to me that I should care about what you think I do with my uterus. All you resorted to was emotional and frankly kinda stupid analogies that do not even apply to pregnancy or pregnant women and spouted emotional and mystical psycho babble about "sentience".

I've made the case above more concretely but I'm worried about your failed parsing of sentience: do you not believe in such a thing, or not understand it?

You don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions? Don't get one.

Your dilemma is solved.

And, naturally, neither shall you without reason. :shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Keeping up with the Jonesing

Oh you haven't been keeping up..

It's now a conscious, aware and feeling person. The language has changed.

Science? What science?!

It's hysterical.

Ah, as someone who appears to reject any evidence that even mildly contradicts your claim, I don't think you really have the right to be making such dismissals. For example, the article you cite at the end of your post doesn't contradict any of my positions, yet you unreservedly cite it as "rejecting" sumpin-or-other about... someone or other. What's it meant to do for this argument? Maybe instead of scraping up an unrelated article as an emotional reaction to the overall existence of the concept reasoned limitations on abortion, you could address specific points instead. This line was particularly humorous WRT the 'dim line' breakpoint, although I expect the author was talking about earlier developmental points:

So, their effort to save face involves multiple variations of “Don’t believe your lying eyes! Just because you can’t see a baby doesn’t mean there isn’t a baby there!”​

Maybe you've taken your marching points from the misinterpretation of a similar piece? I don't think it'll be helpful at this point but I don't think she meant right up to birth.

 

[GeoffP]

Its mother. Its carrier. Its life force. The person who decides.

You're good on two for four there. You are not it's "life force". It's animus is its own. But assertion is not the solution to the argument.

 

[GeoffP]

Women rejoice!

We should rejoice, because of men like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska.

Why should we rejoice because of men Like Pete Kelly?

There's that m-word again - is this the ultimate problem here? The men expressing an opinion? Because this has come up before.

 

[Bells]

Appropriate to what?

But this social panic is in evidence again:

The only one panicking about 'amg they're killin' babies' is you and a few others.

I quite liked the pro-life cartoon by the way. Very cute.

Your frustrated rage is starting to leak out. Those pathetic little criteria in which I ask only for some semblance of a threshold representing the onset of identity. Tch! Here's the existential panic again:

So, still can't answer the question?

What about the mother?

Who will save her?

Or too busy worrying that 'women are killin' babies'?

So because the numbers are low, there should be no law regarding it.

I am just curious about the combined obsession about it.

But the numbers are exceptionally low. Would be lower if women were able to access abortions more easily. So why do you wish to impose restrictions?

I wonder if, for a moment, you've ever just stopped and thought about what you're trying to argue: because it's rare, there should be no law about it.

What needs to be restricted about it that is not already?

For example, you know the women getting 3rd trimester abortions that many of them do so because they are not able to obtain one earlier for a variety of reasons. The simple solution to that is to make it more widely available to women. Bang, large drop in that 1%.

The willful way in which you just dismiss the moral implications of the argument based on incidence are startling: not even so much as a whiff at the concept of personhood in late development, the kids are not all right because it just doesn't happen that often. Well, hell, neither does murder, or kidnapping. I suppose those don't bother you either.

What kids are not alright?

Murder and kidnapping?

What does either of those have to do with this discussion?

You do understand the differences between murder and kidnapping, don't you? It is the harming or killing of another person.

An abortion is the ending of a potential person. I mean if we are going to impose restrictions on women because they may murder potential people, then you may as well start policing their sanitary pads and tampons every week, because I can assure you, waaayyy more get flushed than implanted..

But lets talk about the "concept of personhood". So it's a whiff? Not a gale force fart? Okay.. Soooo once again, what about the mother and her personhood? It must be separate from the foetus, correct? Since you know, the foetus is apparently now its own little person. But it is existing inside another person. So who has the dominant rights? Whose body is it again? Ah yes, the mother's. It's her body, her uterus, her life that is in limbo, her possible job that she cannot work in and her possible children that she cannot feed and keep sheltered if she cannot work due to being in the 3rd trimester and then having to endure births. Now, whose body is it again? Whose rights are paramount if it's her body and existing inside her body?

I'll use an analogy. Say someone visits your house. You own that house, you care for it, you pay for the insurance costs, you maintain it, mow the lawn, keep it clean, etc. It is your house. Your little castle. Someone comes over to visit. Lets say your inlaws. After 27 weeks of their staying in your house, you are sick of them. You don't want them there anymore, you weren't able to get rid of them earlier because after 10 too many glasses of wine, you said suuuurree stay as long as you want.. You want them gone. By now, so does your wife and your children. Do you have rights over your house? Do you have the right to say 'please leave, I don't want you here'? Do you think you have the right to pack up their things and leave them outside the front gate and change the locks? It's your house, yes? The answer to those questions is yes. You have every single right to your house and you have every single right to have your unwanted guests vacate your property. Now, imagine people come and sit outside your house when they hear you plan on kicking out your inlaws. And they start wailing and waving placards around telling you that your inlaws have squatter's rights over your house now and you are not allowed to kick them out until they are ready to leave. Do you say 'suurree Mummy and Daddy, here, have the main bedroom, I'll sleep in the garage!'? Or do you say to the protester's outside 'mind your business, this is mah house, git off mah lawn!'?

Your inlaws meanwhile have chained themselves to the middle of your bed because they really want to enjoy some time with their daughter and think you are the outsider and they don't think you should be having regular nookie with their daughter either. They dig in, they start making you sick. You try to get into your bed for a lie down and they knee you in your bladder so you have to keep peeing all the time. YOU DON'T WANT THEM THERE.. But they won't leave. It is now 28 weeks since they arrived. They have rediverted their mail to your house, changed your phone number to their number, gained access to your bank accounts and are spending it all. Your father in law is now wearing your jockey shorts around the house and sitting in your chair.. Your chair GeoffP.. YOUR CHAIR.. He's ruining your arsegroove.. Even worse, at night, after the kids go to bed, he takes off his pants because he's a nudist and he sits nakey in YOUR CHAIR!.. Since they refuse to leave, you call the police and request they get involved to have them removed.

Now, this can either go in two ways. They can either say certainly, be right over.

Or, if there are vague squatter's laws in place that some feral dickhead not connected to you passed a law deeming that inlaws are not allowed to be removed from one's residence, they turn around and say 'nah, sorry mate, they are squatters in your house, we can't do jack, they have rights to that house too, you'll just have to leave them there until they are ready to go'... And then they reprimand you for being so horrible that you'd want to kick out your inlaws.. such lovely little old people who deserve a chance, since you know, they are old and need looking after..

So, what about your rights?

Who will look after poor widdle GeoffP?

Now, imagine this feral dickhead you don't even know has deemed by law that you are not allowed to remove them and put restrictions in place saying that they can only be removed if they start poisoning you with their bad cooking, if you have a heart attack or stroke from their continued unwanted presence.. You have a few options..

1) You can keep putting up with it until week 40, where they are then supposed to leave for a cruise.

or

2) Hire private security guards to have them removed, breaking the law and have you risk being sent to jail for 10 years.

So, what about your rights?

I don't think we've established exactly why you're panicking.

I'm not the one begging for restrictions and ignoring scientific fact because less than 1% utilise their rights over their body.

You misunderstand. It's not panic. It is disgust that people wholly unconnected to me seem to believe that they should have more say or rights over the contents of my uterus. And as a result, they have imposed laws that attempt deny those rights from day one of a pregnancy, endanger my health and life if I miscarry or fall ill, cause me great stress and emotional trauma if I am a victim of rape or incest.

Has that been established?

Yes, it has.

Your father in law now starts making jokes about how English people are in-breds..

How is that restriction and ban put in place by that feral dickhead going along for you?

Ah: so because you are an incorporate person, I have no say on any of your actions. Excepting of course the putative person in the uterus.

Your father in law starts telling the kids that you beat their mother and they start looking at you as if you are a monster. He also tells them that they can start calling him Daddy.. Since he's a better father figure for them than you are..

Still happy to have them there because feral dickhead thinks they belong there and their rights to your house and all in it are equal to yours and that you need to maintain that house for them to live in it? Or do you believe it's your house and you should be allowed to demand they leave or have them removed?

I realize that until it springs from the womb and hates you for thinking about pre-emptively killing it, it's just a mass of cancerous cells, but I think there might be reasons to think that it expresses elements of 'personhood' (ooh, that word!) possibly slightly before the second it crosses the dim firebreak of the human crotch so that you can lay eyes on it. Or do I malign Tiassa's concept here?

Well there was a Bishop and some priests who saw a molar pregnancy as containing elements of "personhood" and a molar pregnancy can turn cancerous. What a perfect example GeoffP!

You notice a skid mark on your favourite chair. You suspect it's the pantless father in law. You feel greatly repulsed as the waft of unwashed arse drifts up into your nostrils, but you are denied the right to remove them from your house until they cross the threshhold of your front door into the dim light outside that you can have your house back..

Should you be allowed to remove them from your house? You don't want them there! It's your house.

Well, most societies include what we conventionally refer to as laws; you may have come across these in your work. Now, I'm all for the infrequent scofflaw. Cross against the lights, snarking off a cop, a little speeding and throwing eggs at Halloween - all good fun, and to hell with the social fascists. But when more serious matters are on the table, I have a little more respect for it. I recognise and appreciate its protections. You could argue that a murder or a rape a few counties over doesn't affect me either, but I don't think I'd see it that way. Whether or not my people are safe, it is a moral failing that other people are not; this to my mind is the basis of individual sociality. I'm sure your head must be tumbling over how it's possible for an agnostic to have such a position - where could it possibly come from? you might ask, God? - but I assure you that it is there. I merely base my hold on this morality on what I hope is an unflinching requirement for even behaviour. (Hence some of my recent complaints regarding moderation on SF; I think you have noticed these also.) Let me illustrate this with a question for you to answer, for a change: if a woman I don't know is murdered by her boyfriend, why should I care? She's not my girlfriend.

You are talking about laws that apply to people. You know, they are born, not connected by an umbilical cord to any other person.

A foetus is a potential person. So is your sperm for that matter. It has the potential to one day be a person. Do you render your clothes each time some guy wanks? Should there be laws to protect the potential people going to waste in tissues?

Not a great believer in sentience, are we? I'm not hugely surprised by that; but I wonder if complex things are 'babble' to you when it's convenient to represent them as such, and not at other times. Do you think you've ever attacked someone for calling one of your points 'babble'?

Sentience in an unborn? No. Actually, I do not.

I don't believe in spirits either, nor do I believe in souls or that babies come from heaven and that if they die, they go to heaven as little angels.

Saith the pot. Anyway, if you are 27 weeks pregnant and you don't want it there and abort it, you will probably be arrested and go to jail unless you have a valid reason for doing so. I appreciate that, as a socialist, you're deeply immersed in the laissez-faire philosophy of the free-market, but I think you have to appreciate where things are now and the moral and intellectual basis on which my recommendations are being posed to improve them. Mind you, under my system you might well have such rights, depending. But absolute assertion is not going to carry the day. We're a social society, Bells. We regulate.

Actually no I won't.

There are abortion providers who provide abortion services in the 3rd trimester and do so legally.

When and if you ever become king of the world, we can talk about your system. Until such a time, you system applies only to your womb, or your house...

I've made the case above more concretely but I'm worried about your failed parsing of sentience: do you not believe in such a thing, or not understand it?

With remarks about gun rights and what not?

Ermm yeah suuurree.. You made your case.

And, naturally, neither shall you without reason. :shrug:

As I said, I can get one whenever I choose to get one.

In short, 'you're not the boss of me!'..

My body, my womb, my rights. Not yours.

However, here is the problem. Laws are being created and enacted to restrict access to birth control, the morning after pill, abortion providers are being shut down or forced out of business, or regulations are being imposed by them to make it nearly impossible for women to access these services very early on. Now this is a bad thing. If women are not able to access abortions or birth control or things like the morning after pill, then it will mean that women will be forced to wait until later on to abort their unwanted foetus. No one likes abortions. In an ideal world, there would be none. But we are not in an ideal world. Instead, we are in a world where extreme right pro-life groups are doing what they can to force women into having babies, by any means necessary, hence their opposition and demands for abstinence only education, restricting and even banning birth control, making it impossible for women to access abortions, and in too many cases, women's lives are being put at risk, some are even dying, because Bishops without medical degrees are making medical decisions about things that do not concern them.. Now even you would have to admit that this is not acceptable. By any stretch of the imagination. Not only do these measures result in women being forced to have abortions later on, but there is also the inherent risk to teenagers in particular because they aren't even being taught about safe sex or pregnancies or the inherent dangers of unprotected sex.

If you want to reduce third trimester abortions, then you need to increase access to birth control, sex education, morning after-pills and abortion services, so that women are not being put in a position where they have to wait for months before they can access one. This is simple logic. If you impose restrictions and bans, then women will simply risk their lives in getting one anyway. I don't think women having to die for such services is acceptable. Do you?

Hence why I ask, who will save the woman?

Saving the woman means making it easier and cheaper to access birth control pills, morning after pills, abortion services so that she is able to make her choices and access those services when she needs to. Instead of having to wait for months because she has to travel to the other side of the country to be able to get an abortion.

The best thing you can do is to put a late term abortionist out of business because women no longer need that service since they are able to access what they need much earlier on.

So while you chortle about 'haw haw haw, there are restrictions in place', remember, those restrictions means more women being forced to wait until later to get an abortion. Unless of course this is the plan all along and you intend to force women to have babies they do not want? I'd guess the answer to that is no.

Enjoy the inlaws!

 

[Bells]

There's that m-word again - is this the ultimate problem here? The men expressing an opinion? Because this has come up before.

You would only feel offended by my saying "men like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska" if you are a man like Senator Pete Kelly from Alaska.

Are you like him?

Honestly, you'd pitch a mini fit if I had said 'like someone who likes the colour blue'..

 

[Kittamaru]

Sorry love?

Firstly, stop using such terms when speaking to me. Your use of such terms towards me is demeaning and as you and I both know Kitta, you use them only to demean and insult and remind me of my place. I have repeatedly told you that this is unacceptable, stop doing it.

*shrugs* I'll stop labeling you when you stop labeling me, fair deal?

Secondly, you keep blaming women who get pregnant with unwanted pregnancies. It's the woman's fault. She's irresponsible if she falls pregnant. And all the sexist clap trap you keep saying.

So... by saying that the woman should take some of the responsibility (unless, of course, you WANT the man to take all of it, in which case the man would be controlling the woman) I'm apparently saying it is entirely the woman's fault... what a deliriously paranoid view of the world you have.

Well you are a misogynist. How lucky for you I respect the moderator's forum to not list all the sexist and misogynistic names you have called me or referred to me by.

Personally, I don't give a damn if you wanted to list it all... your penchant for throwing colorful adjectives at people is well known.

Anyone who deems such women who are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy irresponsible.

Can you say where I said "men" in that comment to Fraggle?

You didn't need to say men... you implied it quite well. It is much the same as if I were to walk up to a Back Panthers meeting and say "What's wrong with you people"... only in that case I would likely be beaten to within an inch of my life and then arrested for "hate speech". Fortunately for you, your misandry isn't illegal.

And if that is the case, it is entirely up to the woman what happens afterwards.

So... you don't want to hold the woman responsible for her actions... yet you want to leave the choice entirely in her hands... and then blame the man for whatever the result is? Sounds like escapism to me.

Then again her reasons for getting an abortion are none of your business. Since you know, it's "up to the woman to apparently be responsible in this case", if she feels it is responsible to get an abortion when she wishes, it's none of your concern.

Then why is this debate even occurring, hm?

Indeed.

Kind of like the hacks who disregard science and start arguing that a 27 week old foetus is a conscious, feeling child or baby.

Oh come off it - you're just upset that your attempt at mudslinging and slander was a disgraceful failure. The science is there - the only reason it isn't a universally accepted fact is 1) The zealots in the "pro abortion" shout extremely loudly and are working to redefine pain not as a physical response but an emotional one... which is sadly funny since that would mean the worlds view on animal rights has been for naught 2) We can't actually ASK the fetus "Does this hurt?".

Yes. It is a great source of news about how pro-lifer's/anti-abortion supporters are denying women their bodily rights. The latest news is the heartbeat laws and attempts to ban abortion pills commonly used as the morning after pill or emergency contraception pill or in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

Indeed, it is a great source if you want only the opinions that support your side of the story, instead of the whole truth.

So someone disagrees how one story was reported.. Okay.. And?

He disagreed with her dismissal of the study that advised of the risk of men who father children after they are 35. Paul Raeburn, the author of the article you linked has written a memoir about raising children with depression and bi-polar disorders, which the study being discussed appears to be connected to. It is hardly unusual that he would take umbrage at someone dismissing the risks.

The point is that, much like you, that website spins things harder and faster than your average jet turbine

Hardly. They believe and support it is a woman's right to choose.

Then we should abolish child support, since apparently the choice to get pregnant or not is entirely the woman's now.

They also believe that forcing women (even rape victims) to have probes inserted into their vagina's without consent because they want to have an abortion, in the bid to try to convince and shame these women against aborting in the first and second trimester is unacceptable.

They also believe exterior ultrasounds should be banned... despite the fact that they are incredibly useful in determining fetal development. Or would you rather we go back to the dark ages where nobody knows anything about the child until it is born?

In most societies, using coercion and forcing women to have things inserted into their vagina's without consent is sexual assault and/or rape. However for the pro-life crowds, this is acceptable. Even if the woman is a rape victim.

Not at all - nobody can "force" the woman to do anything. However, in a civilized society, it is generally considered the "right thing to do" to find out everything you can and do everything you can to ensure a healthy baby... or, again, we could go back to the dark ages. Up to you.

LifeSiteNews huh?

I think it is disturbing that anyone, especially a moderator of this site would even refer to or use that site as a basis for their argument. Do you want to know why?

They are so vocal that they made it onto the Ring Wing Watch site for their rampant homophobia, their arguments to ban abortions completely, to restrict sex education and to restrict access to contraceptives.

Some examples of who you are now using as reference points in your argument:

Actually, the point is quite valid... much as you can link spindoctoring and politikal tripe as "source", so can others.

I thought to myself, surely they must be wrong. Surely Right Wing Watch must be wrong. So I went back to LifeSiteNews, off the link you provided and read up about them.

Ermm okay..

If they're publishing essays praising the anti-gay laws in Uganda that basically call for killing gays is anything to go by, that is somewhat terrifying.

Interesting, but unrelated to abortion. This is a classic example of a red herring.

Moving on..

Okay...

*Cough*

Might want to see a doctor about that cough.

You really need to start double checking your sources Kitta. Using a homophobic website that is not only anti-all abortions and want to ban it completely, but are also against sex education and against making it easier to access contraceptives, to support your claims...

And you should do the same, since your sources are on the entire opposite side of the spectrum. I rather thought the irony of it was delicious, like a perfectly cooked steak.

Wow Kitta

Good work.

Perhaps you really should just stick to yahoo answers.

Indeed - the location of the source matters not when it comes to good debating, so long as the evidence within is valid. Something you, as a moderator of a science forum, SHOULD know.

Then again, if you had your way, it sounds like instead of equality the end result would be an almost Amazonian like society... but I digress, since that is neither here nor there.

 

[Kittamaru]

Pete Kelly

... oh dear Gods... why is this moron holding public office?

In short, 'you're not the boss of me!'..

My body, my womb, my rights. Not yours.

Interesting... by that logic, I would assume you would have no problem with, say, underage drinking (my body, my decision), hard drugs (my body, my choice), voluntary human sacrifice (if they wish to sacrifice themselves, more blood for the blood god, more skulls for the skull throne), public displays of affection/indecency (don't like it, don't look - you can't make me clothe my own body), and other such things that, by your definition, are the persons choice and thus nobody can say anything about it...

I also have to wonder... are you an anarchist? I mean, from the sounds of it, you don't think anyone should have the right to establish rules and regulations over anyone else... were that the case, then what is to stop the country dissolving into absolute chaos?

 

[Trooper]

Conception vs. Birth: Between Two Extremes

What needs to be restricted about it that is not already?

For example, you know the women getting 3rd trimester abortions that many of them do so because they are not able to obtain one earlier for a variety of reasons. The simple solution to that is to make it more widely available to women. Bang, large drop in that 1%.

And yet, you’re arguing for zero restrictions.

Ah-ah-ah…more time, more human, more wrong. That’s how they see it, whether you like it or not. That so-called 1% will thwart all your efforts. Just because you’re consistent at the other end of the spectrum doesn't mean you're more right, and you wonder why you’re losing ground.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." –Jalal ad-Din Rumi

 

[Bells]

... oh dear Gods... why is this moron holding public office?

He is just one..

In Arizona they are attempting to overturn the foetal heartbeat laws, and if they are successful, then once there is a foetal heartbeat, the woman cannot abort.. Which would mean that form 6 weeks into the pregnancy (when most women do not even know they are pregnant), if they live in Arizona, they cannot obtain an abortion. This will result in women having to take longer, try to find the time (if they are working), child care (if they have children), trying to raise the funds (travel costs, accommodation if required, payment for the abortion and all the scans and care that come with it) etc, to get interstate to be able to obtain an abortion. Which could very well mean that many women may end up having to wait well until they are in their 2nd trimester to be able to get an abortion, if not later. Now, impose restrictions on such a woman because, you know, she waited so long, she will obtain one illegally and risk her life in the process.

Now do you understand why restrictions to abortion services will end up killing women?

If you want less 3rd trimester abortions, make reproductive health care services more readily available earlier, instead of imposing laws that restrict access to even the morning after-pill or the very safe abortion pills (which are very effective in those first few weeks), which is much safer and much cheaper and does not involve medical or surgical intervention.

Interesting... by that logic, I would assume you would have no problem with, say, underage drinking (my body, my decision)

Pretty much. So long as you don't get into a car and slam into someone else and you're just doing it to yourself, it is your choice.

hard drugs (my body, my choice)

If you must know, I am a stronger supporter and believer of legalising drugs. But if you want to take hard drugs, that is your choice. I lost a cousin and countless friends to drug addiction. It was their choice. The drug laws certainly did nothing to help them. On the contrary, the laws and restrictions meant that they refused medical care when they needed it out of fear they would be arrested.

voluntary human sacrifice (if they wish to sacrifice themselves, more blood for the blood god, more skulls for the skull throne)

If they just want to commit suicide for whatever god they believe in, ermm okay?

public displays of affection/indecency (don't like it, don't look - you can't make me clothe my own body)

I don't have a problem with stuff like this.

I'm not of the 'OMFG it's a nipple!! A NIPPLE.. WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN' brigade. I've traveled overseas enough times and have seen men, women and children standing in canals by the road way, butt naked bathing themselves, going to the toilet, etc.. If I was that much of a moral prude, I'd never leave the country or watch tv for that matter.

and other such things that, by your definition, are the persons choice and thus nobody can say anything about it...

I am also a firm supporter of euthanasia and if someone wants to kill themselves after being ill, etc, then I don't believe anyone who is not them, should have the right to demand they continue to suffer.

I also have to wonder... are you an anarchist? I mean, from the sounds of it, you don't think anyone should have the right to establish rules and regulations over anyone else... were that the case, then what is to stop the country dissolving into absolute chaos?

I'm actually a left wing commie. Also a godless heathen and if my fundamentalist religious relatives are to be believed, destined for hell unless I repent before their lord.

I am not a total anarchist. I think laws that prevent harm to others are necessary, sadly. For example, I believe laws that would prevent me from running you over with my car because you took too long crossing the street and I was in a tad of a rush, are valid laws. Just as I think any laws that would prevent me from tasering pensioners who dither in front of me as I am trying to do the bolt through the supermarket to get out of there as soon as possible is probably a good thing. I don't believe I should have the right to steal your 'stuff', harm you or your family or anyone else for that matter, I don't believe that people should be allowed to own guns because too many people, in particular, innocent children are killed, I don't believe in wars that are held for political or economic reasons, but I am a firm and somewhat rabid supporter of human rights. I don't believe any woman should ever be pressured to have an abortion or to not have an abortion, or to have a child or not have a child for that matter. I am also a very firm believer in people having a right to privacy and for me, sex, sexual partners, decisions to have children and when, are probably some of the most private aspects of one's life.

I wouldn't say I am an anarchist. A pain in the backside, sure. A contradiction, certainly.

Certainly, laws are essential in a society. It is a way to avoid anarchy.

But people also have a right to privacy and I think reproduction is an exceptionally private matter and I do not think that the Government should involve itself in women's choices about it. Getting an abortion is something that is very private, and it is between the woman, her doctor and the father of the foetus (assuming he is around). The woman, since it is her body and whether she wants the father's input and/or support in the matter and the doctor who may or may not choose to perform the abortion based on his medical assessment of his patient (the woman). Doctors who perform 3rd trimester abortions won't abort a full term foetus, for example, because it is too risky for their patient. So they do turn women down if they are too close to term. But people ignore that as well and give the impression that women are aborting full term foetuses. Abortion specialist dealing with 3rd trimester pregnancies won't do them because they are too dangerous. So yeah..

 

[Enmos]

Say a pregnant woman is shot in the stomach by her psycho husband because he figures the baby is not his. The baby dies, the woman lives. Will the husband be convicted for murder?

 

[Trooper]

Say a pregnant woman is shot in the stomach by her psycho husband because he figures the baby is not his. The baby dies, the woman lives. Will the husband be convicted for murder?

This might answer your question.

 

[Bells]

*shrugs* I'll stop labeling you when you stop labeling me, fair deal?

Because you like using sexist labels?

I have let you know enough times now that it isn't acceptable. I am not your love, little miss, little princess, bitch, and all the other ridiculous platitudes one uses to demean women. So cut it out.

So... by saying that the woman should take some of the responsibility (unless, of course, you WANT the man to take all of it, in which case the man would be controlling the woman) I'm apparently saying it is entirely the woman's fault... what a deliriously paranoid view of the world you have.

No, I am saying that you keep reiterating the same myth, even though you were provided with more than enough evidence to educate you that it is just a myth and you need to stop referring to it as though you are correct.

Personally, I don't give a damn if you wanted to list it all... your penchant for throwing colorful adjectives at people is well known.

Going to mansplain your sexism now?

You didn't need to say men... you implied it quite well. It is much the same as if I were to walk up to a Back Panthers meeting and say "What's wrong with you people"... only in that case I would likely be beaten to within an inch of my life and then arrested for "hate speech". Fortunately for you, your misandry isn't illegal.

Oh so now you are implying things that aren't even there..

Last I checked, the women who are pro-life aren't men.

So yeah, please stop misrepresenting what is actually said.

So... you don't want to hold the woman responsible for her actions... yet you want to leave the choice entirely in her hands... and then blame the man for whatever the result is? Sounds like escapism to me.

Well since you deem her solely responsible if she falls pregnant, whatever happens afterwards should be entirely her decision and her responsibility as she sees fit, no?

Then why is this debate even occurring, hm?

I don't know? Why do you feel the need to be here at all? This thread is about discussing politicians and pro-lifer's who wish to impose on women's rights. You have yet to provide any articles or raise any discussions about the actual thread topic. All you are doing here is complaining against something or other that actually has nothing to do with you at all.

Do you have an answer to the questions posed in the OP?

What happens to the mother's freedoms and her rights once personhood is legally given to her foetus?

Oh come off it - you're just upset that your attempt at mudslinging and slander was a disgraceful failure. The science is there - the only reason it isn't a universally accepted fact is 1) The zealots in the "pro abortion" shout extremely loudly and are working to redefine pain not as a physical response but an emotional one... which is sadly funny since that would mean the worlds view on animal rights has been for naught 2) We can't actually ASK the fetus "Does this hurt?".

Wait.. what?

So the reasons scientists are unable to prove foetal pain is because pro-abortionists re-define pain as not being a physical response but an emotional one? (woo woo conspiracy theory alert!) .. I mean heaven forbid it's not because they do not have the evidence. Because well, this being a science forum and all, of course lack of evidence means that it's a grand type of conspiracy by "pro-abortionists" to shout really loudly and it is they, damn them! who are redefining "pain".. Science be damned!.. That's a whole level of woo right there Kitta.

And because you can't ask the foetus if it hurts?

Ummm..

Indeed, it is a great source if you want only the opinions that support your side of the story, instead of the whole truth.

Well it beats conspiracy theory sites that go on about gays, gay marriage and abortion being part of this global war on Christian family values.

The point is that, much like you, that website spins things harder and faster than your average jet turbine

Umm actually no.

See they tend to provide links to scientific studies to back up their opinions.

Your LifeSiteNews links provide running commentary on gay conspiracies and how Obama is letting gays subvert society into the Godlessness or some shit.

Then we should abolish child support, since apparently the choice to get pregnant or not is entirely the woman's now.

I see you have a firm grip on those straws..

They also believe exterior ultrasounds should be banned... despite the fact that they are incredibly useful in determining fetal development. Or would you rather we go back to the dark ages where nobody knows anything about the child until it is born?

Well if you have already made up your mind to abort, why are you going to be interested in foetal development?

The irony of the pro-life crowd stance is that they are all for forcing women to get them if they want to have an abortion. But if a woman who is on the poverty line without health insurance needs one for her wanted pregnancy, well, the pro-life crowd complain about welfare and having to provide it and do not think they should be funding any maternity care for poor people.

Not at all - nobody can "force" the woman to do anything. However, in a civilized society, it is generally considered the "right thing to do" to find out everything you can and do everything you can to ensure a healthy baby... or, again, we could go back to the dark ages. Up to you.

And women do.

However when because of the dark ages mentality that views women as being breeding cows, and thus, all their choices must be removed, from sex education to birth control, to access to early abortions, then what happens? I mean shite, they are even complaining about providing maternal care for poor uninsured women who want to have babies.

Actually, the point is quite valid... much as you can link spindoctoring and politikal tripe as "source", so can others.

Umm scientists disagree with each other all the time. It does not mean the site is invalid. She was dismissive of the risk of men over 35 having children, he felt the risks were valid - which given his children's issues, he has a vested interest.

Interesting, but unrelated to abortion. This is a classic example of a red herring.

You are referring to sites that are complaining about gay conspiracies to destroy families and how there is apparently an international battle of some sort going on because of gays, gay marriage, abortion, cloning (*chortle*) as points of authority.

Well I guess given that you believe the reason scientists cannot prove pain as you believe it is in the apparently conscious and feeling "child" in the womb is because of pro-choicers, I should not be too surprised.

Might want to see a doctor about that cough.

Germs are made to be spread!

And you should do the same, since your sources are on the entire opposite side of the spectrum. I rather thought the irony of it was delicious, like a perfectly cooked steak.

I actually refer to a range of sources, especially scientific sites when discussing science. You know, sites that do not believe that "that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations,"...

Indeed - the location of the source matters not when it comes to good debating, so long as the evidence within is valid. Something you, as a moderator of a science forum, SHOULD know.

Well if the alternative is LifeSiteNews, you cannot be any worse off with yahoo answers.

Then again, if you had your way, it sounds like instead of equality the end result would be an almost Amazonian like society... but I digress, since that is neither here nor there.

Naw..

Too many human sacrifices, not enough time. Plus we'd have to kill too many birds for the feathered headdresses.

 

[billvon]

Well you are a misogynist.

Personally, I don't give a damn if you wanted to list it all... your penchant for throwing colorful adjectives at people is well known.

I'd like to welcome you, Kitt, to the illustrious list of people who Bells has called a misogynist. We're a varied group, with heretical ideas like "women are a lot like men" and "women have similar responsibilities as men." Some of us even have the absurd idea that a 39 week old fetus is not just a parasite; it might even have a few rights of its own. We come from all walks of life, and have all sorts of backgrounds, but the one common thread is that we are not extremist enough to be acceptable to Bell's sensibilities - and for that, kudos.

 

[Kittamaru]

He is just one..

In Arizona they are attempting to overturn the foetal heartbeat laws, and if they are successful, then once there is a foetal heartbeat, the woman cannot abort.. Which would mean that form 6 weeks into the pregnancy (when most women do not even know they are pregnant), if they live in Arizona, they cannot obtain an abortion. This will result in women having to take longer, try to find the time (if they are working), child care (if they have children), trying to raise the funds (travel costs, accommodation if required, payment for the abortion and all the scans and care that come with it) etc, to get interstate to be able to obtain an abortion. Which could very well mean that many women may end up having to wait well until they are in their 2nd trimester to be able to get an abortion, if not later. Now, impose restrictions on such a woman because, you know, she waited so long, she will obtain one illegally and risk her life in the process.

Now do you understand why restrictions to abortion services will end up killing women?

If you want less 3rd trimester abortions, make reproductive health care services more readily available earlier, instead of imposing laws that restrict access to even the morning after-pill or the very safe abortion pills (which are very effective in those first few weeks), which is much safer and much cheaper and does not involve medical or surgical intervention.

And I have tried to make it clear that I think reproductive care NEEDS to be not only more readily available, but more affordable (or even made to be an assumed right). Laws restricting access to contraceptives... well, I have to question the motive of passing such laws - from a logical standpoint, I can't think of any reason for them, thus the only conclusion I can come to is that either A) Religious Fundamentalism or B) Corporate Lobbying is to blame. At which point, instead of fighting one another, we should instead turn our attention outward and focus our energies on fixing the issues that allow the "rich minority" to dictate policy for everyone.

Pretty much. So long as you don't get into a car and slam into someone else and you're just doing it to yourself, it is your choice.

How do we prevent someone from slamming into someone else, or someone else's property? The simplest solution would be to impose laws on drinking and driving in general (as we have)... except those laws don't seem to be particularly effective. We could include a built-in breathalyzer into the steering wheel or dashboard that one must blow into (and pass) every time they wish to start the car... but that could quickly become troublesome and expensive (God help you if you used mouthwash before trying to go to work! WHOOPS, the car thinks you're smashed). It comes down to keeping the public safe vs not infringing on a persons rights to do to their own body what they will.

If you must know, I am a stronger supporter and believer of legalising drugs. But if you want to take hard drugs, that is your choice. I lost a cousin and countless friends to drug addiction. It was their choice. The drug laws certainly did nothing to help them. On the contrary, the laws and restrictions meant that they refused medical care when they needed it out of fear they would be arrested.

Fair enough - I, myself, am indifferent to drugs - I don't use them... not so much out of some moral code, but because of personal preference. I can't stand not being totally aware of that which is going on around me. For a long while I was put on sleep aids to help combat my insomnia... they were awful. I would take them at dinner, and it would take about an hour for them to take full effect... but my memory was jacked up. Everything from about 10-15 minutes after taking them to however long it took for me to fall asleep was just gone. The next morning I would be groggy and incoherent for a time before i could shake the effects... my mother said it was almost like I was drunk. In terms of awareness... I could see stuff going on around me, but it didn't make sense... it was like I couldn't process the information. I hated it. *shrugs*

The only issues I have with people using drugs are 1) The addiction can cause people to do crazy things if they can't afford them (which, admittedly, legalization SHOULD reduce the costs since part of the cost is the act of smuggling them in) 2) If they take these drugs, they should not expect the rest of us to "pick up the tab" as it were for their health care costs if they (the drugs or the person) cause themselves harm. 3) We need to ensure that their actions do not harm those around them in an indirect way (second hand smoke, used needles, etc)

If they just want to commit suicide for whatever god they believe in, ermm okay?

Fair enough, but what about when they start persuading/coercing/brainwashing "innocent bystanders" into doing so?

I don't have a problem with stuff like this.
I'm not of the 'OMFG it's a nipple!! A NIPPLE.. WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN' brigade. I've traveled overseas enough times and have seen men, women and children standing in canals by the road way, butt naked bathing themselves, going to the toilet, etc.. If I was that much of a moral prude, I'd never leave the country or watch tv for that matter.

Fair enough - the other day I saw a woman nursing in a local fast food joint I was eating at and couldn't help but smile... such a bonding experience, not to mention natural feeding of the child, should be an inalienable right. Some people started giving her dirty looks for it and I could see her getting nervous, so I made a point to go up to her and thank her for doing what she believed was best for her child. I ended up sitting at the table next to her until she had finished - if anyone was going to mess with her, they we going to have me to contend with.

On the flip side, I don't think people should be able to have sex with a donkey at the local playground.

I am also a firm supporter of euthanasia and if someone wants to kill themselves after being ill, etc, then I don't believe anyone who is not them, should have the right to demand they continue to suffer.

You and I agree on this as well - if someones quality of life would be so poor as to make prolonging that life almost painful for them... then why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to end their own life? Obviously, if there is a treatment or option that would allow them to continue to live WHILE providing a good quality of life, then it should be taken into consideration. I just had a friend whos father finally passed away after several months in and out of the hospital, the last several weeks spent on life support, while cancer and increasingly worsening diabetes ravaged his body. He ended up having a partial stroke as well... if he had survived, it was estimated he may have never fully regained his mental faculties, he would have likely lost both feet at the ankle due to the diabetes... and for a while his family (excluding his son, who is the friend in question) couldn't make the decision to take him off the life support and simply be freed from such torment. His son, in the meantime, was livid that they would force him to live in such a poor state... he finally passed away last week, just minutes before they were going to take him off the life support.

I'm actually a left wing commie. Also a godless heathen and if my fundamentalist religious relatives are to be believed, destined for hell unless I repent before their lord.

That is a god I will never worship... as far as the commie comment goes, I don't really see you as the "redistribution of wealth" type.

I am not a total anarchist. I think laws that prevent harm to others are necessary, sadly. For example, I believe laws that would prevent me from running you over with my car because you took too long crossing the street and I was in a tad of a rush, are valid laws. Just as I think any laws that would prevent me from tasering pensioners who dither in front of me as I am trying to do the bolt through the supermarket to get out of there as soon as possible is probably a good thing. I don't believe I should have the right to steal your 'stuff', harm you or your family or anyone else for that matter, I don't believe that people should be allowed to own guns because too many people, in particular, innocent children are killed, I don't believe in wars that are held for political or economic reasons, but I am a firm and somewhat rabid supporter of human rights. I don't believe any woman should ever be pressured to have an abortion or to not have an abortion, or to have a child or not have a child for that matter. I am also a very firm believer in people having a right to privacy and for me, sex, sexual partners, decisions to have children and when, are probably some of the most private aspects of one's life.

I wouldn't say I am an anarchist. A pain in the backside, sure. A contradiction, certainly.

This makes me wonder why we have fought so vehemently the past few days... because in a lot of ways we have the same viewpoints, often with just slightly differing specifics. I would argue with you about the idea of gun ownership, but at the same time I would argue against the "less gun control/NRA" crowd. I don't believe a woman should be pressured or coerced into making choices about her body, but rather should be given all the facts (and just the facts) and allowed to come to her own decision as soon as possible. Again, my only caveat is that the longer she waits, the more dangerous/complicated it becomes.

Certainly, laws are essential in a society. It is a way to avoid anarchy.

But people also have a right to privacy and I think reproduction is an exceptionally private matter and I do not think that the Government should involve itself in women's choices about it. Getting an abortion is something that is very private, and it is between the woman, her doctor and the father of the foetus (assuming he is around). The woman, since it is her body and whether she wants the father's input and/or support in the matter and the doctor who may or may not choose to perform the abortion based on his medical assessment of his patient (the woman). Doctors who perform 3rd trimester abortions won't abort a full term foetus, for example, because it is too risky for their patient. So they do turn women down if they are too close to term. But people ignore that as well and give the impression that women are aborting full term foetuses. Abortion specialist dealing with 3rd trimester pregnancies won't do them because they are too dangerous. So yeah..

Indeed, and it is something that absolutely needs to be fixed. Unfortunately the government has to be involved in order to keep things equal and standardized across the country (which, in itself, confuses me... we are fifty united but independent states with a central government who should only step in in times of need... not... whatever we are now)