Roe V Wade Is Doomed...

[rogue06]

Okay, so you're saying MSM reports the polling the way Jim is interpreting it, yes? it still reads to me like you're saying that MSN reports in agreement with me - which makes no sense in context.

Yes to the first part

[rogue06]

Jim, you claimed "the majority support a womens right to an abortion even if, for whatever reason, they just don't want a child." That rather implies no limits whatsoever.

"for whatever reason" does far more than just imply.

[One Bad Pig]

"for whatever reason" does far more than just imply.

I'm trying to think of an exception to which someone of that point of view would agree, but I'm coming up blank. Maybe Jim can proffer one.

[JimL]

Jim, you claimed "the majority support a womens right to an abortion even if, for whatever reason, they just don't want a child." That rather implies no limits whatsoever.

No, it doesn't OBP. The restrictions to abortion have nothing to do with whether the woman wants a child or not.

[Tassman]

Jim, you claimed "the majority support a womens right to an abortion even if, for whatever reason, they just don't want a child." That rather implies no limits whatsoever.

It's not necessarily a contradiction between not wanting a child and having limits on abortions. It's about timing, not motivation. The generally agreed limit is fetal viability, i.e. before the end of the second trimester. In fact the vast majority occur during the first trimester.

[Teallaura]

No, it doesn't OBP. The restrictions to abortion have nothing to do with whether the woman wants a child or not.

The most common restrictions are:
1) age of fetus
2) age of woman
3) life of the mother
4) incest/rape

Only 'age of fetus' still permits selection purely due to wish - under twenty one weeks in most states a woman, who is of age, can have an abortion for any reason. The remaining restrictions do not permit that. Even age of fetus is being curtailed - fetal heartbeat occurs much earlier. The majority of Americans favor most, if not all, of these restrictions (and some others) - under no rational logic can the point that they favor abortion on demand as you are arguing be supported.

As I recall, in surveys where it's been addressed, the majority of Americans express discomfort with the idea of abortion on demand - abortion because the woman doesn't want the child and quite a few actively oppose the premise.

[One Bad Pig]

It's not necessarily a contradiction between not wanting a child and having limits on abortions. It's about timing, not motivation. The generally agreed limit is fetal viability, i.e. before the end of the second trimester. In fact the vast majority occur during the first trimester.

Jim said nothing about timing, Tassman. Per Jim's motivation, timing is wholly irrelevant. Heck, Jim's motivation would be equally applicable to infanticide - "eh, don't feel like caring for a child any more."

[Tassman]

Jim said nothing about timing, Tassman. Per Jim's motivation, timing is wholly irrelevant.

Well no. Jim was concerned with having limitations on abortions, as are most people. And the most commonly accepted limitation is fetal viability, i.e. prior to the end of the second trimester.

Heck, Jim's motivation would be equally applicable to infanticide - "eh, don't feel like caring for a child any more."

Again, a women "not wanting a child" could have a range of sound reasons not just the idle whim, which you were implying. These reasons could include "rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." As per the 1971 SBC Resolution on abortion.

[rogue06]

Most think there should be limits to abortion, usually limited to before fetal viability. This explains why the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester...long before the fetus is viable.

A survey conducted by the Barna Group poll early last year found that just under seven out of ten Americans (69%) think that if a doctor is able to detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that baby should be legally protected.

00000000000000ars3.jpg

Ultrasound (a real bane to the pro-abortion side) can detect a heartbeat as early as between 5½ and 6½ weeks after conception (that would be in the first trimester) Another source says 6 to 7 weeks (still first trimester).

[Tassman]

A survey conducted by the Barna Group poll early last year found that just under seven out of ten Americans (69%) think that if a doctor is able to detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that baby should be legally protected.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28709[/ATTACH]

Ultrasound (a real bane to the pro-abortion side) can detect a heartbeat as early as between 5½ and 6½ weeks after conception (that would be in the first trimester) Another source says 6 to 7 weeks (still first trimester).

Why? The fetus is not viable at that stage, it’s a part of the mother’s body and the mother also has rights which must be protected.

[rogue06]

Why? The fetus is not viable at that stage, it’s a part of the mother’s body and the mother also has rights which must be protected.

A heartbeat means alive.

[Tassman]

A heartbeat means alive.

...but not viable.

[lilpixieofterror]

...but not viable.

Lol, no doctor used ‘viable’ in that context. A 32 week fetus can be non viable. It’s more about ability of survival after birth.

[oxmixmudd]

Well no. Jim was concerned with having limitations on abortions, as are most people. And the most commonly accepted limitation is fetal viability, i.e. prior to the end of the second trimester.



Again, a women "not wanting a child" could have a range of sound reasons not just the idle whim, which you were implying. These reasons could include "rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." As per the 1971 SBC Resolution on abortion.

The pro-choice lobby wants no restrictions of any kind on abortion. That is what they push for. They are just as irrational about abortion rights as the gun lobby is about gun rights. Neither will accept any rational limits on either. And many people are dying as a result of the irrational but vocal minority on both issues.

As to the heartbeat. This is a developing human being. Once there is a heartbeat, once there are brainwaves, this is now no longer just a mass of undifferentiated cells, this is a budding human being. And with each day that passes, this baby becomes more and more and more a baby. MOST women that suffer a miscarriage mourn the passing of their 10 week old 'fetus' with the same power and distress as a women that loses a child at birth, or at any time thereafter. This is built in. Your 'convenience is God' approach to abortion ignores millions of years of human evolution that causes most women to be capable of giving their lives to ensure the life of their unborn child. And it ignores our intrinsic moral nature that in most of us can't just rationalize away the choice to end an human life for 'convenience'.

There are rational compromises that could be reached on this issue, just like there are rational compromises that could be reached on gun ownership.

But a bit part of the problem is the unwillingness to admit that 'sex is not just for fun' and that the reason marriage exists in the world is that people shouldn't be fiddling around with the power to create a human life like it was just another board game or a new edition of Mario Bro's.

Jim

[rogue06]

...but not viable.

That's akin to saying that someone on life support is not "viable" (because if you take them off the machines they'll die) and therefore we have the right to terminate their life if it becomes inconvenient for someone else.

In any case the heartbeat at that stage (once again ultrasound is the bane of the pro-abortion movement^[1]) demonstrates that we're dealing with much more than a clump of tissue here as many in the pro-abortion side wanted you to believe. We are dealing with a human life. When a woman has an abortion after 6 to 7 weeks she is killing a human being.










1. Ultrasound is what convinced the dyed-in-the-wool fanatical pro-abortion co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) to change his mind about abortion, find God and become an outspoken pro-life spokesman.