Roe v Wade is on deck

[GenesisNemesis]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

And there is the hinge of the whole discussion. It is ok to kill another human and when (and why)?

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

But you are judging. You have judged that the unborn can be disposable in many situations.

You are judging as well.

I have never claimed otherwise. You are the one who said you were not judging.

You are placing the potential of a fully functioning human over the fact of a fully functional human female.

The foetus is not a potential fully functioning human The foetus is already a fully functional human, albeit it is at a different stage of its lifecycle.

I suspect that it’s a female life at risk is part of your calculus.

The 2 humans involved are part of my calculus. The foetus is at risk too.

I not judging what a person does with their own body.

Or rot out to another way, I don’t think that I or society have the right to dictate what another person must do with their body.

Does this apply to the anti-vaxxers as well?

Has Toni ever claimed vaccinations should be mandatory? I'm pretty sure she hasn't. There's your answer. Wow that was easy.

Did I say she did claim that? No. Wow that was easy.

No, but if she didn't claim it, there's no reason to think she holds the opinion that antivaxxers can't decide not to get vaccinated. This is super basic.

How about we just dispense with your pointless drivel and let Toni answer the question, if she wants? This is super basic.

Your bullshit is pointless drivel when you can easily just deduce the answer for yourself.

Fwiw: in my last post just posted, I did state that vaccinations should be mandatory unless medically contraindicated.

Oh OK, I was wrong. My bad.

You weren’t wrong: I did not write that earlier

You were correct about what I’d written up to that point.

So I was wrong... about being wrong. Hate when that happens.

 

[thebeave]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

And there is the hinge of the whole discussion. It is ok to kill another human and when (and why)?

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

But you are judging. You have judged that the unborn can be disposable in many situations.

You are judging as well.

I have never claimed otherwise. You are the one who said you were not judging.

You are placing the potential of a fully functioning human over the fact of a fully functional human female.

The foetus is not a potential fully functioning human The foetus is already a fully functional human, albeit it is at a different stage of its lifecycle.

I suspect that it’s a female life at risk is part of your calculus.

The 2 humans involved are part of my calculus. The foetus is at risk too.

I not judging what a person does with their own body.

Or rot out to another way, I don’t think that I or society have the right to dictate what another person must do with their body.

Does this apply to the anti-vaxxers as well?

Has Toni ever claimed vaccinations should be mandatory? I'm pretty sure she hasn't. There's your answer. Wow that was easy.

Did I say she did claim that? No. Wow that was easy.

No, but if she didn't claim it, there's no reason to think she holds the opinion that antivaxxers can't decide not to get vaccinated. This is super basic.

How about we just dispense with your pointless drivel and let Toni answer the question, if she wants? This is super basic.

Your bullshit is pointless drivel when you can easily just deduce the answer for yourself.

Fwiw: in my last post just posted, I did state that vaccinations should be mandatory unless medically contraindicated.

Oh OK, I was wrong. My bad.

You weren’t wrong: I did not write that earlier

You were correct about what I’d written up to that point.

So I was wrong... about being wrong. Hate when that happens.

I'm going to just check out of this conversation. GN keeps buggering it up with his nonsense, and the nest quotes are already way too long and not worth my time. You two "win", I guess.

 

[Toni]

I don’t think of it as win/lose.

You’re right about all of the nested quotes.

 

[Emily Lake]

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

You've said this many times. And this is where I push back on your principles, and whether you actually believe what you say you believe. I'm not saying you're being untruthful in any way - I'm suggesting that you haven't thoroughly considered the ramifications and consequences of your stated position.

If you do not consider having abortion to be murder... then it would logically follow that you do not consider an abortion performed two days before expected delivery, where the mother is in perfect health with no known risks, and the baby has developed normally with no identifiable defects or disorders, to be killing a baby at all. In the most crass possible terms, it would logically follow that a woman could decide "Nah, I've changed my mind and don't want a kid" two days before delivery, and could go in and say "Doc, get this thing out of me"... and you would be just fine and accepting of that, and would have no negative judgement of that hypothetical woman.

Is that actually your position? I'm looking for confirmation on this.

I do not consider ‘an abortion performed two days before the due date’ to be anything other than a sick fantasy.

Odd that you can't just say "no that's not my position".

It does suggest that you personally do NOT think the entire decision should be left solely up to the doctor and the mother in all cases.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that you should use your own moral framework when deciding whether or not you should have an abortion.

Do you think that other people should use their own moral framework when deciding whether to kill a 6-month old baby? Or when deciding whether to kill an elderly dependent parent with dementia? Or their neighbor?

I do not equate a fetus at 6 months gestation to be equivalent to a 6 month old infant.

There are many many differences.

One of those differences being that a consensus moral framework bound by law is in place for some killings, but not for other killings?

 

[Emily Lake]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

Requiring a huge amount of medical intervention that can run into the millions of dollars. Just saying.

With a plethora of long term and sometimes permanent disabilities or conditions.

Sure. Of course, a child born at full gestation who develops a severe disability at 1 year old may require a huge amount of medical intervention that can run into the millions of dollars too, and leave them permanently disabled or ill.

Do you believe that the parents should have the right to decide whether that child gets to continue living or whether to dispose of it on the spot as well?

I have no idea why you made this leap of ‘logic’ but I think you need some serious help.

It's not a leap, it's the consequences of your argument. I also note that you do a whole lot of not answering the questions asked of you. Why is that?

My argument is that a 28 week developed human has a 90% chance of survival with minimal medical complications. That's not opinion, that's fact. Based on that fact, I argue that the developmental stage is of more import than geography - that a 28 week developing human inside a womb is not materially different than a prematurely delivered 28 week developing human outside the womb. The only difference is where they are located. The prematurely delivered human is considered a person in its own right, and if it were killed all of us (except perhaps Jarhyn, not sure about him) would consider it to be murder. If we consider it to be murder for a baby of the exact same developmental stage, we should consider it to also be murder if that baby is still inside the womb. We should allow self-defense as we would in any other interaction, but we should not condone outright murder.

Your response here was that premies can be really expensive and might have long term issues.

So what? That's not a counter argument to my position... unless you are arguing that it should be allowable to kill premies because they're expensive. If that's not what you're arguing... then it's irrelevant. It has no bearing on my point whatsoever.

 

[Emily Lake]

A fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a fetus. Born is not unborn. Unborn is not born.

Just like a lib’rul, trying to confuse ‘em with facts!

Interesting "facts"

This 28 week developing human is in an incubator in the hospital. It's a person and if someone intentionally makes it dead, we all consider that murder.

That 28 week developing human is in a different location. If you want to kill that one, go ahead - it's not a person, and if you want to make it dead, it's all good!

Hooray for consistent and integrous logic!

 

[Emily Lake]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will: Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

It is not inconsistent with your views of late term abortion. The unwanted/nonconsensual killing of a fetus should be crime. It is simply not the murder of a person.

Is the killing of a premie of the exact same stage of development, who is in a bed at the hospital, also not the murder of a person?

 

[Emily Lake]

what it doesn’t mean is you can get someone else to do it for you

Why not, if they also apply their own bodily autonomy in concert with your own? It doesn't stop being autonomy just because two people are being co-autonomous and cooperative in the execution of a task.

Please either prove this conjecture or treat it as conjecture.

You snipped the evidence I supplied. Is it your contention that you have the right to slit someone else’s wrists if he asks you to?

For another example, your line of argument implies two people have a joint bodily autonomy right to risk death at the other’s hands. Is it your contention that dueling should be legalized?

Guess what dude? In both scenarios people also have the right to refuse. This isn't complicated.

“Also”?

Wow, you discovered the word "also"! Congratulations.

Your use of “also” implies they have the right to accept, not just refuse. Show your work. This isn’t complicated.

Yeah, people can accept or refuse stuff. This isn't complicated.

You jumped from “have the right to” to “can”. You can slap a cop. That doesn’t show you have the right to slap a cop. This isn’t complicated.

Actually you just jumped from one scenario where two people agreed to do something, whereas in this scenario, one person didn't agree to do something. And now you're attempting to equate them.

Nah, buddy, you just did a mid-sentence trim that dropped the context. Then you either forgot or pretended that you never knew the context.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact is that sometimes someone deliberate assaults a pregnant woman with the intent to cause her to lose the pregnancy. I find it hard to call that simple assault. For one thing, the woman or girl's life would be endangered. For the other, it is causing her to lose something she very much does not want to lose, in which she has invested a great deal of time and energy and something that is not replaceable, even if she survives the attack and her fertility remains intact.

If someone else kills the baby inside of her, it's murder. If she kills the baby inside of her, it's fine, no big deal?

There are a lot of arguments when it comes to abortion that end up being special pleading. They end up being very inconsistent applications of reason.

The argument that if the woman wants the baby it's murder, but if she doesn't want it it's fine is one of those. We wouldn't allow that same sort of self-selection if we were talking about a 6-month old; I don't see why we should allow murder to be personally defined when we're talking about abortion.

Another of those arguments is that if the baby is in NICU and someone kills it it's murder, but if the baby is in the womb it's fine. We wouldn't allow that location-specific loophole for any other situation - we wouldn't say it's okay to kill an elderly parent as long as they're in your house when you do it.

Even more baffling to me is the unstated assumption that personhood is somehow magically conferred by the midwife's hands - that the act of birth magically grants personhood to a baby. What mechanism of personhood transference is this, how does it work, and does it work in any other situations?

Stage of development matters to me. It matters for the exact same reason that age matters throughout all of our lives. It matters that a 10 year old can't sign contracts because they're 10 and don't have the cognitive capacity to understand the ramifications. It matters that a 14 year old can't drive semi trucks for a living because they aren't fully developed and don't have the cognitive maturation to understand the responsibility that comes with moving a 20 ton vehicle on roads with other people. It matters that a 28 week developed human has a 90% survival rate outside the womb.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course.a doctor may refuse to perform an abortion. It’s happening now and women are dying because there was a detectable heartbeat in a fetus that was months before viability and whose foot was sticking out if the cervix, meaning the amniotic sac was ruptured meaning there was 0% chance of saving that fetus and 100% chance of infection—and similar cases where the doctor was hamstrung by state laws insisting if there was a heartbeat, the fetus must be viable/saved.

The appropriate response to an overly restrictive and stupid law is not to jump all the way to no laws.

It was a stupid law that said a black person and a white person weren't allowed to marry. It would be even stupider to say that we're not allowed to have laws that disallow siblings from marrying.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's a weird time in life when a bunch of democrats and progressives are actively arguing for the complete removal of any regulation whatsoever.

 

[Emily Lake]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

Alright... I'm going to push back on this.

I understand your belief, and I respect it. But I also disagree with it.

At conception, that zygote has none of the components that we think of as a person, aside from genetic code. I don't think it's reasonable to think that two cells with some DNA in it is a human being - it has the potential to become a human, certainly, but it isn't really one yet.

As it develops, it gets closer to human, but it spends a while pretty much being a tadpole. At the earliest stage of development, all vertebrates look the same, and have the same developed parts - spinal cord, and the start of some organs. As it continues to develop, fish and birds and mammals start to diverge - preliminary limbs form that show differences by class.

Why is the discredited embryonic recapitulation still being thrown around?

I don't believe I did. Things looking the same does not in any fashion mean they are the same. Pretty much all vertebrates go through very similar fetal development processes, that doesn't mean that early zygotes actually are tadpoles.

The plastic orchid on my desk is not an actual orchid. It was meant solely to demonstrate that a collection of cells from a human is not in and of itself a human being. At some point it becomes a human... but it's not a single bright line.

At about 10 to 12 weeks of development, the fetus will look pretty distinctly human in form - head, eyes, hands and toes, fingernails, etc. At this point, it will look like a very large-headed baby. I could see an argument that the fetus is a human at this point, but prior to that it's a hard argument to make.

The foetus has been human since the union of the egg and sperm. At a different stage of its lifecycle, granted, but still human. You and am I (and everybody else.) were both at that stage once and were just as human then as we are now.

It's a fetus of the human species, perhaps. And sure, we were all there at some point - that's the nature of sexual reproduction and human gestation. But that doesn't mean there aren't meaningful and critical developmental gates throughout our lives - including during gestation. At some stages, that zygote has 0% chance of survival outside the womb. At some stages, it's 50%. At some it's 90%.

At some ages, a small human has a 0% chance of being able to control a car. At some ages, it's 50% (call it 12 to 15 depending on height). At some it's 90%. You wouldn't give a driver's license to a 3 year old .

 

[Emily Lake]

The foetus is not a potential fully functioning human The foetus is already a fully functional human, albeit it is at a different stage of its lifecycle.

That's the crux of my disagreement with your position: at early stages of its lifecycle, it's NOT a fully functional human. At 3 weeks in, the pituitary gland hasn't even divorced itself from the nasal bulbs, they're still a single lump of flesh.

If someone offered you some chicken for dinner, and handed you a plate of eggs over easy, you might raise an eyebrow. Because eggs aren't chickens - they have the capacity to become a chicken some day, but they're not their yet.

On the other hand, if someone offers you eggs for breakfast, and you get a plate with three small birds on it... the fact that they were still inside the shells and hadn't hatched is probably not going to make it okay in your eyes.

That's the challenge with this entire discussion. At one end, we have scrambled chicken as the presumed dish, despite it obviously being eggs. At the other end, you've got a plate of "eggs over easy" complete with beaks and claws and feathers. Neither of those views seems reasonable to me. I don't know exactly when an egg is reasonably considered a chicken, but I can point out when those two are different things.

 

[Emily Lake]

I not judging what a person does with their own body.

Or rot out to another way, I don’t think that I or society have the right to dictate what another person must do with their body.

But society can dictate what a person is allowed to do with someone else's body, right? More to the point, society has the right to dictate what a person is NOT allowed to do with someone else's body.

 

[Emily Lake]

I not judging what a person does with their own body.

Or rot out to another way, I don’t think that I or society have the right to dictate what another person must do with their body.

Does this apply to the anti-vaxxers as well?

Sure. But choices have consequences. If you choose not to be vaccinated without good medical reason or choose not to vaccinate your children then you may be excluded from certain places, especially schools and day cares at all levels, any congregate housing situation, some employment, and some other venues and even some transportation such as planes and busses and trains

You have the right to assume risk yourself but you do not have the right to impose additional risk on others.

Before anyone gets all up in arms about this: my employer required vaccinations against influenza, hepatitis, and tetanus and I believe MMR. Prior to Trump and people like RFK Jr. this was not controversial. Thankfully there are vaccinations against chickenpox and hepatitis which did not exist when I was a kid and also against HPV.

When my oldest was a child, there were no vaccines against chickenpox most kids got it. And for most kids it was not a problem but it could be a serious inconvenience for families as contagious children were excluded from daycare and school. But kids are often contagious before they show signs of the illness, which helps spread it. A child in my son’s kindergarten class was undergoing treatment for leukemia. He was tolerating chemo well and dye not miss much school. But he caught chickenpox and it very nearly killed him. I knew a child hospitalized with encephalitis from chickenpox. Pregnant women who contract chickenpox are at very grave risk for death for themselves and their fetus. We know that rubella can cause birth defects in a fetus, and that untreated HPV can cause birth defects in a developing fetus and serious illness if not detected and the baby is delivered marginally.

I think that unless medical condition make it unwise to be vaccinated, we are morally obligated to be vaccinated in order to protect ourselves and those who are unable to be vaccinated.

It us not really different than being required to keep your property free from garbage which can attract rats and other animals or to fail to maintain property so that it creates a health and safety risk to our neighbors and the community at large.

So to some extent, you do believe society has a right to dictate what people do with their own bodies.

Really though, we have a LOT of societal rules about what people can do with their own bodies. You can't walk naked down main street. You can't swing your fists in the vicinity of people's noses

We have a lot of rules in place that limit what you can do with your own body, because what you do affects other people. My contention is that there's a stage of gestation where it's not just a fetus, it's a baby - and at that point it's reasonable to limit what a mother can do with her body, because what she does impacts another person.

I can absolutely understand the argument that prior to a certain point, it's not a person at all - it's a collection of cells that has the potential to be a person but isn't there yet. It's dough but not bread. I'm on board with that. Where I get stuck is that developmental stage is the criterion that makes sense to me - location does not. If a premie is delivered at 28 weeks, and we would all consider it murder to kill that premie, then we should hold the same view for the baby that is lucky enough to still be safely inside mom. It's at the same developmental stage, it's just as far along, it's just as capable of surviving on its own.

 

[laughing dog]

My view is fetuses are not babies. So abortion is not murder anytime during the pregnancy. In the womb is not murder, out of the womb usually murder.

If someone deliberately dies something to cause a pregnant woman to lose the pregnancy against her will: Say, slashes open her abdomen when she is 7 months pregnant and causes sufficient injury to the fetus that it dies, I would have a difficult time not calling that murder of the fetus. Obviously assault with intent to kill the woman.

Yes, that is inconsistent with my views of late term abortion.

Unfortunately, it is not a crazy, outrageous thing to suggest might happen. Pregnant women are at an increased risk of physical assault, injury and murder at the hands of an intimate partner. In fact, that is one of the greatest risks to a pregnant woman’s health and safety.

It is not inconsistent with your views of late term abortion. The unwanted/nonconsensual killing of a fetus should be crime. It is simply not the murder of a person.

Is the killing of a premie of the exact same stage of development, who is in a bed at the hospital, also not the murder of a person?

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

 

[Emily Lake]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

 

[laughing dog]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

But actual victim is forced to pay for the crime.

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

in the 1st case, good luck finding a medical professional to do it.
2nd case, yes.

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

Except pregnant women in the 28th week or later who were raped.

 

[Toni]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

Why is she forced to pay for her rapist's crime?

The fact is that a lot of women do not know within 6 weeks or 12 or even within 24 or 28 weeks that they are pregnant. Some women find out they are pregnant while they are giving birth. I'm not suggesting every single case of an unknown until the third trimester pregnancy was caused by rape but I'm pretty certain that at least some are.

And here's the thing: I think I know what my decision about whether to keep or abort a pregnancy would be. I've actually made that decision several times--I carried my pregnancies to term except the one I lost. But I did so willingly, with no pressure one way or another.

Many years ago, I thought I was opposed to abortion but once, when very young and stupid, I realized it was possible for me to have become pregnant and indeed, I would have terminated that pregnancy, no matter what.

So, it turns out that there are circumstances which would change my mind about something I was sure I believed.

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

 

[Tigers!]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?