Roughly 50% of it is. I agree with that. There are many that would like to change the current pro-abortion laws. I personally think that abortion is murder. However, a law that limits abortions to the very early stages would be much better than what we have now. Then the choice is up to each person whether to destroy their own child or not. Those that make the "wrong" choice (in my view) have to live with their decisions.
Wow, this is shocking and disturbing. This is what more people need to see. How can anyone defend abortion. These were babies that were brutally murdered, not tissue or fetuses.
Until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience it is an object, not a child nor baby. As an object, it cannot be used to deny a woman the inalienable right to control her life and body via abortion.
In the past? When Fauci’s despicable beagle and monkey torture was exposed, the once “ Animal Rights” activists defended it! Last night Tucker played a video of Children in Shanghai being dragged off to “ Covid Camps”, the family dogs beaten to death with clubs, cats placed in garbage bags , mewling, heaped on the sidewalk to suffocate. Not a word from the media or body politic today!
Nonhuman animals are beings and have the same claim to rights as we do because we consider ourselves moral. Meat is murder. Hunting is murder. Trapping is murder. The acts that you bring up are murder and the perpetrators have no claim for mercy.
I have two grown daughters and am pro-life and pro-choice.A fetus is not “ anobjecf”. I saw my four month daughter’s fully formed skeletal system ,hands, tiny organs as she swam around inside of me. I could feel her move. I heard her heartbeat.The pregnancy was unplanned,I didn’t know I was pregnant until week ten.Had nodesire to have a baby—six months into our marriage.Took my pill unfailingly.Something changed when Ihad the ultrasound. The obstetrician had been my gynecologist for years and pushed me to terminate the pregnancy. That I was going to miss out on the freedom to travel and enjoy the best years of a marriage.It was so dismissive. He was losing his patience with my stupidity. Thirty five years later, our marriage is strong, our daughter is a joy. She wasn’t “ medical waste”.
I sobbed for days when our precious doggie gave birth to a stillborn. She had an emergency c- section and had two delicious babies and the deadbeat dad had to man up. They have a nuclear family and are hilarious.Our daughters adore them.
Life is something to respect and cherish. We’re not religious, but our extended family spans the spectrum. Jewish,Hindi,Muslim,Catholic, gay, hetero, whatever.It’s all good.
Murder, by definition, is the act of ending the life of a human. I like animals a lot. But I also eat meat. I wouldn't eat my dog. But a steer is raised to provide meat and would never have been born except to provide that source of protein. Wild animals like deer, Elk or rabbts would overpopulate and then starve if the herds were not culled by hunters. I don't buy your argument that killing animal for food is "murder". Though I do think that the lives of those animals should end in the most humane method possible.
And they were and are wrong. It has nothing to do with being aware of one's existence, only of being conscious, of experiencing. The gauge must be universal, based on the capacity for experiencing, feeling, and apply to all that have such capacity. That we consider ourselves moral obligates us to consider the well being of all other beings regardless of how we value them.
But most people don't think that way because they consider nonhuman animals their property, that they are not in god's image and so don't matter. That is the evil of religion, it exalts believers above accountability for the harm that they cause others. If we accepted this moral foundation, then we would have a better world. Women would not have others control their lives and they would act to end a pregnancy earlier than later because no one would make it difficult as it would ensure that babies were never under threat of abortion.
Nope. AB 2223 does no such thing https://trackbill.com/bill/california-assembly-bill-2223-reproductive-health/2227824/). Consider that if people would accept the simple fact that a woman has the inalienable right to control her own life without state interference we wouldn't be having this discussion, but enough people, mostly religious, do not accept that. So, women are treated as less than men.
Until the fetus becomes a being, it is an object. And, a fetus is obviously not the same as a box of cereal, but it is not a being, it cannot feel, experience, etc. The woman has the inalienable right to abort it, like she can have any other medical procedure performed for her benfit.
I'm sorry, I simply disagree with you; a fetus is a developing life. Aborting it is immoral. That doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. I think you are using an invalid argument for making it legal. There are many practical reasons that women should have access to safe abortions. As I say below people should decide not courts.
I don't care whether you agree or not, the fact is that until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a mere object, like any other collection of cells in a woman's body and she can do with them as she pleases. She is a being and they're not, they are objects. All cells are alive, but not beings.
Repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
That is not true. A fetus does feel and experience. There is graphic video of fetuses trying to get away from the suction tube during an abortion. There is evidence that a baby recognizes its father's voice at birth. How is that possible unless they already were hearing things from inside the womb? Those points of "cannot feel or experience" is a total lie from start to finish. An ultrasound proves that.
I'm talking about prior to its brain developing enough to feel. Cells sense their environment and react to it but do not feel. Feeling, experiencing, is consciousness, sensing and reacting are not. Roombas sense and react. Fetuses become beings when their brains support feeling. You are talking about time after that point.
Until women are able to create a fetus without the additon of a male packet of DNA, it is an independent life worth defending. It has independent DNA, and is not a "clump of cells." It takes a deliberate act to form new life, and just because it is not sentient does not mean we don't defend it. We defend the elderly and mentally ill who are arguably no longer sentient, we defend people in a coma. Why not defend what is a demonstrably individual life?
I'm genuinely curious why you consider a life an "object"? It makes no sense. We don't call bacteria or any other life an "object." This is the weirdest take I've seen on it yet.
Even if the fetus was fully sentient, that doesn't give it a right to reside inside your body for nine months without consent. You have a right to evict people, even fully developed people, from your property, and that obviously includes your body.
Well it's not. You can just ask people seeking abortions if they consent to have another human grow inside them for the better part of a year, with all of the risks that involves. They say no, they do not consent. Tell me, do you usually ignore people who say they do not consent?
If women were allowed total freedom to end a pregnancy that they didn't want, there'd be no problems as most, 95%, of abortions are performed by week 15. Late term abortions are performed on severely malformed fetuses because the woman's life is at risk, well formed fetuses are delivered via c-section.
So, the problem is anti-abortion laws! Women make that choice early because if they don't they want that baby. Anti-abortion people are interested only in controlling women's sexuality, forcing them to suffer their decision to have sex.
"Anti-abortion people are interested only in controlling women's sexuality..."
Red herring fallacy.
The real issue being argued here is the moral status of a fetus. That is what is being argued here. No reason for you to throw a red herring into the discussion.
I'm spot on. The issue has nothing to do with the moral status of a fetus otherwise they'd be where I'm arguing, that until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness it is an object and the woman has absolute right to abort it. got it?
This is just an opinion, not an immutable fact of the universe. At what point we choose to consider a fetus to have legal rights is not a clear cut issue, just like the point that we legally consider a "child" to become and "adult" is also to some degree arbitrary.
As a simple example of that, can you point to any actual abortion law that references the capacity for sentience as the point that a fetus gains rights, and specifies how that determination should be made? If not, then you are by definition just stating a personal opinion that has no basis in any actual laws.
That until the fetus' brain develops enough is not a being but an object is an immutable fact. As a collection of cells, living things, cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on your rights, such as making it illegal to consume alcohol as it is a poison and kills cells and damages organs, neither can the nonsentient fetus be used as an excuse to control the life of women.
That the laws do not use sentiency as the gauge is the problem. All anti-abortion laws are religious and have no interest in protecting babies, only in controlling the sexual behavior of women, to force them to suffer the consequences of having sex. If the laws were based on personhood, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"being" and "object" are not scientific concepts, and are thus not the basis of any immutable facts in any meaningful sense. Unless you subscribe to some kind of "soul" concept (which of course is also not scientific), then there is nothing intrinsically physically different about a sentient object but for the different treatment we choose to give such a thing. Such questions will become very relevant when we create machines that are sentient, but again, this is philosophical rather than scientific.
And of course we see all kinds of legal debates over the rights of different animals, with people arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights, and a huge amount of disagreement over what level of sentience different animals have.
Again, these things are not cut and dried like you seem to want them to be.
All you are really doing here is arguing that "if only the laws were written the way I want them to be written, everything would be solved." Do you think you're the first person to think that way?
OK, so you're a conservative and don't believe in rights, only privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Unfortunately for you, the founders did and so although they were hypocrites, they claimed rights that they denied blacks they did indeed state that rights are not granted by men but by the "creator", which, if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral.
Your view is why conservatives do not deserve to live in a liberal society, they will always work to suppress rights that they don't agree with. Conservatives are the problem and always have been.
"arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights"
Degree of sentience isn't the issue, only that it exists. All beings have the same claim to rights as we do regardless of how we value them or their level of consciousness. This is universal, or should be, as if it isn't, then all we have are privileges at the discretion of the powerful. Meat is murder.
Nope. At conception there is no brain and so sentience is an impossibility, just as it is an impossibility in cells or collections of cells. Mind exists only a brain when it develops enough or is not damaged too much.
I understand that it is the nature of people in your camp to be intractable, but for the sake of people who are not, I will again make clear that all that is required for sentience is to leave the young life undisturbed. You may as well argue that a five-year-old has no potential to be an adult!
Absurdity is the only defense of the holocaust of our era.
I understand that it is the nature of people in your camp to be intractable, but for the sake of people who are not, I will again make clear that there is a differentiation between object and being that is consciousness, sentience. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects. When a fetus develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a being and has rights that must be respected. Before that, only the woman does and so the right to abortion is inalienable.
Your are repeating a "canned response" that has nothing to do with this situation. All of the bodies that were found were developed past the point that you are trying to make.
LOL! Not so. They provide zero context. Late term abortions are performed when the woman's life is at risk due to the pregnancy and by vaginal birth. Severely malformed fetuses are aborted, those that are well formed are delivered via c-section because at this point in the pregnancy, the woman wants the baby.
So fully formed, intact and dismembered babies are "zero context" ? Why were these bodies stored like this? Have any records been found related to these abortions? The facts appear to speak for themselves. Unless someone can prove otherwise.
Provide me the context. Late term abortions are performed when the woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy and vaginal birth and the fetus cannot survive. If the fetus can survive, then it is delivered via c-section. You don't have the facts. These groups provide no facts. They don't recognize that these abortions are performed for the reason I just stated. This study discusses the survival rate of anencephalics:
They have no brain and so cannot survive longer than a few days and so there is no reason to put the woman through a c-section. These abortions are on a case by case basis. Find an obstetric nurse to talk to about this. I work with them and have. Also, there is the risk that anti-abortion laws and actions pose in that they push abortions to later rather than earlier and so there is the risk that more developed fetuses are aborted when the pregnancy could have been ended earlier, by week 12 to 15.
That sounds like a theory. Where autopsies performed on all of these fetuses? If so what were the results? If not autopsies why not? Medical records confirming the situations you described in every case? If so can you provide a link to that information? Seems very unlikely that all these aborted babies were because of the situations that you mentioned.
Who made anyone? Mind is what differentiates object from being. Only beings have rights, objects do not. As women are beings and a nonsentient fetus is an object, the fetus is under the absolute control of the woman, the state has no authority over her or her decision.
The obstetric nurses that I work with tell me that women who do not abort earlier want the baby, late term abortions are tragedies that the women are forced to endure because the fetus will not survive and they are at risk of death if they try a vaginal birth.
Before modern knowledge of conception, most women didn't consider themselves pregnant until quickening at 3 months. Before that time, it was common for women to bring on their late period through various methods. Post quickening, it was considered an abortion and a crime.
Nope. Don't agree. That decision should have been made before the person had sex. The person with the fetus in their body participated in putting it there. It is a separate life and they have NO "human right" to destroy it.
I’ve had 2 abortions, one when I was too young to take care of a child and one when I was too old and high risk to want to go through with it. My husband and I have 2 beautiful, smart and kind children. I was not exploited by the abortion industry. I have agency.
We all have agency, and we can all be exploited. Are you suggesting that as long as you can point to a single person who believes that they weren't exploited by some industry, then it can't be the case that anyone has been exploited by it?
No , but I found it a condescending statement. They’re not saving women. And since the fetuses are dead, their not saving them either. If they were really anarchists, they’d let people be. On the other hand, I applaud the rest of the stuff they said they were for.
I am the eldest of 7. I was born in 1952, the youngest in 1967. There were 2 others aborted. Thank goodness. I have no idea why my mom did not use birth control which was available about 1964. Perhaps she could not tolerate it. Anyway, somehow this got out to the religious nuts in the family, who held it against her. My aunt who got divorced and had a kid die from neglect told me that my mom had sinned. Not in my opinion. Our family was not often hungry, but we were also not often full. My dad was tired of babies and I heard him say on the phone that he was going to leave if there was another one (and he taught biology, so he knew about the facts of babies).
which begs the question that if your father "knew about the facts of babies" why he continued to do the act which produced them if he didn't want them? It's almost as if he didn't understand that he may have to make changes to his own behavior to prevent having another baby but instead blamed your mother.
I believe abortion should be safe and legal for women who choose it, but I am glad the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe and states will again decide the issue of its legality which is where it rightly belongs. There is no Right to an abortion, a deeply immoral act – feminists make a grave error when they argue otherwise – that nevertheless should be legal because women will always seek it out and illegal abortions harm women. If it weren’t immoral, it wouldn’t be such a difficult choice for women to make. Porn, prostitution in some places, some drugs, alcohol, gambling, and guns are all immoral and all legal.
More importantly, if you want a successful political movement to end corporate hegemony, enhance worker’s rights and participation in their workplaces, and end the industrial military complex and security state we need to get past the culture war. The culture wars function as a sleight of hand by the ruling class to distract and divide us and help maintain the status quo. Abortion, prayer in schools, gay and trans rights, reparations, return them all to the states, let the people at the local level decide how they want to live. This will accomplish two things; it will encourage people to get involved in local and state politics and give breathing room to a national movement that can tackle the real problems of corporate capitalism. I don’t expect this to happen, but it would make for interesting politics again.
If it could happen, I believe the people may surprise you and settle these issues in ways liberals and activists can live with.
"While women did not report regretting their decision, many did struggle initially to make it. Just over half said the decision to terminate their pregnancy was very difficult (27 percent) or somewhat difficult (27 percent), while the rest (46 percent) said it was not difficult. About 70 percent also reported feeling they would be stigmatized by their communities if people knew they had sought an abortion, with 29 percent reporting low levels and 31 percent reporting high levels of community stigma."
No one can dispute that an abortion stops the beating of an innocent and helpless human heart. Certainly, as a matter of indisputable medical science, an abortion after 6 weeks stops the beating of a human heart.
A human fetus is human life, is it not?
The heart of a human fetus is a human heart, is it not?
Human Life begins at conception; a fetus is NOT a legal person but a human fetus is human life.
Stopping the beating of an innocent and helpless human heart is not a good thing.
The heart means nothing. A single heart cell will beat and if it touches another heart cell, they will synchronize. What determines whether the fetus is a baby is whether its brain has developed enough for sentiency, consciousness and until week 20 its brain is not developed enough and as most pregnancies are performed by week 15 it isn't an issue. Later term abortions are due to health risks of the woman and the fetus is severely malformed, well formed babies are delivered via c-section.
I don't think you directly addressed my point. The fetus is a human fetus and the heart that is being stopped is a human heart. I did NOT say the fetus was a baby.
As to late term abortions, I would draw your attention to the Kermit Gosnell case and to the video in this article.
I did. Yes, the fetus is human but if it has no capacity for consciousness it is not a being, it has no capacity for rights even if there is a heartbeat. The woman however is a being and has rights. The state has no authority to infringe on the rights of beings in the interest of objects. The state already recognizes that beings have rights and objects do not in living wills.
As for late term abortions, I defer to the nurses that I work with. That anti-abortion people make it difficult to get an abortion would push them to later in the pregnancy, so they are the cause of any elective late term abortions that may be performed.
I don't see how "late term abortion" can be justified. There is NO medical reason for third trimester abortion. It is called "elective" for a reason. It is NOT necessary to health of mother or child. And so called "birth date" abortion is, to me, infanticide and barbaric whatever the reason.
Really? You need to talk to some obstetric nurses like I have.
The woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy. The fetus is not viable, it is severely malformed and cannot live outside the womb. The mother could die from vaginal birth. The only option is abortion. If the fetus is well, it is delivered via c-section.
Life begins at some point. If you take that life after that point it is murdered. The trafficking in dead babies is appalling. If you can’t look at something, or talk about it, perhaps you shouldn’t be doing it
We have absolutely no context for why these abortions took place, especially the late-term ones being used in the footage. The overwhelming majority of late-term abortions are done out of medical necessity, which supports the argument of pro-choice activists I find most sympathetic, that these are highly personal and often traumatic decisions to be left between a woman and her doctor.
If you find all abortions equally indefensible, that’s fine, but the way that these people use shock value from late-term abortions as an activist tactic is disgusting. I don’t care what your stance is on the issue, the pro-life movement is full of some of the most hostile and close-minded individuals our society has to offer. It’s like debating a sentient brick wall.
You're absolutely right, there is no context. I work with obstetric nurses who tell me that late term abortions are performed on nonviable fetuses that are severely malformed and cannot be delivered via vaginal birth because the mother's life is at risk and there's no need to risk a c-section. If the fetus is well formed, it is delivered via c-section. At that point in the pregnancy, women want the baby, otherwise they would have aborted earlier.
The fact is that life exists at all points. The sperm is alive as is the egg, however, cells are not beings. The issue is not "life", it is whether the life is a being or not and beings are sentient, objects, including living cells, are not. Objects cannot experience, beings can. So, until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience, it is a mere object and is under absolute control of the woman who is a being. She has the inalienable right to abortion until the fetus becomes a being.
Disagree. At conception you have a unique DNA complement. No one cries after masturbating or after a “period” , but people mourn miscarriages. LIFE is the only point. BTW I care for a number of non-sentient patients that cannot be murdered. You are very wrong.
No, you're wrong. The only thing that matters is whether consciousness exists or not. Life isn't the point as every cell in our body is alive but they are not conscious, we have absolute say over them. The same goes for a fetus that has not developed consciousness, the woman is a being and has absolute control over her life and body.
LOL! It's protected by the Ninth Amendment. That protects unenumerated rights, such as the right of self defense, which is NOT mentioned any where in the constitution.
No that's not right. You are mistaken. Abortion denies the unborn their civil rights. Abortion is a hate crime. It's no wonder Roe V Wade will almost certainly be overturned. As well it should.
It is right. Until the fetus develops mind, when its brain develops sufficiently, it is not a being and has no rights. The woman does though as she is a being. The right for a woman to abortion is inalienable until the fetus becomes a person, a being, and until then the state has no authority to stop her. That these laws exist that do infringe on a woman's right is because conservatives reject the very concept of rights, they accept only the concept of privilege at the discretion of the powerful.
Even if life begins at conception, that does not give them the right to reside in someone else's womb without consent. This is basic stuff. Evicting a fetus from a womb is no different from evicting a squatter from your property. What happens after that eviction is their problem.
The point is that except in extreme cases, the consent was already given. Sex is made for procreation. It is extremely pleasurable because our species wants us to procreate. Because we like the pleasure, we want to pretend that the procreation part of sex doesn't exist, but it still does. Every single time you choose to have sex, you are choosing to participate in an act known to create a new life and whose purpose is to create life. If a man and woman agree to have sex and a baby is produced, they already consented. You cannot pretend they don't know how babies are made.
No, sex is not consent to have another human live inside you for nine months. And even if it was, consent can be withdrawn at any point during the duration of their tenancy. Furthermore, old people have sex all the time even after they lose their fertility. Therefore, sex is not made for procreation. It's made for fun. People in healthy relationships have sex thousands of time during their lives. They don't have thousands of children, or even dozens of children. Look, my mother had an abortion before she had me. If she was forced to give birth to that child, I wouldn't exist. So get the fuck out of here with your forced birth narrative. It's dystopian.
Just because you "use" it for pleasure doesn't stop its purpose from being procreation. How did all humans get here? From sex which is how humans procreate.
I am not telling you what to do with your body. I am pointing out that when you consent to sex there is a possibility of the female person getting pregnant.
Heartbreaking. The images of those slaughtered babies will haunt me for a long time. Anyone supporting "abortion" (such a nice, technical term, like a pop-up window inquiring if you'd like to "Abort, Retry, Continue?") really needs to sit with those images for a while. Imagine the blinding pain and primal terror that baby felt as it was repeatedly stabbed in the face, or had its skull crushed, or was torn from the womb to be dismembered or left to die on a medical tray. And then there is the trauma of those mothers as well at the hands of monsters like Santangelo. (Check out Live Action's revealing investigation of him, for example.)
It is astonishing that authorities can't be bothered to do an autopsy or investigate Cesare Santangelo (His name is basically "Caesarean Satan Angel;" you can't write this stuff.), but apparently they'll try and throw the book at Handy for exposing what could well be a federal crime even under current, lax abortion law.
Roe v Wade is going to be overturned and kicked back to the states. It is time: we are coming up on 50 years of legalized murder, with over 60 million babies killed in the US.
I was going to elaborate more, but there is just too much to cover because I do understand (and have even advocated) some of the "pro-choice" points, but it will likely spawn its own article at this point...
(Edit: far less important, but one other valuable aspect of this story is it highlights how absurd our binary political designations are by showcasing an eloquent "leftist" group fighting abortion, an issue that stereotypically gets bundled up with the Leftist/Liberal/Dem political value meal. "Oh you want universal healthcare? Great! That comes with a side of abortion and biggie-sized gun control. $12.53, please drive up to the first window."
It's not murder you chud, even if those fetuses were fully developed and grown human beings with all of the rights afforded to adults, they still wouldn't get to live inside someone else's womb without consent. You have the right to evict people from your property, and that obviously includes a womb, even if the eviction will result in their death.
I have to give it to you: this is the worst, most insane take I have seen on this topic. The analogy is so absurd it beggars belief.
Furthermore, I'm not giving legal advice, but I strongly suggest that if one of your tenants is late with rent you DO NOT stab them repeatedly, crush their skull, dismember them, drag them out the front door, and then dump their corpse in a medical waste disposal unit. Again, I'm no judge, but I think there is a word for that in legalese, and it may begin with an "M."
I thought I was the only one with that policy combo! Haha
I can very much relate to your perspective and experience here. I went from being the one arguing FOR universal healthcare against my friends to being branded overnight as essentially alt-right when I pointed out it seemed a bit odd that the same people screeching I was killing their collective grandmothers with plague if I ran to the Walmart for five minutes at the dawn of Coronapalooza were now telling me I had to spend my days packed in mosh-pit protests after George Floyd died or else I was basically the lovechild of Robert Byrd and Adolf Hitler.
I am still incredulous at not only how far the bio-surveillance state has already progressed, but how many otherwise seemingly sane and intelligent people are cheering on this Orwellian nightmare.
Women have the inalienable right to abort a fetus without any state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience, becomes a being. Until that point, the fetus is a mere object. A nonsentient fetus is NOT a baby, the fetus becomes a baby when it becomes a being.
People need to understand the simple and straight forward fact that only beings have rights and religious belief about objects cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on enumerated rights, such as the right to abortion, that are protected by the Ninth Amendment. Women are beings and have the inalienable right to control their own lives and bodies. This group is not progressive
Your repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true and it makes your argument weaker everytime you cut and paste it under someone else's comment. Just tedious.
You meant "you're". What I state is true. Until the fetus becomes a being, at sentience it is an object and only the woman matters because she is a being and has rights, objects do not.
OK, so women need to have men control their lives because they are truly incapable of running their own lives.
Thanks conservative! You’re the best! I thank you on behalf of irresponsible women, such as yourself, who would have killed your five daughters had you not had religious men control your behavior in the interest of your well being and theirs!
Neuroscientists consider it to be no earlier than week 20 due to brain development. However, later term abortions are performed when the fetus is severely malformed and the woman's life is at risk in vaginal birth. Abortion is safer for her. However, if the fetus is well formed it is delivered via c-section. This is what the obstetric nurses that I work with tell me. By that point, women want the baby, most elective abortions are performed by week 15, when the woman actually realizes that she's pregnant and doesn't want to be.
I'm glad to hear that Jeff and his merry band of obstetric nurses have solved the problem of consciousness to a degree of accuracy granting them the authority to state that all animals have consciousness sophisticated enough to decree "meat is murder," however, until the clock strikes midnight on week 20 (at which point the baby is finally granted the same respect as a barnyard chicken) then he or she won't mind when their head is crushed and limbs cut off before being vacuumed out of the womb.
Using consciousness here is like drawing your line in the sand on the shore before high tide. I certainly hope no one loses consciousness around Jeff as they would apparently be fair game. (Unless of course they are saved by the assumption that they will be conscious in the future, in which case our 19-week-old baby is saved as well.)
Also, I would add that not everyone opposed to killing babies is a Bible-thumping theocrat or misogynist yearning to control women. Some may dislike religion and lament if a woman has found herself with an unwanted pregnancy; they simply cannot condone the murder of innocent, helpless children.
(A final note: if you don't like the term "baby" here and prefer "clump o' cells" or some such phrase, please take it up with John Hopkins and other medical facilities that routinely use the term "baby" throughout the various stages of pregnancy.)
The law recognizes precisely what I'm arguing, that a person who has lost the capacity for mind is under control of others. That needs to be recognized with regards to pregnancy and the state of mind in the fetus.
Sentience, the quality of feeling: pain? Perception? The science of 2022 says yes, pain is felt, in 1964 not so much. It seems a large majority who consider a a 16 week old baby in the womb is 2 tablespoons of snot in a soft shell is a person who NEVER HAD CHILDREN.
Crime and poverty declined precipitously about 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade made abortions safe and legal. Unwanted children are not loved and nurtured the way every child deserves to be. Obviously, abortion should be seen as a last resort and other methods of contraception are preferred, but it's an essential element of reproductive health, women's autonomy and child welfare.
Say it with me ADOPTION. How is it healthy to kill a growing human being in your uterus? You said it --- reproductive health. I'm pretty certain that's the definition of oxymoron.
It's an option. But it introduces plenty of complications. Growing a person inside you does strange things hormonally and some folks aren't up to giving it up after that whole journey, even if it's in the best interests of the child. Also, plenty of drug-addicted or alcoholic women who won't create the conditions necessary for a healthy baby. If the mom doesn't want to play along, she can sabotage the process. Forcing women to be baby incubators against their will is cruel to all involved.
The cruelty to an unborn, defenseless baby is all I care about. We make rotten choices every day that others pay for. My daughter's friend (college senior) was killed by a 20 yo drunk driver two weeks ago. His choices were fatal to another---but he's walking. No one can convince me that their poor choices could/should lead to other poor choices and we should be ok with it.
Not only do I suck it up every day, I pray for all who don't see the heinous crime in taking the life of an innocent, unborn baby that one day they, too, will see this abomination. I'll take my path any day over that of the selfish in the world. I hope you got a really good look at those babies in the piece --- the piece that came with a graphic warning!
Correlation is not causation. The decline in crime at the time is attributed to the aging of the boomer generation by historians.
I do agree that there are many reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion and that it should be left to her to decide. And she should have access to the best medical care. But I also wish feminists weren't so absolutist about it. There are alternatives and a woman is not betraying "the cause" if she considers adoption.
I believe every womans decision is different, difficult and complicated.
I couldn't bare listening to this.....I'm for a woman's right to choose. One in 3 women choose an abortion. The Catholic Church refuses to baptise fetuses. Nothing worse than an unwanted child.
No dead kids, late term abortions are performed on severely malformed fetuses and the woman's life is at risk in vaginal birth. Well formed fetuses are delivered in such a situation via c-section.
I work with obstetric nurses and they tell me what actually happens. Most elective abortions are performed by week 15 so women who don't do it by then, want the baby.
What I post is a fact. Without interference women would end an unwanted pregnancy early and are pushed to end them later due to the policies inflicted on them by people like you:
See that? 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks in high income countries. You anti-abortion people are the reason for the risk that a fetus will develop consciousness by the time the women can end the pregnancy that she doesn't want. However, because so many ignorant religious people have too much political power, women are forced to have a child that she doesn't want and have her life ruined. Conservatives are THE problem.
You're incredibly uninformed. I've attended mass for aborted babies; little coffins that were blessed and then properly buried. Baptism isn't required for an aborted baby to enter heaven per the Catholic Church. Today I listened to a woman, who had two abortions, call Catholic radio program seeking counseling. The woman was well into old age and those abortions still haunt her. She could barely put words together. Unwanted children are adopted everyday. I've got three friends who have adopted--three children in one family, two in another and 8 in another. Thank God for those selfless women that gave others the family they wouldn't otherwise have.
I don't believe that a woman who has an abortion (and often the fathers of those babies) isn't always traumatized. It might not be the immediate experience but it eventually catches up. It's precisely why I mentioned the age range of the woman in my comment.
Thank-you, Matt, for this story. A news report about third-trimester, partial-birth abortion, is not a "distraction" as some are characterizing it. Third-trimester, partial-birth abortion is a grave moral and ethical issue, and we should be talking about it. This practice is not rare, and it is happening everyday in the U.S. It is a symptom of how far our society has gone in order to rationalize just about anything in the various names of 'health,' which should be concerning. Babies can live outside the womb in the third trimester, and even the second trimester. It is way too late, and the video shows the depravity of it.
This country is deeply psychotic
Roughly 50% of it is. I agree with that. There are many that would like to change the current pro-abortion laws. I personally think that abortion is murder. However, a law that limits abortions to the very early stages would be much better than what we have now. Then the choice is up to each person whether to destroy their own child or not. Those that make the "wrong" choice (in my view) have to live with their decisions.
Wow, this is shocking and disturbing. This is what more people need to see. How can anyone defend abortion. These were babies that were brutally murdered, not tissue or fetuses.
Until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience it is an object, not a child nor baby. As an object, it cannot be used to deny a woman the inalienable right to control her life and body via abortion.
It is the fact that a fetus becomes sentient that makes abortion an immoral act. A fetus is not the same as a box of cereal on the shelf.
Similar argument for treating animals poorly in the past, it was said that they aren’t aware of their existence anyway
In the past? When Fauci’s despicable beagle and monkey torture was exposed, the once “ Animal Rights” activists defended it! Last night Tucker played a video of Children in Shanghai being dragged off to “ Covid Camps”, the family dogs beaten to death with clubs, cats placed in garbage bags , mewling, heaped on the sidewalk to suffocate. Not a word from the media or body politic today!
Nonhuman animals are beings and have the same claim to rights as we do because we consider ourselves moral. Meat is murder. Hunting is murder. Trapping is murder. The acts that you bring up are murder and the perpetrators have no claim for mercy.
I have two grown daughters and am pro-life and pro-choice.A fetus is not “ anobjecf”. I saw my four month daughter’s fully formed skeletal system ,hands, tiny organs as she swam around inside of me. I could feel her move. I heard her heartbeat.The pregnancy was unplanned,I didn’t know I was pregnant until week ten.Had nodesire to have a baby—six months into our marriage.Took my pill unfailingly.Something changed when Ihad the ultrasound. The obstetrician had been my gynecologist for years and pushed me to terminate the pregnancy. That I was going to miss out on the freedom to travel and enjoy the best years of a marriage.It was so dismissive. He was losing his patience with my stupidity. Thirty five years later, our marriage is strong, our daughter is a joy. She wasn’t “ medical waste”.
I sobbed for days when our precious doggie gave birth to a stillborn. She had an emergency c- section and had two delicious babies and the deadbeat dad had to man up. They have a nuclear family and are hilarious.Our daughters adore them.
Life is something to respect and cherish. We’re not religious, but our extended family spans the spectrum. Jewish,Hindi,Muslim,Catholic, gay, hetero, whatever.It’s all good.
Murder, by definition, is the act of ending the life of a human. I like animals a lot. But I also eat meat. I wouldn't eat my dog. But a steer is raised to provide meat and would never have been born except to provide that source of protein. Wild animals like deer, Elk or rabbts would overpopulate and then starve if the herds were not culled by hunters. I don't buy your argument that killing animal for food is "murder". Though I do think that the lives of those animals should end in the most humane method possible.
I saw also and thank you for bringing it up. Note: The gazillionaire Carl Icahn has been spending his fortune protectong animals.
And they were and are wrong. It has nothing to do with being aware of one's existence, only of being conscious, of experiencing. The gauge must be universal, based on the capacity for experiencing, feeling, and apply to all that have such capacity. That we consider ourselves moral obligates us to consider the well being of all other beings regardless of how we value them.
But most people don't think that way because they consider nonhuman animals their property, that they are not in god's image and so don't matter. That is the evil of religion, it exalts believers above accountability for the harm that they cause others. If we accepted this moral foundation, then we would have a better world. Women would not have others control their lives and they would act to end a pregnancy earlier than later because no one would make it difficult as it would ensure that babies were never under threat of abortion.
Looks like California is going for 7 days after birth
Nope. AB 2223 does no such thing https://trackbill.com/bill/california-assembly-bill-2223-reproductive-health/2227824/). Consider that if people would accept the simple fact that a woman has the inalienable right to control her own life without state interference we wouldn't be having this discussion, but enough people, mostly religious, do not accept that. So, women are treated as less than men.
Until the fetus becomes a being, it is an object. And, a fetus is obviously not the same as a box of cereal, but it is not a being, it cannot feel, experience, etc. The woman has the inalienable right to abort it, like she can have any other medical procedure performed for her benfit.
I'm sorry, I simply disagree with you; a fetus is a developing life. Aborting it is immoral. That doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. I think you are using an invalid argument for making it legal. There are many practical reasons that women should have access to safe abortions. As I say below people should decide not courts.
I don't care whether you agree or not, the fact is that until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a mere object, like any other collection of cells in a woman's body and she can do with them as she pleases. She is a being and they're not, they are objects. All cells are alive, but not beings.
Repeating the same thing again and again will not make you right. We know what you think and being disagreeable to people who disagree with you is also wrong.
That is not true. A fetus does feel and experience. There is graphic video of fetuses trying to get away from the suction tube during an abortion. There is evidence that a baby recognizes its father's voice at birth. How is that possible unless they already were hearing things from inside the womb? Those points of "cannot feel or experience" is a total lie from start to finish. An ultrasound proves that.
I'm talking about prior to its brain developing enough to feel. Cells sense their environment and react to it but do not feel. Feeling, experiencing, is consciousness, sensing and reacting are not. Roombas sense and react. Fetuses become beings when their brains support feeling. You are talking about time after that point.
Until women are able to create a fetus without the additon of a male packet of DNA, it is an independent life worth defending. It has independent DNA, and is not a "clump of cells." It takes a deliberate act to form new life, and just because it is not sentient does not mean we don't defend it. We defend the elderly and mentally ill who are arguably no longer sentient, we defend people in a coma. Why not defend what is a demonstrably individual life?
Sorry, but as the woman is a being and the nonsentient fetus is an object, she has the inalienable right to end the pregnancy.
I'm genuinely curious why you consider a life an "object"? It makes no sense. We don't call bacteria or any other life an "object." This is the weirdest take I've seen on it yet.
Even if the fetus was fully sentient, that doesn't give it a right to reside inside your body for nine months without consent. You have a right to evict people, even fully developed people, from your property, and that obviously includes your body.
A womb is not an apartment. And I think having intercourse and conceiving is consent.
And women have the inalienable right to have sex. She has complete authority over her own body.
Well it's not. You can just ask people seeking abortions if they consent to have another human grow inside them for the better part of a year, with all of the risks that involves. They say no, they do not consent. Tell me, do you usually ignore people who say they do not consent?
If women were allowed total freedom to end a pregnancy that they didn't want, there'd be no problems as most, 95%, of abortions are performed by week 15. Late term abortions are performed on severely malformed fetuses because the woman's life is at risk, well formed fetuses are delivered via c-section.
So, the problem is anti-abortion laws! Women make that choice early because if they don't they want that baby. Anti-abortion people are interested only in controlling women's sexuality, forcing them to suffer their decision to have sex.
"Anti-abortion people are interested only in controlling women's sexuality..."
Red herring fallacy.
The real issue being argued here is the moral status of a fetus. That is what is being argued here. No reason for you to throw a red herring into the discussion.
Such a simple minded response.
A fetus can have the same moral status as a fully grown human. That still doesn't give it the right to reside inside a womb without consent.
I'm spot on. The issue has nothing to do with the moral status of a fetus otherwise they'd be where I'm arguing, that until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness it is an object and the woman has absolute right to abort it. got it?
Now do cojoined twins.
This is just an opinion, not an immutable fact of the universe. At what point we choose to consider a fetus to have legal rights is not a clear cut issue, just like the point that we legally consider a "child" to become and "adult" is also to some degree arbitrary.
As a simple example of that, can you point to any actual abortion law that references the capacity for sentience as the point that a fetus gains rights, and specifies how that determination should be made? If not, then you are by definition just stating a personal opinion that has no basis in any actual laws.
That until the fetus' brain develops enough is not a being but an object is an immutable fact. As a collection of cells, living things, cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on your rights, such as making it illegal to consume alcohol as it is a poison and kills cells and damages organs, neither can the nonsentient fetus be used as an excuse to control the life of women.
That the laws do not use sentiency as the gauge is the problem. All anti-abortion laws are religious and have no interest in protecting babies, only in controlling the sexual behavior of women, to force them to suffer the consequences of having sex. If the laws were based on personhood, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"being" and "object" are not scientific concepts, and are thus not the basis of any immutable facts in any meaningful sense. Unless you subscribe to some kind of "soul" concept (which of course is also not scientific), then there is nothing intrinsically physically different about a sentient object but for the different treatment we choose to give such a thing. Such questions will become very relevant when we create machines that are sentient, but again, this is philosophical rather than scientific.
And of course we see all kinds of legal debates over the rights of different animals, with people arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights, and a huge amount of disagreement over what level of sentience different animals have.
Again, these things are not cut and dried like you seem to want them to be.
All you are really doing here is arguing that "if only the laws were written the way I want them to be written, everything would be solved." Do you think you're the first person to think that way?
I would also argue that there are no such things as inalienable or natural rights, there are only the rights that humans decide to give each other.
OK, so you're a conservative and don't believe in rights, only privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Unfortunately for you, the founders did and so although they were hypocrites, they claimed rights that they denied blacks they did indeed state that rights are not granted by men but by the "creator", which, if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral.
Your view is why conservatives do not deserve to live in a liberal society, they will always work to suppress rights that they don't agree with. Conservatives are the problem and always have been.
"arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights"
Degree of sentience isn't the issue, only that it exists. All beings have the same claim to rights as we do regardless of how we value them or their level of consciousness. This is universal, or should be, as if it isn't, then all we have are privileges at the discretion of the powerful. Meat is murder.
Of course degree of sentience matters, that's why we have different laws for humans than we do for all other animals.
""being" and "object" are not scientific concepts"
Neuroscientists recognize that there is a difference.
No they don't.
I assume you have a standing order that you be allowed to die if your non-automatic brain function ceases.
Point being he can make that decision. An unborn baby can not.
A nonsentient fetus is not a baby.
That must be recognized for nonsentient fetuses as it is already recognized for adults.
The "capacity for sentience" exists at conception, plainly. Just wait a few months without killing it!
Nope. At conception there is no brain and so sentience is an impossibility, just as it is an impossibility in cells or collections of cells. Mind exists only a brain when it develops enough or is not damaged too much.
I understand that it is the nature of people in your camp to be intractable, but for the sake of people who are not, I will again make clear that all that is required for sentience is to leave the young life undisturbed. You may as well argue that a five-year-old has no potential to be an adult!
Absurdity is the only defense of the holocaust of our era.
I understand that it is the nature of people in your camp to be intractable, but for the sake of people who are not, I will again make clear that there is a differentiation between object and being that is consciousness, sentience. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects. When a fetus develops the capacity for consciousness, it is a being and has rights that must be respected. Before that, only the woman does and so the right to abortion is inalienable.
Well put
Definition of sentience
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
You are misusing your new buzzword. Alert the troops of killers.
No, I'm not. That is what defines "being". Objects have no suck capacity.
Your are repeating a "canned response" that has nothing to do with this situation. All of the bodies that were found were developed past the point that you are trying to make.
LOL! Not so. They provide zero context. Late term abortions are performed when the woman's life is at risk due to the pregnancy and by vaginal birth. Severely malformed fetuses are aborted, those that are well formed are delivered via c-section because at this point in the pregnancy, the woman wants the baby.
So fully formed, intact and dismembered babies are "zero context" ? Why were these bodies stored like this? Have any records been found related to these abortions? The facts appear to speak for themselves. Unless someone can prove otherwise.
Provide me the context. Late term abortions are performed when the woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy and vaginal birth and the fetus cannot survive. If the fetus can survive, then it is delivered via c-section. You don't have the facts. These groups provide no facts. They don't recognize that these abortions are performed for the reason I just stated. This study discusses the survival rate of anencephalics:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6705433/
They have no brain and so cannot survive longer than a few days and so there is no reason to put the woman through a c-section. These abortions are on a case by case basis. Find an obstetric nurse to talk to about this. I work with them and have. Also, there is the risk that anti-abortion laws and actions pose in that they push abortions to later rather than earlier and so there is the risk that more developed fetuses are aborted when the pregnancy could have been ended earlier, by week 12 to 15.
That sounds like a theory. Where autopsies performed on all of these fetuses? If so what were the results? If not autopsies why not? Medical records confirming the situations you described in every case? If so can you provide a link to that information? Seems very unlikely that all these aborted babies were because of the situations that you mentioned.
And who made you king arbiter of such, you sick fuck. ?
Who made anyone? Mind is what differentiates object from being. Only beings have rights, objects do not. As women are beings and a nonsentient fetus is an object, the fetus is under the absolute control of the woman, the state has no authority over her or her decision.
Why do Jeff and Teresa have the same logo? Do they work for an NGO?
What logo?
My mistake. Do u have children?
I hope he doesn't.
That is not relevant. Is the fetus a being or not? Whether its brain is developed enough to be conscious is the only relevant point.
At what point does that happen?
Neuroscientists consider it to be no earlier than week 20 due to brain development.
Sounds like a deal. Up to 5 months. Anything after requires a judge and Dr. All other arguments I can just as easily apply to 2 year olds
The obstetric nurses that I work with tell me that women who do not abort earlier want the baby, late term abortions are tragedies that the women are forced to endure because the fetus will not survive and they are at risk of death if they try a vaginal birth.
So really you support abortions happening any time for any reason.
Sure, that needs to be clear in the law
Need to differentiate between 9 month fetuses and a 3month
Before modern knowledge of conception, most women didn't consider themselves pregnant until quickening at 3 months. Before that time, it was common for women to bring on their late period through various methods. Post quickening, it was considered an abortion and a crime.
That's an important distinction.
Correct. And, the woman was considered a mere vessel into which the man introduced his seed. There was no "conception", only deposition.
What? Common sense regulation? Nay, not here, friend.
I agree Russel
Because it's a human right to control who gets to reside inside your body
Nope. Don't agree. That decision should have been made before the person had sex. The person with the fetus in their body participated in putting it there. It is a separate life and they have NO "human right" to destroy it.
“Medical waste”. Let that sink in.Viable fetuses are trash.
Viable fetuses are objects until they develop the capacity for sentience. Until then, the woman is who matters.
I’ve had 2 abortions, one when I was too young to take care of a child and one when I was too old and high risk to want to go through with it. My husband and I have 2 beautiful, smart and kind children. I was not exploited by the abortion industry. I have agency.
We all have agency, and we can all be exploited. Are you suggesting that as long as you can point to a single person who believes that they weren't exploited by some industry, then it can't be the case that anyone has been exploited by it?
No , but I found it a condescending statement. They’re not saving women. And since the fetuses are dead, their not saving them either. If they were really anarchists, they’d let people be. On the other hand, I applaud the rest of the stuff they said they were for.
I am the eldest of 7. I was born in 1952, the youngest in 1967. There were 2 others aborted. Thank goodness. I have no idea why my mom did not use birth control which was available about 1964. Perhaps she could not tolerate it. Anyway, somehow this got out to the religious nuts in the family, who held it against her. My aunt who got divorced and had a kid die from neglect told me that my mom had sinned. Not in my opinion. Our family was not often hungry, but we were also not often full. My dad was tired of babies and I heard him say on the phone that he was going to leave if there was another one (and he taught biology, so he knew about the facts of babies).
which begs the question that if your father "knew about the facts of babies" why he continued to do the act which produced them if he didn't want them? It's almost as if he didn't understand that he may have to make changes to his own behavior to prevent having another baby but instead blamed your mother.
Hysteria does not make you wise. You sound like a complete fool.
Thank you! In what universe has abstinence ever worked?
Then why say "I have agency" as a statement like that? What is that other than an implication that someone with agency can't be exploited?
I believe abortion should be safe and legal for women who choose it, but I am glad the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe and states will again decide the issue of its legality which is where it rightly belongs. There is no Right to an abortion, a deeply immoral act – feminists make a grave error when they argue otherwise – that nevertheless should be legal because women will always seek it out and illegal abortions harm women. If it weren’t immoral, it wouldn’t be such a difficult choice for women to make. Porn, prostitution in some places, some drugs, alcohol, gambling, and guns are all immoral and all legal.
More importantly, if you want a successful political movement to end corporate hegemony, enhance worker’s rights and participation in their workplaces, and end the industrial military complex and security state we need to get past the culture war. The culture wars function as a sleight of hand by the ruling class to distract and divide us and help maintain the status quo. Abortion, prayer in schools, gay and trans rights, reparations, return them all to the states, let the people at the local level decide how they want to live. This will accomplish two things; it will encourage people to get involved in local and state politics and give breathing room to a national movement that can tackle the real problems of corporate capitalism. I don’t expect this to happen, but it would make for interesting politics again.
If it could happen, I believe the people may surprise you and settle these issues in ways liberals and activists can live with.
It's not a difficult choice for many women. That is supposition on your part.
"While women did not report regretting their decision, many did struggle initially to make it. Just over half said the decision to terminate their pregnancy was very difficult (27 percent) or somewhat difficult (27 percent), while the rest (46 percent) said it was not difficult. About 70 percent also reported feeling they would be stigmatized by their communities if people knew they had sought an abortion, with 29 percent reporting low levels and 31 percent reporting high levels of community stigma."
That's from a University of California study.
No one can dispute that an abortion stops the beating of an innocent and helpless human heart. Certainly, as a matter of indisputable medical science, an abortion after 6 weeks stops the beating of a human heart.
A human fetus is human life, is it not?
The heart of a human fetus is a human heart, is it not?
Human Life begins at conception; a fetus is NOT a legal person but a human fetus is human life.
Stopping the beating of an innocent and helpless human heart is not a good thing.
The heart means nothing. A single heart cell will beat and if it touches another heart cell, they will synchronize. What determines whether the fetus is a baby is whether its brain has developed enough for sentiency, consciousness and until week 20 its brain is not developed enough and as most pregnancies are performed by week 15 it isn't an issue. Later term abortions are due to health risks of the woman and the fetus is severely malformed, well formed babies are delivered via c-section.
I don't think you directly addressed my point. The fetus is a human fetus and the heart that is being stopped is a human heart. I did NOT say the fetus was a baby.
As to late term abortions, I would draw your attention to the Kermit Gosnell case and to the video in this article.
I did. Yes, the fetus is human but if it has no capacity for consciousness it is not a being, it has no capacity for rights even if there is a heartbeat. The woman however is a being and has rights. The state has no authority to infringe on the rights of beings in the interest of objects. The state already recognizes that beings have rights and objects do not in living wills.
As for late term abortions, I defer to the nurses that I work with. That anti-abortion people make it difficult to get an abortion would push them to later in the pregnancy, so they are the cause of any elective late term abortions that may be performed.
I don't see how "late term abortion" can be justified. There is NO medical reason for third trimester abortion. It is called "elective" for a reason. It is NOT necessary to health of mother or child. And so called "birth date" abortion is, to me, infanticide and barbaric whatever the reason.
Really? You need to talk to some obstetric nurses like I have.
The woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy. The fetus is not viable, it is severely malformed and cannot live outside the womb. The mother could die from vaginal birth. The only option is abortion. If the fetus is well, it is delivered via c-section.
Those are NOT "elective" surgeries, if the ONLY option is abortion, are they? "Elective" was the focus of my post.
Life begins at some point. If you take that life after that point it is murdered. The trafficking in dead babies is appalling. If you can’t look at something, or talk about it, perhaps you shouldn’t be doing it
We have absolutely no context for why these abortions took place, especially the late-term ones being used in the footage. The overwhelming majority of late-term abortions are done out of medical necessity, which supports the argument of pro-choice activists I find most sympathetic, that these are highly personal and often traumatic decisions to be left between a woman and her doctor.
If you find all abortions equally indefensible, that’s fine, but the way that these people use shock value from late-term abortions as an activist tactic is disgusting. I don’t care what your stance is on the issue, the pro-life movement is full of some of the most hostile and close-minded individuals our society has to offer. It’s like debating a sentient brick wall.
You're absolutely right, there is no context. I work with obstetric nurses who tell me that late term abortions are performed on nonviable fetuses that are severely malformed and cannot be delivered via vaginal birth because the mother's life is at risk and there's no need to risk a c-section. If the fetus is well formed, it is delivered via c-section. At that point in the pregnancy, women want the baby, otherwise they would have aborted earlier.
The fact is that life exists at all points. The sperm is alive as is the egg, however, cells are not beings. The issue is not "life", it is whether the life is a being or not and beings are sentient, objects, including living cells, are not. Objects cannot experience, beings can. So, until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience, it is a mere object and is under absolute control of the woman who is a being. She has the inalienable right to abortion until the fetus becomes a being.
Disagree. At conception you have a unique DNA complement. No one cries after masturbating or after a “period” , but people mourn miscarriages. LIFE is the only point. BTW I care for a number of non-sentient patients that cannot be murdered. You are very wrong.
No, you're wrong. The only thing that matters is whether consciousness exists or not. Life isn't the point as every cell in our body is alive but they are not conscious, we have absolute say over them. The same goes for a fetus that has not developed consciousness, the woman is a being and has absolute control over her life and body.
Inalienable my ass. Not in the US Constitution.
LOL! It's protected by the Ninth Amendment. That protects unenumerated rights, such as the right of self defense, which is NOT mentioned any where in the constitution.
Man, you are a nasty person. If you can't be civil, you shouldn't be here.
OK, you're right. There, fixed it.
I'm not going to deal with the "originalist" bullshit.
No that's not right. You are mistaken. Abortion denies the unborn their civil rights. Abortion is a hate crime. It's no wonder Roe V Wade will almost certainly be overturned. As well it should.
It is right. Until the fetus develops mind, when its brain develops sufficiently, it is not a being and has no rights. The woman does though as she is a being. The right for a woman to abortion is inalienable until the fetus becomes a person, a being, and until then the state has no authority to stop her. That these laws exist that do infringe on a woman's right is because conservatives reject the very concept of rights, they accept only the concept of privilege at the discretion of the powerful.
Even if life begins at conception, that does not give them the right to reside in someone else's womb without consent. This is basic stuff. Evicting a fetus from a womb is no different from evicting a squatter from your property. What happens after that eviction is their problem.
The point is that except in extreme cases, the consent was already given. Sex is made for procreation. It is extremely pleasurable because our species wants us to procreate. Because we like the pleasure, we want to pretend that the procreation part of sex doesn't exist, but it still does. Every single time you choose to have sex, you are choosing to participate in an act known to create a new life and whose purpose is to create life. If a man and woman agree to have sex and a baby is produced, they already consented. You cannot pretend they don't know how babies are made.
No, sex is not consent to have another human live inside you for nine months. And even if it was, consent can be withdrawn at any point during the duration of their tenancy. Furthermore, old people have sex all the time even after they lose their fertility. Therefore, sex is not made for procreation. It's made for fun. People in healthy relationships have sex thousands of time during their lives. They don't have thousands of children, or even dozens of children. Look, my mother had an abortion before she had me. If she was forced to give birth to that child, I wouldn't exist. So get the fuck out of here with your forced birth narrative. It's dystopian.
Just because you "use" it for pleasure doesn't stop its purpose from being procreation. How did all humans get here? From sex which is how humans procreate.
I am not telling you what to do with your body. I am pointing out that when you consent to sex there is a possibility of the female person getting pregnant.
We will someday look back on the era of abortion the way we look back on the era of slavery.
I pray I live long enough to see that.
Abortion is barbaric. It is the murder of another human being. There's no such thing as a freedom to murder your own children. Doesn't exist.
Absolutely barbaric!
Heartbreaking. The images of those slaughtered babies will haunt me for a long time. Anyone supporting "abortion" (such a nice, technical term, like a pop-up window inquiring if you'd like to "Abort, Retry, Continue?") really needs to sit with those images for a while. Imagine the blinding pain and primal terror that baby felt as it was repeatedly stabbed in the face, or had its skull crushed, or was torn from the womb to be dismembered or left to die on a medical tray. And then there is the trauma of those mothers as well at the hands of monsters like Santangelo. (Check out Live Action's revealing investigation of him, for example.)
It is astonishing that authorities can't be bothered to do an autopsy or investigate Cesare Santangelo (His name is basically "Caesarean Satan Angel;" you can't write this stuff.), but apparently they'll try and throw the book at Handy for exposing what could well be a federal crime even under current, lax abortion law.
Roe v Wade is going to be overturned and kicked back to the states. It is time: we are coming up on 50 years of legalized murder, with over 60 million babies killed in the US.
I was going to elaborate more, but there is just too much to cover because I do understand (and have even advocated) some of the "pro-choice" points, but it will likely spawn its own article at this point...
(Edit: far less important, but one other valuable aspect of this story is it highlights how absurd our binary political designations are by showcasing an eloquent "leftist" group fighting abortion, an issue that stereotypically gets bundled up with the Leftist/Liberal/Dem political value meal. "Oh you want universal healthcare? Great! That comes with a side of abortion and biggie-sized gun control. $12.53, please drive up to the first window."
It's not murder you chud, even if those fetuses were fully developed and grown human beings with all of the rights afforded to adults, they still wouldn't get to live inside someone else's womb without consent. You have the right to evict people from your property, and that obviously includes a womb, even if the eviction will result in their death.
I have to give it to you: this is the worst, most insane take I have seen on this topic. The analogy is so absurd it beggars belief.
Furthermore, I'm not giving legal advice, but I strongly suggest that if one of your tenants is late with rent you DO NOT stab them repeatedly, crush their skull, dismember them, drag them out the front door, and then dump their corpse in a medical waste disposal unit. Again, I'm no judge, but I think there is a word for that in legalese, and it may begin with an "M."
I highly recommend that you actually study bioethics before giving another opinion on this topic. Start here: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
If that's the only method to remove them from your property, it can be forgiven.
You're analogy is ridiculous - with your analogy, you could murder a living breathing child that resides in your "property" without consequence.
I thought I was the only one with that policy combo! Haha
I can very much relate to your perspective and experience here. I went from being the one arguing FOR universal healthcare against my friends to being branded overnight as essentially alt-right when I pointed out it seemed a bit odd that the same people screeching I was killing their collective grandmothers with plague if I ran to the Walmart for five minutes at the dawn of Coronapalooza were now telling me I had to spend my days packed in mosh-pit protests after George Floyd died or else I was basically the lovechild of Robert Byrd and Adolf Hitler.
I am still incredulous at not only how far the bio-surveillance state has already progressed, but how many otherwise seemingly sane and intelligent people are cheering on this Orwellian nightmare.
Don’t worry, they’ll fuck it up like they always do because they are spineless jellyfish.
Women have the inalienable right to abort a fetus without any state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for sentience, becomes a being. Until that point, the fetus is a mere object. A nonsentient fetus is NOT a baby, the fetus becomes a baby when it becomes a being.
People need to understand the simple and straight forward fact that only beings have rights and religious belief about objects cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on enumerated rights, such as the right to abortion, that are protected by the Ninth Amendment. Women are beings and have the inalienable right to control their own lives and bodies. This group is not progressive
Your repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true and it makes your argument weaker everytime you cut and paste it under someone else's comment. Just tedious.
You meant "you're". What I state is true. Until the fetus becomes a being, at sentience it is an object and only the woman matters because she is a being and has rights, objects do not.
OK, you're correct, I was wrong.
OK, so women need to have men control their lives because they are truly incapable of running their own lives.
Thanks conservative! You’re the best! I thank you on behalf of irresponsible women, such as yourself, who would have killed your five daughters had you not had religious men control your behavior in the interest of your well being and theirs!
So what it the point the fetus becomes sentient and a baby?
Neuroscientists consider it to be no earlier than week 20 due to brain development. However, later term abortions are performed when the fetus is severely malformed and the woman's life is at risk in vaginal birth. Abortion is safer for her. However, if the fetus is well formed it is delivered via c-section. This is what the obstetric nurses that I work with tell me. By that point, women want the baby, most elective abortions are performed by week 15, when the woman actually realizes that she's pregnant and doesn't want to be.
I'm glad to hear that Jeff and his merry band of obstetric nurses have solved the problem of consciousness to a degree of accuracy granting them the authority to state that all animals have consciousness sophisticated enough to decree "meat is murder," however, until the clock strikes midnight on week 20 (at which point the baby is finally granted the same respect as a barnyard chicken) then he or she won't mind when their head is crushed and limbs cut off before being vacuumed out of the womb.
Using consciousness here is like drawing your line in the sand on the shore before high tide. I certainly hope no one loses consciousness around Jeff as they would apparently be fair game. (Unless of course they are saved by the assumption that they will be conscious in the future, in which case our 19-week-old baby is saved as well.)
Also, I would add that not everyone opposed to killing babies is a Bible-thumping theocrat or misogynist yearning to control women. Some may dislike religion and lament if a woman has found herself with an unwanted pregnancy; they simply cannot condone the murder of innocent, helpless children.
(A final note: if you don't like the term "baby" here and prefer "clump o' cells" or some such phrase, please take it up with John Hopkins and other medical facilities that routinely use the term "baby" throughout the various stages of pregnancy.)
I assume you have a standing legal order that you are to be allowed to die if you become what is usually termed by laymen a vegetable?
The law recognizes precisely what I'm arguing, that a person who has lost the capacity for mind is under control of others. That needs to be recognized with regards to pregnancy and the state of mind in the fetus.
No wonder we are spiraling down the drain. This is so morally wrong there can't be a way out for those that participate. They have no soul.
Sentience, the quality of feeling: pain? Perception? The science of 2022 says yes, pain is felt, in 1964 not so much. It seems a large majority who consider a a 16 week old baby in the womb is 2 tablespoons of snot in a soft shell is a person who NEVER HAD CHILDREN.
Crime and poverty declined precipitously about 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade made abortions safe and legal. Unwanted children are not loved and nurtured the way every child deserves to be. Obviously, abortion should be seen as a last resort and other methods of contraception are preferred, but it's an essential element of reproductive health, women's autonomy and child welfare.
Say it with me ADOPTION. How is it healthy to kill a growing human being in your uterus? You said it --- reproductive health. I'm pretty certain that's the definition of oxymoron.
It's an option. But it introduces plenty of complications. Growing a person inside you does strange things hormonally and some folks aren't up to giving it up after that whole journey, even if it's in the best interests of the child. Also, plenty of drug-addicted or alcoholic women who won't create the conditions necessary for a healthy baby. If the mom doesn't want to play along, she can sabotage the process. Forcing women to be baby incubators against their will is cruel to all involved.
The cruelty to an unborn, defenseless baby is all I care about. We make rotten choices every day that others pay for. My daughter's friend (college senior) was killed by a 20 yo drunk driver two weeks ago. His choices were fatal to another---but he's walking. No one can convince me that their poor choices could/should lead to other poor choices and we should be ok with it.
Imagine that - not everyone sees the world exactly the same way you do. Suck it up, buttercup.
Not only do I suck it up every day, I pray for all who don't see the heinous crime in taking the life of an innocent, unborn baby that one day they, too, will see this abomination. I'll take my path any day over that of the selfish in the world. I hope you got a really good look at those babies in the piece --- the piece that came with a graphic warning!
Correlation is not causation. The decline in crime at the time is attributed to the aging of the boomer generation by historians.
I do agree that there are many reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion and that it should be left to her to decide. And she should have access to the best medical care. But I also wish feminists weren't so absolutist about it. There are alternatives and a woman is not betraying "the cause" if she considers adoption.
I believe every womans decision is different, difficult and complicated.
the creep factor in this story is really high no matter where you stand on abortion
I couldn't bare listening to this.....I'm for a woman's right to choose. One in 3 women choose an abortion. The Catholic Church refuses to baptise fetuses. Nothing worse than an unwanted child.
Dead kid is worse, I reckon.
No dead kids, late term abortions are performed on severely malformed fetuses and the woman's life is at risk in vaginal birth. Well formed fetuses are delivered in such a situation via c-section.
That's what I though it was for a long time but these pro-abortion activists have made me doubt all of this.
I work with obstetric nurses and they tell me what actually happens. Most elective abortions are performed by week 15 so women who don't do it by then, want the baby.
You are willfully ignorant. Best to broaden your research beyond the nurses you work with.
What I post is a fact. Without interference women would end an unwanted pregnancy early and are pushed to end them later due to the policies inflicted on them by people like you:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/nine-out-of-10-abortions-done-before-12-weeks-in-many-high-income-countries/
See that? 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks in high income countries. You anti-abortion people are the reason for the risk that a fetus will develop consciousness by the time the women can end the pregnancy that she doesn't want. However, because so many ignorant religious people have too much political power, women are forced to have a child that she doesn't want and have her life ruined. Conservatives are THE problem.
Blah blah blah
Yeah, you go blah, blah, blah:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/nine-out-of-10-abortions-done-before-12-weeks-in-many-high-income-countries/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
You do not care about fetal well being nor women's rights. That is obvious.
You're incredibly uninformed. I've attended mass for aborted babies; little coffins that were blessed and then properly buried. Baptism isn't required for an aborted baby to enter heaven per the Catholic Church. Today I listened to a woman, who had two abortions, call Catholic radio program seeking counseling. The woman was well into old age and those abortions still haunt her. She could barely put words together. Unwanted children are adopted everyday. I've got three friends who have adopted--three children in one family, two in another and 8 in another. Thank God for those selfless women that gave others the family they wouldn't otherwise have.
I don't believe that a woman who has an abortion (and often the fathers of those babies) isn't always traumatized. It might not be the immediate experience but it eventually catches up. It's precisely why I mentioned the age range of the woman in my comment.
Give yourself a couple more decades and you will be.
Thank-you, Matt, for this story. A news report about third-trimester, partial-birth abortion, is not a "distraction" as some are characterizing it. Third-trimester, partial-birth abortion is a grave moral and ethical issue, and we should be talking about it. This practice is not rare, and it is happening everyday in the U.S. It is a symptom of how far our society has gone in order to rationalize just about anything in the various names of 'health,' which should be concerning. Babies can live outside the womb in the third trimester, and even the second trimester. It is way too late, and the video shows the depravity of it.