are any of you honest enough to simply answer the question asked?

[Drich]

My mom did one after my twin sisters. She had 3 little mouths to feed, low income cow manure to clean, feed and milk the cows, she couldn't even take care of us. She tells me this with sorrow and I know it wasn't an easy decision. My dad thought they could make it, but respected her decision.

The little moralists on this are the biggest hypocrites. When they are in the womb they are sacred. After they are born they are fucked.

they don't have adoption services when/where you are from? Or is If I can't have it no one can a state decree?

---

"God" is the one who put all the bay-bees in the meatgrinder, drich.  No sense in blaming the fellow inmates.  In living memory, american christians - predominatly protestants of one stripe or another...good fine people, like yourself..referred to abortion as "the catholic issue".  It just wasn't an issue to them.   Purported abortifacients grew in our yards as ornamentals...and commercial solutions were advertised by mail.   By the 20th century it's estimated that a quarter of all pregnancies were ended by what we would consider abortion, today..though it wasn't seen as such then - merely "regulating menses".  

The truth of the matter is that the issue has become politically expedient for modern conservatism, an institution for which your religion has entirely sold it's soul...nothing more or less.  

Christ gave up on christianity and became a neocon, or so we're told.

so.. how is God responsible again? you mention religions the religious and some spotty historical tid bits.. none of which make God responsible for a 'woman's right to choose.'

explain how a woman's right is the same a God putting babies in a meat grinder..


Which btw is what feti are harvested for post abortion/what planned parenthood got caught selling.. which is more of a science thing than something god fearing people do after the communion plates go round.

[LastPoet]

Yeah Drich, you live in a fantasy.

[The Grand Nudger]

so.. how is God responsible again? you mention religions the religious and some spotty historical tid bits.. none of which make God responsible for a 'woman's right to choose.'

explain how a woman's right is the same a God putting babies in a meat grinder..


Which btw is what feti are harvested for post abortion/what planned parenthood got caught selling.. which is more of a science thing than something god fearing people do after the communion plates go round.

"God" is responsible for everything...unless we aren't convinced by your assertions to that effect.

[Mister Agenda]

wow didn't think any more of you had it in you to stand against what pro choicers were saying. good for you! much respect!!

What the pro-choicers in your head were saying.

---

do I need to post the actual bill again? physical health is not the only way for mid birth abortion certification under this bill. a woman's mental health and stability are what's new. we've always had provision concerning health, how ever what this bill introduces is the mental (happiness) of the mother.

Mental health does not equal 'happiness', Drich. A physician must still certify that it's medically necessary. It might not be a good idea to force a madwoman to give birth, and even then I doubt you could find a physician that would sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical.

---

Killing is killing. Abortion is nothing but a woman's decision to escape the dept that might result from a moment of lust that she failed to control.

That's why adultery should be a crime in the first place.

It's simple: just like thieves steal and psychopaths kill, a male or a female lusts and can either rape or have normal sex. The consequences are then met with murdering the child resulting from "the moment of sex".

Pure evil, disgusting if you ask me.

Most of the women who seek abortions are married, Atlas533, so adultery is irrelevant in all of those cases, eh? Maybe they can't afford another baby right then, or maybe something is seriously wrong with the fetus, or maybe the mother's health is in serous danger if she completes the pregnancy. Maybe she just had a baby and her body can't handle delivering another one so soon. Do you think a woman with three children should risk depriving them of their mother in order to have one more?

---

Body autonomy is a thing.

For instance, you can't be forced to donate a part of your body for the benefit of another person.  That's not a feminist premise.  So fuck off with that shit.  You are capable of making better arguments, I've seen you do it.  

And, you can load up on all the black tar heroin your body can take.  The purchase and transport of that heroin is illegal...but if you get your hands on it, you can do whatever you want with it as to putting it into your body.  I sure am not going to stop you.

Like Drich...you are going for the extreme to get a reaction.

Oh, and fuck you with the 'you people' shit.

No, I'm not trying to get a reaction. I'm just trying to get people to argue in terms of facts, rather than the sound bites of feminist rhetoric.

Bodily autonomy is why you can't be forced to donate an organ, or give blood, even if it would save someone's life, or even if you're dead. Claiming feminists invented it specifically to justify abortion is the most ignorant thing I've read so far this morning, and you're competing with Drich on that front.

[Yonadav]

Mental health does not equal 'happiness', Drich. A physician must still certify that it's medically necessary. It might not be a good idea to force a madwoman to give birth, and even then I doubt you could find a physician that would sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical.
[quote pid='1882119' dateline='1549148133']
 

Bodily autonomy is why you can't be forced to donate an organ, or give blood, even if it would save someone's life, or even if you're dead. Claiming feminists invented it specifically to justify abortion is the most ignorant thing I've read so far this morning, and you're competing with Drich on that front.
[/quote]

I'm not so sure that a physician wouldn't sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical. It just takes one ideologically motivated doctor who believes that bodily autonomy gives a woman a right to an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason.
 
And even you should notice something amiss about your examples of bodily autonomy. My organs and my blood can't be taken from me without my permission because I own them, and they are my property. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I want with them. They simply can't be taken from me without my permission. At best, bodily autonomy in regard to abortion can only be used as an argument against forcing a woman to get an abortion, and it doesn't give her the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not so sure that a physician wouldn't sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical. It just takes one ideologically motivated doctor who believes that bodily autonomy gives a woman a right to an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason.

Since there are only a handful of doctors in the entire country who perform late-term abortions at all, it is certainly possible to get each one's individual opinion. If they want to keep their license, their decisions on such matters must constitute 'sound clinical judgment'.

 
And even you should notice something amiss about your examples of bodily autonomy. My organs and my blood can't be taken from me without my permission because I own them, and they are my property. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I want with them. They simply can't be taken from me without my permission. At best, bodily autonomy in regard to abortion can only be used as an argument against forcing a woman to get an abortion, and it doesn't give her the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

Who owns the mother's body, her or the fetus? I can't have your heart even if it would save my life and you're dead if you didn't give permission to donate it. What property rights to your body does a fetus have? And didn't you claim feminists invented the concept of bodily autonomy to justify abortion? Are you sticking with that?

[Yonadav]

I'm not so sure that a physician wouldn't sign off on an abortion when a healthy live birth without physical danger to the mother is practical. It just takes one ideologically motivated doctor who believes that bodily autonomy gives a woman a right to an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason.

Since there are only a handful of doctors in the entire country who perform late-term abortions at all, it is certainly possible to get each one's individual opinion. If they want to keep their license, their decisions on such matters must constitute 'sound clinical judgment'.

 
And even you should notice something amiss about your examples of bodily autonomy. My organs and my blood can't be taken from me without my permission because I own them, and they are my property. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I want with them. They simply can't be taken from me without my permission. At best, bodily autonomy in regard to abortion can only be used as an argument against forcing a woman to get an abortion, and it doesn't give her the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

Who owns the mother's body, her or the fetus? I can't have your heart even if it would save my life and you're dead if you didn't give permission to donate it. What property rights to your body does a fetus have? And didn't you claim feminists invented the concept of bodily autonomy to justify abortion? Are you sticking with that?

Yeah, I'm going to stick to that. Adapting a concept to a situation in which it doesn't apply is inventive. If you go back over my many posts on this issue, I have said that bodily autonomy as a legal concept is not part of the legal reasoning that permits doctors to do abortions. That's a fact. You can keep inserting legal concepts that aren't there all that you want, but that won't make them true.

Bodily autonomy is not the legal basis that permits abortions. That's just a fact.

[no one]

Be honest drich, you love to chow down on lead paint chips and wash it all down with a vintage isopropyl alcohol, don't you?

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah, I'm going to stick to that. Adapting a concept to a situation in which it doesn't apply is inventive. If you go back over my many posts on this issue, I have said that bodily autonomy as a legal concept is not part of the legal reasoning that permits doctors to do abortions. That's a fact. You can keep inserting legal concepts that aren't there all that you want, but that won't make them true.

Bodily autonomy is not the legal basis that permits abortions. That's just a fact.

And if it's not written down in a law, it's not real, eh?

From the Cornell Law School site:

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court emphasized the impact that Roe v. Wade (1973) had on the importance of personal autonomy, especially with regard to reproductive rights. The Casey Court wrote, "[I]f Roe is seen as stating a rule of personal autonomy . . . [then the Supreme Court's] post-Roe decisions accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims . . . "[N]o erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."

[Yonadav]

Yeah, I'm going to stick to that. Adapting a concept to a situation in which it doesn't apply is inventive. If you go back over my many posts on this issue, I have said that bodily autonomy as a legal concept is not part of the legal reasoning that permits doctors to do abortions. That's a fact. You can keep inserting legal concepts that aren't there all that you want, but that won't make them true.

Bodily autonomy is not the legal basis that permits abortions. That's just a fact.

And if it's not written down in a law, it's not real, eh?

From the Cornell Law School site:

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court emphasized the impact that Roe v. Wade (1973)  had on the importance of personal autonomy, especially with regard to reproductive rights. The Casey Court wrote, "[I]f Roe is seen as stating a rule of personal autonomy . . . [then the Supreme Court's] post-Roe decisions accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims . . . "[N]o erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."

Now you are trying to put the cart before the horse. There is nothing there that says that 'bodily autonomy' is the basis for legal abortion. It just says that matters of personal autonomy can be taken into account without weakening Roe. For example, a woman can get an abortion without her husband's consent because she has personal autonomy (the matter is between her and her doctor, and not between her, her doctor, and her husband).