Abortion and Women's Rights

[Losty]

[Since you asked though. I guess I will say this. I don't think a fetus' right to live should ever trump a woman's right to ownership and control over her own body. That being said, if a fetus is viable and there are no medical issues causing a threat to the woman's life, then that fetus has a right to live. Doesn't mean it has a right to live inside her body but it does have a right to live.]
I put brackets around so I can say, I will not debate the contents of those brackets. That is my personal opinion and it is not up for debate. I will gladly debate what is before the brackets as it is my political opinion.

Seems fair enough. I find it strange though that I've said pretty much the same thing, yet you kudo posts by DP saying that I have the burden of proof to prove my opinion (despite that being an oxymoron).

You do not have the burden of proof to prove your opinion. You only have the burden of proof to prove why your opinion should affect the law.

If I am somehow mistaken in believing that you think abortion should be illegal, then I will apologize. (Even though I technically never said anything to you about it, I have come to the realization that many people take kudos very seriously on this forum and I must be more careful and selective in what I give Kudos to)

You see the the reason I have no burden of proof on the section within the brackets is because it is nothing more than my personal opinion. I shared with you a little glimpse of what goes on within my head. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean I think anyone's rights should be restricted based on my personal opinion.

The part before the brackets, that is my political opinion. What I mean by that is that it's the point I will argue when discussing what the laws should be.

If you hold these personal opinions about DNA determining personhood, but you don't believe anyone rights should be restricted based on that opinion then you have no burden of proof. You are either pro choice and in support of laws that allow abortion, or you have some other reason with evidence and facts to tell why a woman's rights should be restricted.

Hopefully that made sense.

[DeistPaladin]

Yes, I've said all along that you can't prove opinion, and we're both gulity of it.

Not me. By the 3rd trimester, the fetus meets all possible criteria, so there is objective justification to restrict 3rd term abortions.

But we do agree that you are guilty of this. Apparently, you're just fine with that.

I can only wonder how you might feel if a female dominated society began passing laws requiring you to have a vasectomy at the age of 40, especially when their only justification for such an intrusive law into your life is "it's just our opinion that men shouldn't father children after the age of 40".

Ah, so now you further hurt your position with ad hoc shifting of criteria, and try to spin that as justification.

When did I shift at all? I've been repeating myself constantly for the last 20 pages.

A woman wanting an abortion after 21 weeks might say the same of you.

24 weeks is the self-awareness/viability consensus, which I'm fine with. Again, there's objective justification for the assertion of the existence of "Person A" after this point.

Sorry, both sides don't.

[John V]

Not me. By the 3rd trimester, the fetus meets all possible criteria, so there is objective justification to restrict 3rd term abortions.

First, you're shifting goalposts. You had been saying 21 weeks, which is second trimester. This seems to be an admission that your preferred 21 week mark is arbitrary.

Second, it doesn't meet all possible criteria, as one possible criterion of personhood is autonomy, which the baby doesn't have. Others have opined that the baby may have a right to life, but not a right to life inside the mother's body.

But we do agree that you are guilty of this. Apparently, you're just fine with that.

Yes, I'm honest enough to acknowledge that a matter of opinion is a matter of opinion.

[DeistPaladin]

First, you're shifting goalposts. You had been saying 21 weeks, which is second trimester. This seems to be an admission that your preferred 21 week mark is arbitrary.

I've been fully consistent in communicating how I arrived at my 21 week mark and what it means. It's the most conservative estimate of how soon self-awareness might be possible.

Second, it doesn't meet all possible criteria, as one possible criterion of personhood is autonomy, which the baby doesn't have. Others have opined that the baby may have a right to life, but not a right to life inside the mother's body.

Which would be inducing birth, not abortion per se. So yeah, the checklist is complete as far as abortion is concerned.

Yes, I'm honest enough to acknowledge that a matter of opinion is a matter of opinion.

...and that you feel it's OK for you to force your opinions on other people.

[John V]

I've been fully consistent in communicating how I arrived at my 21 week mark and what it means. It's the most conservative estimate of how soon self-awareness might be possible.

Yet, you then said, "By the 3rd trimester, the fetus meets all possible criteria, so there is objective justification to restrict 3rd term abortions."

So, which is it - 21 weeks or third trimester?

Which would be inducing birth, not abortion per se. So yeah, the checklist is complete as far as abortion is concerned.

Viability increases throughout pregnancy. Induction carries risk for the baby. At what point would you allow induction?

...and that you feel it's OK for you to force your opinions on other people.

Again, so do you, you just differ on the details.

[GrandizerII]

At least DeistPaladin's view is fairly reasonable.

Yours, on the other hand, is absurd.

[DeistPaladin]

Yet, you then said, "By the 3rd trimester, the fetus meets all possible criteria, so there is objective justification to restrict 3rd term abortions."

So, which is it - 21 weeks or third trimester?

Yes.

By the third trimester, 21 weeks have passed, so my statement prefaced by 'by the 3rd trimester' fits.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Viability increases throughout pregnancy. Induction carries risk for the baby. At what point would you allow induction?

3rd Trimester.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Again, so do you, you just differ on the details.

Nope. I know you desperately want to say "both sides", which is always the last line of defense for conservatives, but both sides don't.

[John V]

Yes.

By the third trimester, 21 weeks have passed, so my statement prefaced by 'by the 3rd trimester' fits.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

You can answer the question - does personhood begin at 21 weeks, or at the start of the third trimester?

3rd Trimester.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Yes - why 3rd trimester?

[DeistPaladin]

You can answer the question - does personhood begin at 21 weeks, or at the start of the third trimester?

I've already answered that question. Numerous times, in fact.

Yes - why 3rd trimester?

Because before then, it's allowed as an abortion. It's called something different.

Any other questions?

[John V]

I've already answered that question. Numerous times, in fact.

One more time for clarity won't hurt, and would have been quicker than the response you did give. You seem to be dodging.

Because before then, it's allowed as an abortion.

This begs the question of whether abortion should be allowed one or more weeks prior to the third trimester, and doesn't address the other direction, i.e. why not wait an additional week?

IOW, viability increases weekly. It does not reach a high point at the beginning of the third trimester. So, why do you choose the beginning of the third trimester?