The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[Losty]

I told you guys, posts ending up in the wrong thread somehow

[Kingpin]

I told you guys, posts ending up in the wrong thread somehow

I believe you

[Minimalist]

Also - nobody's advocating 3rd trimester abortions.

I can think of situations where it would be acceptable.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]My other point was that fetus/embryo/baby is also a part of someone else (aside from the mother). 
[...]

No, I don't agree that a fetus is a "part" of the father - not in the same way it is a part of the mother. I understand, that a father may be - well, usually is - emotionally attached to the idea of having a baby, especially that it is a biological imperative, but it's nowhere near the same thing. 

Sure - I may be biased, due to the fact that I know a lot of cases of fathers, who "changed their minds" about wanting the baby and left, whereas I don't know anyone who's girlfriend/wife had an abortion despite the father's commitment. But the sole fact that it's relatively easy to impregnate someone - even against their will - suggests that women's rights should be considered first on this issue, since they have to do all the "hard work" and are much more likely to be "stuck" for life with the results of a "mistake".

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Of course the child is way less dependent on the mother after the birth. Are you even serious? That's why when a mother dies during or shortly after child-birth, a child can survive, whereas if she dies a few months before - it can't, unless perhaps some doctors decide to "play god" in order to artificially keep the fetus alive. An option, that - as you probably know - was not available until very recently and has very small chances of success even with everything modern medicine has to offer.

Also - nobody's advocating 3rd trimester abortions. The way you're presenting the issue is simplistic and basically - an attempt at appeal to emotions. Which is understandable, since you don't seem to have any actual arguments at your disposal.

I understand that no one is advocating 3rd trimester abortions.  I'm not trying to appeal to emotion.  Where I have difficulty in understanding is why a first trimester abortion is ok for any reason, but a third trimester abortion is not.  Two weeks before a baby is born, is it ok to abort?  We are still talking about bodily autonomy of the mother and the baby is solely dependent on that mother's resources (same as in first trimester).  PT brought up brain waves and ability to think and reason.  So is the point of life when there is brain activity?  

My other point was that fetus/embryo/baby is also a part of someone else (aside from the mother).  So is the man not a father (and thus having parental rights) until that child is born and cord is cut?  Or is it when the baby has a reasonable viability outside of the womb?  

Amillia Taylor is the world's youngest premature baby ever to survive, and was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, which was two weeks before the legal abortion cut off at the time in the US.

I, as a man, have no right that could ever supersede her right to bodily autonomy. The fetus/child does not. The father does not. The government does not. And that's really the end of the discussion, in legal terms.

On the other hand, I am interested in knowing why the same Republicans who claim to be so anti-abortion do not go to more effort to incentivize women into not choosing to abort, such as passing laws that prohibit their firing for becoming pregnant (there's a federal law, but it's kinda vague and mushy, and not always effective in states that have managed to get around it), provide medical leave and child care that allow her to continue working when she can, free medical coverage for the costs of the procedures surrounding childbirth and pregnancy, et cetera. America fails on almost every level of this question.

So to hear them screaming against abortion is insane, to me. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. And when they start pontificating about "the consequences of sex", or other forms of slut-shaming, it makes me want to hit someone.

This is all a side-issue, of course, to the question of whether it's a legal and absolute right to female bodily autonomy.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I don't insult the person that holds the belief, I insult the belief that holds the person.

[Losty]

I don't insult the person that holds the belief, I insult the belief that holds the person.

I was going to laugh at yet another thread derail...then I realized that this is actually in reply I the OP. Lol. I had forgotten what the thread was even about.

[Homeless Nutter]

I can think of situations where it would be acceptable.

Sure, but those are fairly marginal - as far as I can tell, anyway. And probably best dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't insult the person that holds the belief, I insult the belief that holds the person.

Dude THAT needs to be your signature line!

Is that a quotation of someone?

[Kingpin]

I understand that no one is advocating 3rd trimester abortions.  I'm not trying to appeal to emotion.  Where I have difficulty in understanding is why a first trimester abortion is ok for any reason, but a third trimester abortion is not.  Two weeks before a baby is born, is it ok to abort?  We are still talking about bodily autonomy of the mother and the baby is solely dependent on that mother's resources (same as in first trimester).  PT brought up brain waves and ability to think and reason.  So is the point of life when there is brain activity?  

My other point was that fetus/embryo/baby is also a part of someone else (aside from the mother).  So is the man not a father (and thus having parental rights) until that child is born and cord is cut?  Or is it when the baby has a reasonable viability outside of the womb?  

Amillia Taylor is the world's youngest premature baby ever to survive, and was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, which was two weeks before the legal abortion cut off at the time in the US.

I, as a man, have no right that could ever supersede her right to bodily autonomy. The fetus/child does not. The father does not. The government does not. And that's really the end of the discussion, in legal terms.

On the other hand, I am interested in knowing why the same Republicans who claim to be so anti-abortion do not go to more effort to incentivize women into not choosing to abort, such as passing laws that prohibit their firing for becoming pregnant (there's a federal law, but it's kinda vague and mushy, and not always effective in states that have managed to get around it), provide medical leave and child care that allow her to continue working when she can, free medical coverage for the costs of the procedures surrounding childbirth and pregnancy, et cetera. America fails on almost every level of this question.

So to hear them screaming against abortion is insane, to me. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. And when they start pontificating about "the consequences of sex", or other forms of slut-shaming, it makes me want to hit someone.

This is all a side-issue, of course, to the question of whether it's a legal and absolute right to female bodily autonomy.

yes, yes, yes.  100% agree.  someone posted a quote on here once about people being pro-life only seem to care that the child is born, but make no efforts to see that the child is cared for after its born.  It then said those people are not "pro-life" they are "pro-birth".  I couldn't agree more.