New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[Ravenshire]

Technically, it is a parasite.

More like a symbiont.

[LadyForCamus]

The comparison lies in the fact that I see fetuses and acorns as being potential humans and trees, but not yet actual trees. And as someone who's grown a few avocado trees from seeds, I'd say it truly becomes an actual plant when the seed finally germinates, and I'd say a fetus becomes an actual human either at birth, or if I'm feeling generous, around the same time its brain develops the ability to sense, which tends to be somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester. After all, brain death is generally counted as when life ends, so why not count when it starts functioning as the start of life?

By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.  Just because a living thing isn’t fully conscious doesn’t mean there is no moral discussion to be had here.  Most emotionally well-adjusted folk wouldn’t think it right to stomp out their hamster when they’ve grown tired of it.  Maybe we can give an experiential human fetus at least as much consideration as we would give a hamster.

[Rev. Rye]

Technically, it is a parasite.

More like a symbiont.

Yeah, this is why I didn't say it's inherently parasitic. It could me mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic, depending on the mother's relationship to it. I lean towards the anti-natalistic, but I know a lot of people, and especially a lot of mothers, don't, hence me hedging my bets.

[Amarok]

The comparison lies in the fact that I see fetuses and acorns as being potential humans and trees, but not yet actual trees. And as someone who's grown a few avocado trees from seeds, I'd say it truly becomes an actual plant when the seed finally germinates, and I'd say a fetus becomes an actual human either at birth, or if I'm feeling generous, around the same time its brain develops the ability to sense, which tends to be somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester. After all, brain death is generally counted as when life ends, so why not count when it starts functioning as the start of life?

By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.  Just because a living thing isn’t fully conscious doesn’t mean there is no moral discussion to be had here.  Most emotionally well-adjusted folk wouldn’t think it right to stomp out their hamster when they’ve grown tired of it.  Maybe we can give an experiential human fetus at least as much consideration as we would give a hamster.

Is the hamster living inside the owner .And no ones killing it because there tired of it that's a strawman.

[Rev. Rye]

By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.  Just because a living thing isn’t fully conscious doesn’t mean there is no moral discussion to be had here.  Most emotionally well-adjusted folk wouldn’t think it right to stomp out their hamster when they’ve grown tired of it.  Maybe we can give an experiential human fetus at least as much consideration as we would give a hamster.

Is the hamster living inside the owner .

Yeah, if we could somehow evict the fetus and move it to another womb, either an artificial one or implanted in the womb of a childless woman who wanted one, things would be different and I'd be supporting this. I'd probably be a little less than enthused about the increase in the surplus population, but this would actually be a good solution to this issue. From my understanding, most on-demand abortions aren't motivated by wanting the fetus dead, but by wanting it gone and out of her, and killing it just happens to be the only way to do it without waiting several months for it to be born. However, such a solution is, at best, likely several decades from being a viable option, and at worst, biologically impossible. And thus, if the options are A) force a woman to carry an being inside her that she does not want inside her, or B) give her the option of killing it, it's not hard to see why I'd choose to give her the option.

[Amarok]

Is the hamster living inside the owner .

Yeah, if we could somehow evict the fetus and move it to another womb, either an artificial one or implanted in the womb of a childless woman who wanted one, things would be different and I'd be supporting this. I'd probably be a little less than enthused about the increase in the surplus population, but this would actually be a good solution to this issue. However, such a solution is, at best, likely several decades from being a viable option, and at worst, biologically impossible. And thus, if the options are A) force a woman to carry an being inside her that she does not want inside her, or B) give her the option of killing it, it's not hard to see why I'd choose to give her the option.

Here Here

[Minimalist]

Hmm... this will piss off the pro-birth crowd.  Women it seems have taken matters into their own hands.

Fuck all conservatards.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fe...ss&emc=rss

Fertility Rate Fell to a Record Low, for a Second Straight Year

He said it seemed to be inconsistent with the growing number of women of childbearing age: In 2017, women had nearly 500,000 fewer babies than in 2007, despite the fact that there were an estimated 7 percent more women in their prime childbearing years of 20 to 39.

Social forces are also at work. Women are postponing marriage, becoming more educated and are more likely to be the primary breadwinners for their households.

“I’m just really trying to get myself to a place that is solid,” she said by phone. “Having a child right now would be so destabilizing. Children just seem like such an enormous financial undertaking.”

But religitards don't care.

[Edwardo Piet]

The anti-choice movement is dumb, explained easily:

Either you think that there should be an exception for rape (because forcing a 13 year old girl who's been raped to carry a baby inside of her for 40 weeks is absolutely awful) in which case you're perfectly okay with letting a 'life' die because of the action of it's father.

OR

You think there should NOT be an exception for rape, and have no concern for the 13 year old rape victim.  Which means you don't really care about life so much as you do forcing birth, and are trying to be consistent.

Fuck knows what the pro-lifers think of someone who is anti-birth like myself.

[LadyForCamus]

By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.  Just because a living thing isn’t fully conscious doesn’t mean there is no moral discussion to be had here.  Most emotionally well-adjusted folk wouldn’t think it right to stomp out their hamster when they’ve grown tired of it.  Maybe we can give an experiential human fetus at least as much consideration as we would give a hamster.

Is the hamster living inside the owner .And no ones killing it because there tired of it that's a strawman.

It’s not a strawman, because I am not fostering a pro-life argument.  I am ultimately pro-choice.  We have to preserve bodily autonomy first and foremost.  Forcing women to have babies is the wrong side of progress.  But, I do think that there is a meaningful and ontological difference between a zygote and a six month old fetus, and for me, this presents as a true moral dilemma with regard to abortion.  I also find it morally repugnant when people talk about living human fetuses like they’re inanimate objects undeserving of even a moment of consideration.

[Edwardo Piet]

The comparison lies in the fact that I see fetuses and acorns as being potential humans and trees, but not yet actual trees. And as someone who's grown a few avocado trees from seeds, I'd say it truly becomes an actual plant when the seed finally germinates, and I'd say a fetus becomes an actual human either at birth, or if I'm feeling generous, around the same time its brain develops the ability to sense, which tends to be somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester. After all, brain death is generally counted as when life ends, so why not count when it starts functioning as the start of life?

By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.  Just because a living thing isn’t fully conscious doesn’t mean there is no moral discussion to be had here.  Most emotionally well-adjusted folk wouldn’t think it right to stomp out their hamster when they’ve grown tired of it.  Maybe we can give an experiential human fetus at least as much consideration as we would give a hamster.

Whilst I agree that more advanced fetuses can feel pain I don't think the fetus would suffer as much trauma as an adult human who is forced to give birth against its will would.

---

Is the hamster living inside the owner .And no ones killing it because there tired of it that's a strawman.

It’s not a strawman, because I am not fostering a pro-life argument.  I am ultimately pro-choice.  We have to preserve bodily autonomy first and foremost.  Forcing women to have babies is on the wrong side of moral progress.  But, I do think that there is a meaningful and ontological difference between a zygote and a six month old fetus, and for me, this presents as a true moral dilemma with regard to abortion.  I also find it morally repugnant when people talk about living human fetuses like they’re inanimate objects undeserving of even a moment of consideration.

Agreed. It's all just a matter of degree.