The reason religion is so powerful

[Neo-Scholastic]

You raise an important point. I do wonder why should I care so much for something that Nature seems to care so little for. So many attempt at life and so few survive. On its face you are saying, that yeah, life is cheap so why care about inconvenient and vulnerable ones. It's not wrong. Life is cruel. Does that mean I have to be cruel?

Now maybe there is a certain developmental milestone, somewhere between conception and delivery, where both personhood and 'quickening'* proceeds. I would love to end this abortion debate with some compelling compromise that truly satisfies the extremists on both sides - from every sperm is precious to grab a fork it's done for. Because, yeah, life is cheap. Many are conceived then still-born...expelled by the body as naturally as if it were on birth control. Buuuuttttt....only a sick mind could pull babies out of the womb leaving, only their tiny little heads inside, and jabbing a pair of scissors in their spines.


* quickening was the only semi-thelogical word I could find. Like the point at which one's distinctiveness, or soul/formal cause, becomes manifest in an otherise generic material cause...to just spout some Scholastic gibberish.

I'm not an extremist, just a realist. I've never encountered a soul in nature. I've not stated that life is cheap or inconvenient. Reproduction attempts have successes and failures, some of the failures (and successes) even threatening the mother or other conceptions. Those are just the facts.

I don't believe I've taken a pro or con position on abortion in this thread. My position is against all unborn have humans rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons and examples in support of  that position.

But just to be clear, I'm pro choice. However that debate is for another time/thread. The water in this thread has been to muddied. The last sentence of your first paragraph is a perfect example.

Supporters of partial birth abortion are extremists. The first people to muddy the waters were those using the phrase forced birth. I am willing to allow that an embryo has developmentally appropriate rights in the same sense that children have fewer rights than adults.

[brewer]

I'm not an extremist, just a realist. I've never encountered a soul in nature. I've not stated that life is cheap or inconvenient. Reproduction attempts have successes and failures, some of the failures (and successes) even threatening the mother or other conceptions. Those are just the facts.

I don't believe I've taken a pro or con position on abortion in this thread. My position is against all unborn have humans rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons and examples in support of  that position.

But just to be clear, I'm pro choice. However that debate is for another time/thread. The water in this thread has been to muddied. The last sentence of your first paragraph is a perfect example.

Supporters of partial birth abortion are extremists. The first people to muddy the waters were those using the phrase forced birth. I am willing to allow that an embryo has developmentally appropriate rights in the same sense that children have fewer rights than adults.

You're allowed consider them extremists but I think, for you, it extends beyond partial birth abortion.

Do you know that the actual medical procedure is called dilation[D] and extraction[X] (not to be confused with evacuation[E]), that "partial birth abortions" on living a fetus have been banned and that providers do their utmost to insure that the fetus is deceased before a D&X is performed? So not that many or any actual partial birth abortions are performed and if performed it's thru necessity. I can't imagine that a physician going to knowingly going put themself in legal jeopardy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dil...extraction
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/p...-from-spin
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html

Continuing, let me ask you, isn't "forced birth" a valid way to reference the legal ramifications women faced prior to Roe v Wade? Prior, a woman would have to break the law or cause a miscarriage. Estimates of illegal abortions prior to R v W run as high as 25%. 

The waters were muddied when you used all unborn have humans rights from conception, and I challenged. I/we have addressed the problems with both unborn and human rights.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Forced birth does seem oddly inverted—am I forcing people into poverty by preventing a robbery?

[Silver]

The irony is never lost that most believers are fine with forcing their beliefs on others while simultaneously screaming foul when something is supposedly forced upon them.

Looking at the theistic history of crying victim, while doing their damndest to oppress anyone in their path, I become less and less concerned about a persecution against theists that continually appears well deserved.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's a forced birth plan and simple, And this analogy sucks because women exercising control over their own body is nothing like stealing other people's money.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Given that both require making choices with your body that affect another's life—the comparison is valid.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Given that both require making choices with your body that affect another's life—the comparison is valid.

Nope, one is the choice to kick out a foreign entity from inside  YOUR BODY the other is going out taking OTHER people's stuff. The fact both affect another life is secondary in the extreme. So it's not valid at all.

Prevention of one is the prevention of the taking of OTHER people's stuff. The other is unjustly dictating to someone else who and what can live within THEIR body and forcing them to remain in a bodily state against their will.

[The Grand Nudger]

Forced birth does seem oddly inverted—am I forcing people into poverty by preventing a robbery?

Yes, since you asked, but isn't it interesting that you look at a whore as though she stole something?

Go fuck yourself. Seriously....try it, its super fun and no whore could do it better.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Nope, one is the choice to kick out a foreign [emphasis added] entity from inside  YOUR BODY 

Your argument is androcentric—calling embryos foreign entities undermines that pregnancy is a part of womanhood. Such a perspective only emerges if you view men as the default gender, since the only way for entities to be inside men is if they're foreign.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I  have never argued the embryo is part of the woman. It nonetheless lives inside her body and no one can tell her to keep it there, And no it doesn't undermine pregnancy being part of the women as the act is going on inside her. So you can play all the word games you want. It doesn't change my point in the slightest.

And going back to the original point. No woman removing the embryo from her body and ending the process of pregnancy is nothing like going out and stealing other people's stuff. 

Now go on and nitpick a word in this post and babble on about it while totally ignoring the actual point.