|
Post by n00b on Dec 5, 2023 21:35:22 GMT -5
That article goes back and forth between calling it a "non-viable" pregnancy and "unlikely" to result in a live baby. Those are different things and I think it makes a huge difference. Also... “I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer,” What exactly is the argument that an abortion is what's best for the baby? I'm in no way an expert or even highly educated on this subject, but I believe the argument could be a non-viable fetus that is not forming properly might be better not living through the difficulty or pain (if such a thing exists at that stage). It's a similar concept to a soldier that has been mortally wounded, yet still alive or a racehorse that has broken its leg. In either case the most sensible thing to do could be to end the life, but I'm not sure if this context applies to the fetus. I feel like I shouldn't need to point this out, put people aren't horses. And you started your paragraph with nonviable. If the fetus is truly nonviable, you are going to get overwhelming agreement even among the pro-life crowd. But unlikely ≠ nonviable. Even in your soldier situation, "mortally wounded" definitionally means WILL be dying due to his wounds, not likely to die.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2023 21:56:25 GMT -5
If the fetus is truly nonviable, you are going to get overwhelming agreement even among the pro-life crowd. I'm not so sure about that.
|
|
|
Post by manyshaped on Dec 5, 2023 21:59:41 GMT -5
That article goes back and forth between calling it a "non-viable" pregnancy and "unlikely" to result in a live baby. Those are different things and I think it makes a huge difference. Also... “I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer,” What exactly is the argument that an abortion is what's best for the baby? if that baby turns out to be a browns fan. spare them the heartache while they're ahead
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,185
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 6, 2023 0:44:01 GMT -5
That article goes back and forth between calling it a "non-viable" pregnancy and "unlikely" to result in a live baby. Those are different things and I think it makes a huge difference. I mean, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to state your opinion on what you believe about this difference. Unlikely to result in a live baby seems like a reasonable option for an abortion among moderate people. IDK, I've never felt to appropriate to take strong positions on abortion cause I can't get pregnant. I also generally think from a practical standpoint: we are not endangered in terms of population, our social services in the United States are far from efficient and we don't take good care already of unwanted children or children without parents/familial support, it doesn't seem that out-lawing abortion has any significant effect statistically and if anything could make matters worse.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Dec 6, 2023 2:57:38 GMT -5
That article goes back and forth between calling it a "non-viable" pregnancy and "unlikely" to result in a live baby. Those are different things and I think it makes a huge difference. I mean, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to state your opinion on what you believe about this difference. Unlikely to result in a live baby seems like a reasonable option for an abortion among moderate people. IDK, I've never felt to appropriate to take strong positions on abortion cause I can't get pregnant. I also generally think from a practical standpoint: we are not endangered in terms of population, our social services in the United States are far from efficient and we don't take good care already of unwanted children or children without parents/familial support, it doesn't seem that out-lawing abortion has any significant effect statistically and if anything could make matters worse. This sounds like Pantops thread where we’re almost doing these children a favor by aborting them.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 6, 2023 9:28:20 GMT -5
That article goes back and forth between calling it a "non-viable" pregnancy and "unlikely" to result in a live baby. Those are different things and I think it makes a huge difference. I mean, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to state your opinion on what you believe about this difference. Unlikely to result in a live baby seems like a reasonable option for an abortion among moderate people. IDK, I've never felt to appropriate to take strong positions on abortion cause I can't get pregnant. I also generally think from a practical standpoint: we are not endangered in terms of population, our social services in the United States are far from efficient and we don't take good care already of unwanted children or children without parents/familial support, it doesn't seem that out-lawing abortion has any significant effect statistically and if anything could make matters worse. I absolutely believe removing a nonviable fetus should always be legal. I’m mostly with you about the general legality of abortion. Philosophically I’m probably center/pro life. But it’s not something I’ve ever based a vote on or gone to a rally for. But in this case, it’s either very simple (nonviable) or very much debatable. What annoys me is people on both sides hyperbolizing or not being straightforward. Are we debating a nonviable fetus? Because to me, that article seems to be trying to win the argument by calling it nonviable when it really isn’t. If you want to make the argument that a mercy killing is what’s best when the child is unlikely to live and if they do, will have a difficult life, then make that argument.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 9, 2024 13:27:24 GMT -5
File this under "you never know how the political environment can change in swing states." Almost certainly very bad for Trump, Lake, and maybe the House GOP, especially if a referendum to overturn the law gets on the ballot this year.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Apr 9, 2024 13:28:56 GMT -5
Under His Eye.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 9, 2024 13:48:45 GMT -5
According to local news reports, Jim Crow was spotted at a Phoenix 7-11 earlier this morning.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 9, 2024 23:04:39 GMT -5
I mean, this seems like a perfect opportunity for you to state your opinion on what you believe about this difference. Unlikely to result in a live baby seems like a reasonable option for an abortion among moderate people. IDK, I've never felt to appropriate to take strong positions on abortion cause I can't get pregnant. I also generally think from a practical standpoint: we are not endangered in terms of population, our social services in the United States are far from efficient and we don't take good care already of unwanted children or children without parents/familial support, it doesn't seem that out-lawing abortion has any significant effect statistically and if anything could make matters worse. I absolutely believe removing a nonviable fetus should always be legal. I’m mostly with you about the general legality of abortion. Philosophically I’m probably center/pro life. But it’s not something I’ve ever based a vote on or gone to a rally for. But in this case, it’s either very simple (nonviable) or very much debatable. What annoys me is people on both sides hyperbolizing or not being straightforward. Are we debating a nonviable fetus? Because to me, that article seems to be trying to win the argument by calling it nonviable when it really isn’t. If you want to make the argument that a mercy killing is what’s best when the child is unlikely to live and if they do, will have a difficult life, then make that argument. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 10, 2024 9:15:55 GMT -5
I absolutely believe removing a nonviable fetus should always be legal. I’m mostly with you about the general legality of abortion. Philosophically I’m probably center/pro life. But it’s not something I’ve ever based a vote on or gone to a rally for. But in this case, it’s either very simple (nonviable) or very much debatable. What annoys me is people on both sides hyperbolizing or not being straightforward. Are we debating a nonviable fetus? Because to me, that article seems to be trying to win the argument by calling it nonviable when it really isn’t. If you want to make the argument that a mercy killing is what’s best when the child is unlikely to live and if they do, will have a difficult life, then make that argument. Your thoughts? The same. Removing a nonviable fetus should be legal. Because states haven’t been able to legislate on abortion for 50 years, laws need to be created and refined. I think those things are happening. And I don’t think a Biden or Trump presidency in 2024 really moves the needle on abortion law.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 10, 2024 9:20:20 GMT -5
Because states haven’t been able to legislate on abortion for 50 years ?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 10, 2024 13:12:09 GMT -5
Because states haven’t been able to legislate on abortion for 50 years ? Whether it’s IVF or being unable to remove an unviable fetus, I think there are things that would’ve been solved through legislation over the years that were not because Roe v Wade hid them. And there WERE symbolic bills passed to outlaw abortion that the legislators never thought would matter because Roe v Wade made them moot. Now, democracy is working like it should. But it takes time for the laws to get in line with where the center is on this topic.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 10, 2024 13:44:02 GMT -5
I am not aware of any normal thinking person in the right to life movement that believes that this woman shouldn't have had the dead fetus removed from her body - or if non-viable.
This has nothing to do with Roe or Dobbs.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 10, 2024 14:16:27 GMT -5
I am not aware of any normal thinking person in the right to life movement that believes that this woman shouldn't have had the dead fetus removed from her body - or if non-viable. This has nothing to do with Roe or Dobbs. Stupid hypothetical of the day for you and n00b: 13 year-old girl is kidnapped and implanted with 2 viable embryos of her kidnapper and his wife. The girl is found and rescued after 20 weeks. Both embryos are viable and developing normally. What do you do?
|
|