Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on Today at 01:07:22 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on Today at 12:14:59 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on September 19, 2021, 02:54:32 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on September 05, 2021, 02:33:54 PM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on September 05, 2021, 12:50:17 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on September 03, 2021, 11:51:21 PM

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex. Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking. Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.

If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.

Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.

Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate. Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches. Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state. The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.

I would not compare an abortion to cancer treatments. One is a life saving treatment and one is, what I don’t think anyone would disagree with is an elective procedure. I would also describe an abortion as not medically necessary. (If there is serious, credible medical evidence that the mothers life is in serious danger, she should have the right to decide if she wants an abortion).

There is perhaps a valid argument regarding viability. However if you make this argument. However anyone who makes this argument has their credibility go away when they advocate for abortions up until the baby is delivered. I would counter however that it is illegal to take actions that induce someone to harm or kill themselves.

I will admit that 6 weeks pregnant is probably earlier than appropriate to limit abortions due to the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant. However, viability is well past the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant and make the decision to get an abortion (or not).

I would also say that it is not uncommon for men to pressure women to get an abortion of an unwanted baby. I don’t have data, but I think an outsized percentage of abortions in late stages of pregnancy are the result of this pressure.

Does it matter if the procedure is medically necessary?

How would you feel if the government passed a law to ban hair transplantations for men or breast augmentations for women?

BTW, I did not try to imply that babies are cancer (although many parents would probably agree that they can suck the life out of you, especially during the first five years, lol). The point of the example was that both growing fetus and cancer cells multiply rapidly inside one's body. One should have a choice to be able to get the necessary medical procedure done to stop that growth.

I would be ok with an abortion ban after 16 weeks, but until then women should have a choice of what to do with their medical issues.

I think it does matter if something is medically necessary and it matters that cancer treatment is potentially life saving. Greater consideration should be given when restricting a life saving procedure. There are a lot of restrictions on procedures that are not medically necessary, for example it is illegal to sell your organs.

I am not a fan of breast implants, and really don’t understand why people get them. I am sure there restrictions on hair implants. Both are cosmetic procedures and I would be okay, and even support restrictions on extreme procedures of either.

When restricting a medically necessary and life saving procedure, especially those that do not harm other lives, you are potentially killing a person. An abortion is something that ends a life, while providing convenience to another. Arguments about viability are fair as are the morals of abortion before and after viability.

This is not an argument you are making personally, however I find it particularly distasteful when some pro abortion advocates almost encourage mothers to get abortions.

That is a logical fallacy. False equivalence. A fetus is not a person.

A chicken egg is not a chicken.

BTW, we are killing life all the time.

All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.

I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.