THIS framing of the issue and talking point (which is why Blaze gave you a like) must stop. This is a political position to gain the votes of women. The conundrum is assigning the moment of when life begins. What a woman's or a doctor's individual opinion is on the issue is irrelevant. If life hasn't begun, then abortion in any form is theoretically fine. If life has begun, abortion is tantamount to murder.
Does life begin at birth? Does it begin at conception? Is it some point in between? The impossibility of answering these questions is the problem. And the actual, ultimate answer is an absolute, not an opinion to be offered from person to person. That is, it doesn't matter that Karen doesn't think life begins until the child is six months old and Velma believes it begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg (whether Karen/Velma are a woman, a doctor, or both). It doesn't matter what any of us believe. There just is no way as of yet to actually answer this question.
Thus, it is intellectually dishonest and only vote grabbing politics to try to frame the issue as between a "woman and her doctor". First off, that requires one to actually be able to define a woman and this is the only issue that D's seem to ever want to actually have a definition for and actually care about what a woman is or isn't. Second, why is it limited to the woman? Why doesn't the "man" have a say as he's contributed 50% to the equation? What if the sperm donor identifies as a woman? Does she then get to have that same conversation between her and her doctor and it overrules the other woman?
Buying into this framing and allowing this hypocrisy of defining women for this sole issue is the only real vote winner D's have in November. Trump and the SCt. are right on the issue of there being no constitutional right to an abortion and it is currently a state based issue. I would be happy to see them support the passage of something that limits things on a national level, whether that's up to 15 weeks or whatever. True compromise is never going to happen until the actual question can be answered. In the meantime, there should be a political compromise reached as I feel like that's what an overwhelming majority of people actually desire. The vocal minorities on both sides will just have to whine.
excellent post but it isn't a question of when life begins...there is already life in the cells that come together to form a new being; but those cells themselves aren't a
human being. Sperm and ova are shed naturally and constantly and who cares. When those cells successfully join and begin to proliferate new cells is when a new human being has begun. Of course you know this and that is what you are saying, but when arguing with the usual pedants you have to try to be as exact as possible.
All the back and forth is meaningless just as you say. Opinion of doctor or message board poster, anything beyond conception as the beginning of a new human is just a matter of arbitrary choice, and neither carries more weight than the other.. The only question is, will murder be permitted and if so with what if any limitations.
What has to be determined is how human life is valued. At what point does convenience outweigh caring.
As with many things in life, there is no one suitable one-size-fits-all answer, or any answer at all. Just as with creating speed limits on streets and highways, the number (or point in time) is just settled on.
I have said that I loathe the idea of aborting a human life, but that I would never put myself in the position of making a legal determination. That's why we have representatives, who are elected to represent both men and women. I only represent myself. But that being said, I would actively campaign for a structure that tries to eliminate as much as possible the disgustingly obscene use of abortion as birth control. When these toadstools argue that abortion is 'healthcare' and only between a woman and her doctor, you know they are symptomatic of a sick society. And when they say well it isn't a human being until it is a fetus, they are just talking out of their ignorant asses.
If we are going to condone murder of the innocent, we should just say so. But said murder should only regretfully be of what is assumed to be a healthy baby not prone to later defect or the product of uninvited sex. Robinson might have said it rather coarsely, but he's right. If you don't want a child, be responsible enough to keep your panties on. You want a show, you pays the price.
I am disgusted by the blatant lies of Kamala Harris in her campaign ads, claiming that Donald Trump will institute a national ban on abortion. What a lying slut. But untold numbers of women will fall for the impossibility of this scare tactic.
