A thought experiment.
You get too drunk and pass out in a bar.
I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood.
If you unhook yourself they will die.
Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?
I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues:
First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it.
Secondly there is a debate over states rights and what topics the federal government should get a say in.
I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child
The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential
If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles
So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?
Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time
The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always
And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.
I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government make too much money off it and keep us peasants fighting about pointless shit like abortion while they loot the country
I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement and can't bring up that example that you just know exists. Get off that clown shit and show me a real example
So where is it? These examples of abortions where the mother didn't want it at 39 weeks
Quit lying
You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?
You're asking trick questions. Proof above; "aha! that's infanticide!!" So clever.
That's also why the poster didn't respond to the person who commented about Beto. They have no real response, position, or evidence. Their only position is fake outrage at something that doesn't exist in reality
Still waiting for that one singular example. Where are your citations for your evidence?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...
>owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic
>Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure, and was convicted of several other medically related crimes.[3][4][5][6][7]
This dude should never have been a doctor in the first place and this is your shining example? Brilliant
>2011, Gosnell, his wife Pearl, and eight employees were charged with a total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
I can't tell if you're a bad faith actor yourself or you just believe the nonsense put forth by the nationalist extremist party
You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him.
So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy? What is the argument against that? Nobody is arguing against it if they're medically necessary, I'm asking specifically about elective abortions beyond the point of viability. That's it. That's where the breakdown occurs for most people.
Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing
And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions
>The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
So again, you pick out one guy who should not have been a physician who did not inform his patient of what he was doing
And this detail is pretty important, these were not abortions but murders after birth
>They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive
Pointing this guy out is like pointing out that old veteran who's like 110 years old and smokes and drinks every day and claiming nobody gets cancer from smoking and drinking
You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple
Only the "41 week old abortions" were treated as murder, the 39 week old ones weren't. My question is - what's the difference? In your mind, how do you justify a 39 week old elective abortion?
That's not an abortion
Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.
And you still haven't answered - what is your logic for not having a problem with a 36, 37, 38 week etc elective abortion? What is the argument for allowing them?
See this is the trick, the sleight-of hand - is draws you into accepting a simplistic falsehood: that a specific line has to be, should be or can be drawn.
Medicine is not law, and law is not code. Or at least, when done well they behave differently.
there is no sense in a code `if (fetus_weeks <= 16) return true else return false;` being law and then being medicine. That's 2 category errors right there.
A decision between doctor and patient based on specific circumstances is what's called for.
Pete Buttigieg said it quite well in this case:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...
Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive?
I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.
If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?
The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?