[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by djsuperfly

There is virtually no one, anywhere advocating for elective abortions in the 3rd trimester.

Also, no one would do them.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by twowilldo

She promoted birth control, and in this day and age abortion is absolutely a form of birth control.

So, you came to the conclusion that if someone promotes birth control they are, at the same time promoting abortion?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by JenaS62

I will be supporting marijuana and I am not sure yet on the abortion issue. Need more info on what exactly viability means before I would vote for that. My premature son needed help with breathing. Would that have made him not viable? He is now 31 years old and very viable.

Edit - also voting for Trump for the 3rd time.

Huh? As far as I know if a Doctor failed to do everything in their power to revive, or keep alive any new born, they would be tried and it would most likely become a criminal case. I'm not sure how/why so many people came to the conclusion that unless controlled with legislation a physician would violate the hipocratic oath.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

My two issues with this language are:

• I personally believe setting the elective threshold at the point of "viability" is not only too far along, but is also a game-able term (even when considering how viability is defined in extant FL law). Now, the first retort to this is "well that's your opinion" — and I concede that, though my opinion in this case is largely based on degree of fetal development rather than some kooky religious objection regarding the presence of a soul. For comparison by the way, this amendment, if passed, would be more liberal in its abortion permissiveness than literally every country in Europe.
• "... or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider" is a glaring loophole as well because it can mean anything the provider wants it to mean, and be applicable in theory more or less up until the point of birth. This sort of language is not wholly dissimilar from our current medical marijuana provision, which effectively allows doctors to issue MMJ cards to adults for no reason.

I won't vote for the abortion amendment primarily for the reasons mentioned above. That said, I would support an abortion amendment that was more moderate and less game-able, because I think the 6-week ban is just absurd.



I will be voting in favor of the recreational marijuana amendment.

But given that you will vote for a 'more moderate' amendment basically says that you don't trust women and their doctors, so we need to make laws regulating them. I have two grown kids, I never wanted or had an abortion but neither did I see it as my responsibility to tell other women to do, and neither should anyone else.

[OpinionInOcala]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

But given that you will vote for a 'more moderate' amendment basically says that you don't trust women and their doctors, so we need to make laws regulating them. I have two grown kids, I never wanted or had an abortion but neither did I see it as my responsibility to tell other women to do, and neither should anyone else.

Asserting false binaries doesn't make them a reality by way of magic, nor does your imaginary mind-reading ability change or speak to either the substance of my argument or your strawman for my rationale for making it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

Asserting false binaries doesn't make them a reality by way of magic, nor does your imaginary mind-reading ability change or speak to either the substance of my argument or your strawman for my rationale for making it.

If I'm wrong then please explain why you feel that women need a law that is "more moderate and less game-able" because the only reason I can think of for any law restricting or limiting a womans reproductive rights is if you think without it women will wantonly kill their babies.

[OpinionInOcala]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

If I'm wrong then please explain why you feel that women need a law that is "more moderate and less game-able" because the only reason I can think of for any law restricting or limiting a womans reproductive rights is if you think without it women will wantonly kill their babies.

The short answer to this is one of establishing whether or not, or the point at which, as well as the extent to which, a developing human fetus is or should be entitled to individual rights within a purportedly enlightened, first-world civilization. It's not about the euphemistic catchall term of "reproductive rights," or the extent to which some subset of women will use abortion services as a whimsical, postcoital cure-all in wanton fashion - and I think the framing of it in that fashion serves the dual-purpose of intellectual deceit and diminishing of the intrinsic value of women and children as autonomous beings.

Again, I'm not arguing that government (or men, in particular), in so-called patriarchal fashion, ought to be ruling women. I'm asking if or when a developing human ought to be endowed with individual rights? And, to what extent, and, whether or not the State should have an interest in protecting such rights. My personal opinion should've been clear in this regard in my first reply to this thread (which you quoted at the beginning of our back-and-forth), though I'm happy to clarify if necessary and if asked in good-faith.

I'm fine if we simply disagree, btw. My opinion may be too conservative for your taste on this particular issue, much in the way my original comment compelled a couple of idiots to forum-msg me saying that I'm insufficiently conservative on the issue.

[Ghaati]

I don't think a developing human fetus is or should be entitled to individual rights.

In order for that platform to have ANY validity, you must:

1. allow women who are getting SNAP payments (food stamps) to get extra SNAP money to supplement their dietary needs, which end up feeding those developing human fetuses.
2. require the housing authority to consider the "individual right" of the developing human fetus when it comes to women in need selecting how many bedrooms in their Section 8 housing.
3. include the developing human fetus as a dependent in the woman's income tax return.
4. include the developing human fetus in the census as another person who lives in the house/apartment.
5. eliminate ALL legislation restricting ANYTHING to do with gender selection. Reason: embryos are female, until around 7th week of pregnancy, when the Y chromosome finally causes the testes to develop and changes the gender to male. That means ALL males are transgender.
6. all women involved in divorce must have any applicable child support granted - retroactively if necessary - from the moment of conception.
7. citizenship for humans born in the US now must change, to be humans CONCEIVED in the US. If a woman is pregnant, and in the United States, then her developing human fetus is now officially an American Citizen, and "birthright laws" now must adjust to accommodate these developing human fetuses. This means you can't deport, incarcerate, or detain the pregnant woman, because that would violate her American Citizen child's right to life, liberty, and security in the US. All pregnant immigrants who make it past the border, are carrying US Citizens in their wombs.
8. WIC coupons must be made available to the mother-to-be from the moment of conception.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

The short answer to this is one of establishing whether or not, or the point at which, as well as the extent to which, a developing human fetus is or should be entitled to individual rights within a purportedly enlightened, first-world civilization. It's not about the euphemistic catchall term of "reproductive rights," or the extent to which some subset of women will use abortion services as a whimsical, postcoital cure-all in wanton fashion - and I think the framing of it in that fashion serves the dual-purpose of intellectual deceit and diminishing of the intrinsic value of women and children as autonomous beings.

Again, I'm not arguing that government (or men, in particular), in so-called patriarchal fashion, ought to be ruling women. I'm asking if or when a developing human ought to be endowed with individual rights? And, to what extent, and, whether or not the State should have an interest in protecting such rights. My personal opinion should've been clear in this regard in my first reply to this thread (which you quoted at the beginning of our back-and-forth), though I'm happy to clarify if necessary and if asked in good-faith.

I'm fine if we simply disagree, btw. My opinion may be too conservative for your taste on this particular issue, much in the way my original comment compelled a couple of idiots to forum-msg me saying that I'm insufficiently conservative on the issue.

So, what I'm getting from that is that you do feel that a "certain subset of women will use abortion services as a whimsical, postcoital cure-all in wanton fashion" do need to have their reproductive life monitored or restricted. I have one last question for you, are you suggesting women be screened and limited in what choices they can make about a pregnancy if they are 'whimsical about their pregnancy', or are you going to have all women treated like 11 year old children so that we can be sure the "subset" doesn't make a mistake?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

But given that you will vote for a 'more moderate' amendment basically says that you don't trust women and their doctors, so we need to make laws regulating them. I have two grown kids, I never wanted or had an abortion but neither did I see it as my responsibility to tell other women to do, and neither should anyone else.

I am pro-choice, but I understand why some people are pro-life. I personally believe if someone murders a pregnant woman, they should be charged with double murder. So in that case, I am saying that fetus is a person. I personally believe 15 weeks, similar to Germany is fine for any reason and then after that has to be for mother's life, health deformity of the baby, rape or incest.