Addressing the elephant in the womb


Nope sorry.


I would add there is a third view of sex-procreational. Imagine an atheist wantng to have a baby. It isn’t sacred for them.


What part of murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life don’t you get?


I agree they would not use the word ‘sacred’ in that case. Procreational is a great addition. Thank you.


So you agree that the fetus is threatening the mother by its presence?


Is abortion murder or not? (of course there’s a very good reason why this question doesn’t get answered)


So the fetus, by its presence, threatens the mother.

Let’s take this a step further. I used 50% chance of dying. What if the doctor told the mother she had a 25% chance of dying? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.5%?

In all scenarios above, the fetus threatens the life of the mother so it would be self defense. Would you say govt gets to determine what percent mothers should be comfortable with on abortion or should the mother decide?


Now you’re reduced to spurious arguments where there is no clear threat to the life of the mother.

Why am I not surprised?


Are you talking to me? I laid out different threat levels. You and guvnah seems fine with accepting abortion when there was a 50% chance of the mother dying if she kept to term.

I’m just wondering where you want to put that bright line. Is it 50%? What about 40%? 30%? 10%?

If you want to make exceptions for the life of the mother due to an argument of self-defense, at what percent are you going to put that line?

If you don’t define that line, the mothers will decide on their own individually.


Let’s take the government out of it. At what point does a woman learn that pregnancy is going to present a threat to her life? Is this her first visit ever to a doctor? No physicals, ever? At the point a woman learns that a pregnancy represents a threat to her life, she has decisions to make then.

And yes, “Each time I become pregnant, I will have an abortion,” is a decision. Is it the best decision or does she have other options pre-pregnancy?


And you babble truisms.


She can also choose to use birth control. Another choice some on the right would like to strip her of


How would they be able to strip her of that choice?


They want to make birth control unavailable as well.


How? For example, are they against government paying for birth control for everyone? So am I. However, there is no way anyone can stop the sale of birth control, any more than they can stop the sale of other drugs. So this is a non-issue.


That doesn’t mean they don’t want to limit access

“Another argument the Trump administration cites in limiting access to contraceptives is that a birth control coverage mandate could “affect risky sexual behavior in a negative way.” In other words, give more women birth control and they’ll be more promiscuous.”


Having other options pre-pregnancy doesn’t take away her ability to choose abortion if pregnant.


No clear threat? Are you aware of just how dangerous childbirth can be? Ever give birth?


Not as a general rule. (Which is how I take your statement I just cited.)

You gave a specific set of circumstances. That’s what I responded to. Do NOT try to expand that to a blanket statement. Fair enough?

In your scenario, THAT fetus is threatening the life of the mother. 50% chance. Serious threat.


You can’t back up to that because people have different definitions as to what “innocent life” is when it comes to abortion.