Question for pro-choicers

**BRUTALITOPS** · 05-22-2019, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by MASON

I agree with drawing a line.

but in order to have that line, that means that at some point you believe the baby's life trumps the womans right to her body. Which means her right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.

**Minister of Truth** · 05-22-2019, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by MASON

Pro-abortion and pro-choice aren't the same thing

Yes, they are.

**Mason Michaels** · 05-22-2019, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by g r i n d

but in order to have that line, that means that at some point you believe the baby's life trumps the womans right to her body. Which means her right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.

It's more,like you have a certain amount of time to make up your mind

**Minister of Truth** · 05-22-2019, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by MASON

I agree with drawing a line.

A line could have been agreed upon many years ago. Instead, the left hid behind Roe, and leftists continued to fall more in love with abortion.

**BRUTALITOPS** · 05-22-2019, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by MASON

It's more,like you have a certain amount of time to make up your mind

the thing is, for many pro-choiceers the issue comes down to body autonomy and the vitality of the child is of little consequence. I believe a majority support first term abortions but not second term+, which is mostly reasonable imo.

**USFREEDOM911** · 05-22-2019, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by StoneByStone

Is grasping at straws fun?

I'm not sure but when you're done could you tell me??

**Gonzomin** · 05-22-2019, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

Yes, because it might grow up to vote DEMOCRAT.

They did not suggest it was born mentally deficient. If so it would be a Trumpkin.

**MAGA MAN** · 05-23-2019, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Teflon Don

Few Jim Jones. Billions of muslimes. Muslimes are more of a threat

I propose forced sterilization of all living muslimes

No need not to do both.

**Legion** · 05-23-2019, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by g r i n d

the thing is, for many pro-choiceers the issue comes down to body autonomy and the vitality of the child is of little consequence. I believe a majority support first term abortions but not second term+, which is mostly reasonable imo.

I support abortion after birth, for up to 90 years in certain cases.

**Gonzomin** · 05-23-2019, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck

A line could have been agreed upon many years ago. Instead, the left hid behind Roe, and leftists continued to fall more in love with abortion.

Nobody is in love with abortion. That is stupid. If the left wins, they will not make abortion mandatory. It will be us to the individual woman and her family. We do not want the state and government power to be absolute like the right does. You seek more government police power and more power over people's lives. You want more bureaucracies to examine and police women. More penalties and more pain for women in desperate circumstances.

**Grugore** · 05-23-2019, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by g r i n d

im not trolling, I am trying to get some understanding where the core of a pro-choicers belief stems from. Many people talk past each other on this issue because the argument is never framed correctly, people for example end up spending time talking about the viability of the fetus. but it ultimately comes down to the sovreignty of the woman's body vs. the individual rights of the child and which one ultimately wins out. It seems, even in this thread that for seemingly ardent pro-choicers, they believe there is a point at which the baby's life trumps the womans bodily autonomy. Which ironically is the same thing pro-lifers believe, they just have an earlier line drawn in the sand.

This is the big deception.

"It's her body, her choice."

It is not her body. A fetus is an individual with its own blood type and DNA. Also, if the majority of women were not sluts, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

**Grugore** · 05-23-2019, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by g r i n d

I don't understand the rape argument. Would we abort a living 1 year old child that was the product of rape? People would say no, it's a kid and not its fault that one of its parents were raped. So why wouldn't that same logic apply to a 9 month old viable baby in the womb?

Excellent question.

**distraff** · 05-23-2019, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by g r i n d

This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases?

If so, why. If not, why not?

Nearly all states including liberal ones ban third trimester abortion. This is because the fetus can be successfully recovered alive. So in your hypothetical since this fetus is fully developed and can be successfully recovered, simply recovering the fetus is vastly preferable to aborting it.