Abortion should be illegal, except for cases where it is a threat to the mother's life.

Well for starters, all abortion cases would have to go to court. Just the same as if a cop shoots someone. It may be justified, but we need to make sure it was. Abortion would be classified as murder, so it would be the same as first degree murder. 

Both the mother and the doctor should be prosecuted. 

I've already answered these questions in another post do you know why they're coming back up here again cause you started like six topics that involve fucking abortion, your goddamn obsessed with it. Get the fuck over it, we get it, you really hate women have freedom.

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

The mother and the doctor, but not the father?  Why not?

Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 

You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 

Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children. 

Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?

Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 

You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 

Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children. 

Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?

@TWS1405_2

Finally a real answer for a cutoff point. Thank you for providing one. 

So if fetal viability should be the cutoff point, then I ask you this:

Your saying that fetal viability is when the baby is able to technically "survive" outside the womb. But if it isn't viable then it's ok to kill it.

So if someone is in a coma, and is not viable without machines working on them, is it ok for me to come up to them with a knife and kill them?

Third, I do not use the term “kill,” as it is an emotively driven term. Terminate is the more medically and legally accurate term when it comes to abortion.

Lastly, you cannot compare a pregnancy to an already born person in a coma. It is a false equivalency fallacy. The person in the coma, once they were birthed, were bestowed ALL the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law.

TWS1405_2

Third, I do not use the term “kill,” as it is an emotively driven term. Terminate is the more medically and legally accurate term when it comes to abortion.

But it is still the same word. Just because you wrap it in a bow, doesn't make it any different. 

Lastly, you cannot compare a pregnancy to an already born person in a coma. It is a false equivalency fallacy. The person in the coma, once they were birthed, were bestowed ALL the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law.

I'm not talking about legal standards. I'm talking about moral standards. Would it be morally ok to kill/terminate that person in a coma?

Ah but it does. Connotation and context matters when using words that have very different meanings when used under certain circumstances. 

Laws are premised on morality. They are not mutually exclusive. Once the person is given all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law…morality is a given under those protections. 

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 

Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 

No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 

So, same goes for women who decide to have sex if they are too young, not ready enough for commitment, and or don't want kids. 

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 

Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 

No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 

You ignored the context of our conversation. Please stop being disingenuous. 

Regardless how expensive it gets? 

So you want to ban contraception? That’s what it sounds like. 

Do you have any studies backing up that sexless marriages are more healthy? 

The new generation of adults are having less sex anyway. You should be happy statistically speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d-FBQIPEvb4

Adoption should be the absolute last resort if you’re opposed/unable to terminate the pregnancy and can’t afford raising the child.

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 

Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 

No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 

You ignored the context of our conversation. Please stop being disingenuous. 

....no context was ignored. Also, how am I being disingenuous?

Again, having kids is expensive. That should be motivation for women to stop being reckless with their body's. Again: Bad action = Bad consequences. Being stupid with your body, leads to you having to raise expensive kids. 

Contraception is a good useful tool in order to have sex without backlash, but condoms can break, and birth control can fail.  Having sex is like driving a car. 

When you are driving, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might crash. Sure, it's not likely, but you are still consenting to that risk. 

Same with sex. 

When you have sex, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might get pregnant. Sure, it's not likely if you’re using contraception, but you are still consenting to that risk. 

Do you have any studies backing up that sexless marriages are more healthy? 

Now you're ignoring the context. Never brought this up as a point. 

The new generation of adults are having less sex anyway. You should be happy statistically speaking.

......have you heard of hookup culture?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d-FBQIPEvb4

Sure, go up to four old ladies, and not the other 30,000 people who have adopted more than one kid. 

Adoption is keeping a child alive. Abortion is not keeping a child alive. Which is better?

You are going by a case by case basis of whether the fetus is a threat to the mothers life, correct?

Would you vote for a government that forces her to go through with the pregnancy? Or would you just use words? Do you think women should be allowed to vote? I want to see where this ends up. Because corporate/government coercion is bad, don’t you agree?

Do you think women should be allowed to vote? I want to see where this ends up. Because corporate/government coercion is bad, don’t you agree?

But you’re alright with coercing/forcing her to go through with pregnancy if she’s rapped? Where is the consent of the mother in that regard? Your ethics isn’t quite lining up. You will probably say something along the lines of ‘the fetus doesn’t consent to being aborted.’ I’ll give you the answer now to save some time.. it’s because the fetus can’t consent, it’s not cognitively developed enough, if it’s even developed a brain at all. I think we can agree that abortions in early trimester are better than late trimester abortions, even if you think they’re both wrong.

Well you made it blatantly clear that recreational sex is reckless. I wouldn’t put it passed you. 

Yeah, It’s increasingly becoming less common believe it or not.

Are you alright with an authoritarian regime coming to power if it means more children are born?

Adoption is keeping a child alive. Abortion is not keeping a child alive. Which is better?

Ignoring all external and scientific factors, i’d say keeping the child alive. 

Now i’ll ask you a hypothetical:

Are you alright with an authoritarian regime coming to power if it means more children are born?

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In what world would someone have to make this decision?

In your world. You’re willing to use the government to force women to carry to term, not acknowledging incentives. 

The government would not be forcing women to carry to term. 

What part of illegality don’t you understand? It means little if it isn’t enforced.

So you do admit the government will be forcing women to carry to term. Why are you having a hard time admitting that?

Well for starters, all abortion cases would have to go to court. Just the same as if a cop shoots someone. It may be justified, but we need to make sure it was. Abortion would be classified as murder, so it would be the same as first degree murder. 

Both the mother and the doctor should be prosecuted. 

That should be motivation for women to stop being reckless with their body's.

Now, can you actually equate abortion and drunk driving, why are they fundamentally similar? Also you said you were okay with the morning after pill, correct?

If it was an abortion derived from a pregnancy made from consensual sex, the penalty for first degree murder is life in jail or the death penalty.  It’s a nonstarter to put 1/6 females to death for abortion.

If you know 60 women (you probably know more), then 10 of them would be put to death. Abortion should be tried as 5th degree murder, so the penalty can be light but proportional.

I have no issue with telling women (and men) that they shouldn’t have vaginal sex unless they want a kid.  But I also think if you tell women to not have sex and you have sex with women, it’s hypocritical.  So I hope your a virgin because if not, women have sex because of YOU.

I am a virgin and proud of it.  I encourage people to wait until they want a kid to have sex, and I try and not watch porn.  But when 97% of America has recreational sex, pro lifers need to come to terms with that.

Not all murder cases go strait to the death penalty. And some have varied sentences, but taking into consideration it was the murder of a baby I would say it would most likely be death or life in prison. 

I've come to the conclusion of the mother being prosecuted on manslaughter charges, rather than murder, because they didn't actually kill the child. But then again, they did pay for the crime to be done. It would have to be either manslaughter or murder, one of the two.

No, it would have to be first degree, because it was a premeditated murder. The mother planned it in advance. Also would be infanticide.

Again, not telling women not to have sex, I am just saying be smart about it and not be reckless with it.