General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

54. "Needs restriction" means "the situation as it currently is has some problem".

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:28 AM

Nov 2012

I do not believe that the situation as it currently is has a problem, I believe women are perfectly capable of making the moral choices pertaining to their pregnancies without supposedly well-meaning strangers inserting themselves unasked for into their medical decisions.

As you note yourself downthread, late term abortions are rare and generally performed only for medical reasons. And this is under the current legal regime, along with this supposed "problem" of all these states having "woo-hoo no restrictions" on abortion whatsoever.

So something must be happening... what could it be? Oh, yeah, women are not running around pregnant and then aborting at the last minute for the hell of it. Despite not being "restricted" from doing so (imagine that!) it would seem.

So that would mean abortion doesn't need these restrictions your long-winded, hypothetical hyperbolic OP seems to imagine it does.

As for the fact you don't understand my question as to why I would be in the room with the woman and the doctor in the first place- it cuts right to the core of the conceit these, again, frankly offensive arguments have; namely, it would seem you can't even fathom why I, a stranger who has presumably never met this hypothetical woman and her hypothetical doctor, wouldn't take it as my intrinsic right, nay DUTY, to clomp into her doctor's office/brain/uterus and immediately begin issuing proclamations about dontdothis and youshouldntdothat and yes it's MY JOB to decide whether what you're doing there is okay, or not, young Missy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EVERYONE knows that a fertilized egg is not a person. And neither is a full term fetus a collection [View all] TPaine7 Nov 2012 OP

it's hard to talk about. nt limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #1

True, but it's necessary. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #2

There is no such thing as a full term embryo. There is no such organization that advocates for Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #10

^^^ This right here. Iggo Nov 2012 #35

Show me the part of the OP that says anything about an organization that advocates for aborting TPaine7 Nov 2012 #37

You posit "another extreme" which does not exist in reality. DirkGently Nov 2012 #57

Exactly. The OP constructs a strawman DirkGently Nov 2012 #56

I agree liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #3

But how many women juba Nov 2012 #4

I have no argument with your points. Remember, I said the American consensus is basically right. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #5

Can you please point out these people that believe life starts at birth and would have no problem Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #8

... TPaine7 Nov 2012 #11

this isn't really juba Nov 2012 #15

If this is true... TPaine7 Nov 2012 #20

one could take it as such juba Nov 2012 #23

If they say that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a foreskin until birth and first breath TPaine7 Nov 2012 #25

You have SERIOUSLY misunderstood the purpose DevonRex Nov 2012 #62

Where oh where do they these outliers on the internet advocate aborting a 9 month old fetus? Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #16

If you think it through, the logic of both cited sources says a lot about late term abortions. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #24

... TPaine7 Nov 2012 #13

Again. No evidence that Iverglas supported aborting a viable fetus. Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #17

the op probably didn't mean it to sound this way liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #21

The tiny extreme is a foil in the arguments of the huge extreme. But I know they are relatively tiny TPaine7 Nov 2012 #26

There are no extremists on the pro-choice side to take on. They exist as much as those who believe Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #18

that's a good point juba liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #6

Here's some education for you: Zoeisright Nov 2012 #39

Hmmmmm... TPaine7 Nov 2012 #45

For this to make sense, you'd have to cite the extreme that advocates for aborting a full term fetus Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #7

I kind of agree juba Nov 2012 #12

Nope. But the OP is catapulting the propaganda that there is. Luminous Animal Nov 2012 #19

You are the one catapulting propaganda, or, to use the more direct term, lies. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #38

When a woman is murdered and in the act of the crime her fetus is killed boston bean Nov 2012 #48

The word is "fetus", not "embryo". Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2012 #9

Thanks. I should have looked up my terms. I was trying to avoid the word "baby." TPaine7 Nov 2012 #14

Well, there's your problem. You need to educate yourself, earnestly, Care Acutely Nov 2012 #31

And you need to look past minutia. When people focus extreme amounts of attention on TPaine7 Nov 2012 #32

When you obtain an education, you will know these are not "tiny details" Care Acutely Nov 2012 #41

I take it you are "educated," but you can't see that my point had nothing to do with my mistake in TPaine7 Nov 2012 #44

Thanks a lot for insulting my education. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2012 #61

I did not insult your education or you. (Unless, of course you have multiple DU identities.) TPaine7 Nov 2012 #63

You claim there are two extremes, but I've only seen one of them in the real world fishwax Nov 2012 #22

See posts 11, 13 and 20. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #27

I know you didn't say they were equivalent in strength, but the value of the comparison depends, fishwax Nov 2012 #28

I agree that saying "a fetus is not a person" is not the same as saying "a fetus is just a TPaine7 Nov 2012 #40

that comparison is made within a very specific context fishwax Nov 2012 #59

The positions are comparable in other ways, in that they are both religiious positions TPaine7 Nov 2012 #55

Regarding that thread... ecstatic Nov 2012 #30

So comparing a fetus�up until the first breath�to a foreskin TPaine7 Nov 2012 #33

A full term fetus is not an embryo ecstatic Nov 2012 #29

Sure. Women are running around pregnant for 8 mos & then aborting for the hell of it. All the time. Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #34

Yes, the OP talks about women running around for 8 months and then aborting the fetus for fun. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #43

That presumption, or one like it, is the only way I can imagine anyone concocting the goofy example Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #47

So essentially, TPaine7 Nov 2012 #50

So essentially, you can't think of a response to what I just said, so you need to put words in my Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #51

Ok, you're boring me now. TPaine7 Nov 2012 #53

"Needs restriction" means "the situation as it currently is has some problem". Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #54

your scenario is utter bullshit cali Nov 2012 #36

Abstract thought is not everyone's strong suit. n/t TPaine7 Nov 2012 #42

I think one of the frauds the pro life side perpetuates mmonk Nov 2012 #46

I agree that late term abortions are rare, as you say, and tend to be medically indicated. n/t TPaine7 Nov 2012 #49

Then what prompted your OP? Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #52

Thoughtful post treestar Nov 2012 #58

Nobody aborts a third trimester fetus unless the mother's life or health is seriously in danger Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #60