Posted on 05/05/2022 4:44:07 AM PDT by Morgana
My thoughts exactly.
Adolph Hitler was a very strong supported of abortion. He felt it was the low-life’s way of keeping their numbers down.
Beat me to it
She converted? She was NEVER pro life.
“I, and I think many other Freepers, would love to see your logical explanation of why getting an abortion in the first trimester is different than getting one in the third trimester. “
I prefer a stricter scheme but logic isn’t going to reconcile the opposing points of view.
Most people don’t oppose an abortion early in a pregnancy, but the opposition increases as a pregnancy advances.
That’s the way our population thinks whether you like it or not.
We don’t need a solution that satisfies one side and outrages the other because both sides think that down deep they are correct and both sides deserve some accommodation in our laws.
I prefer a stricter scheme but logic isn’t going to reconcile the opposing points of view.
“Most people don’t oppose an abortion early in a pregnancy, but the opposition increases as a pregnancy advances.
That’s the way our population thinks whether you like it or not.
We don’t need a solution that satisfies one side and outrages the other because both sides think that down deep they are correct and both sides deserve some accommodation in our laws.”
First, there several fallacies in your post. But, I asked YOU to explain a logical position to what YOU posted. You reply “most people”. I think you’re wrong on that, but I’m not asking about “most people”. I’m asking YOU to help me understand why killing a child in the first trimester is any different than killing it in the third trimester. If you can’t do it, just say so. Don’t go off on a tangent about “most people” or polls or whatever. If you want to convince people of your position, defend it.
Fine. Choose wisely where you want to spend eternity.
“why killing a child in the first trimester is any different than killing it in the third trimester.”
Remember, I’m looking only for a suitable laws governing the legality of abortion.
People disagree on when a fertilized egg becomes a “life”, and some pregnant women want their pregnancy ended regardless of how far along they are. They think they will be better off without the baby, and it’s their body, blah blah blah.
I have three daughters. I would argue against an abortion to them unless it threatened their health.
Again you go to “people disagree”. Why do you do that? Why do you depend on the opinion of others? You are an abortion supporter, obviously. That’s not an accusation, you said you support early abortion. I’m asking you how do YOU reconcile a 1st or 2nd trimester abortion and not 3rd? It’s a simple question. And who are the “others” a woman must consult with? Just to stay on track, here is your original comment:
“I think the Roe vs Wade decision is a good compromise. 1st trimester = have abortion if you want, 2nd trimester = must consult with others before deciding to abort, 3rd trimester = can’t have abortion.”
“And who are the “others” a woman must consult with?”
It’s in the court decision.
I like the because it’s got something for both sides, not because I agree with all of it.
A law that reads the way I’d want it is completely unobtainable.
Okay. I thought I had found someone who could rationalize their position that an abortion at 29 weeks was worse than an abortion at 12 weeks but obviously I was wrong. If you believe abortion is murder you can’t compromise. If you believe it’s not murder there is no reason to compromise.
Here’s part of Alito’s opinion draft. He basically says it can’t be rationalized.
“Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.”
“One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court drafted if he were a legislator, but Roe was not constitutional law at all”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.