I personally support medical viability (currently generally considered around 20 weeks) as the time limit on abortion.
I agree that most “pro-lifers” are in fact merely antiabortionists , who care deeply about the fetus taking its first breath, then couldn’t GAF about them at any point thereafter.
I tend to agree with SGman on abortion. I'm generally opposed to it but there is obviously a period of time between conception and an embryo becoming viable. I would be very conservative when establishing that time frame. I favor free birth control for anyone who wants it and will use it.
One thing I'm sure about is that young women who are involuntarily impregnated by rape or incest are already viable humans and should not have their life ruined by being forced to give birth.
If a primary principle is being pro-life is preventing deaths around the globe, there are ways to spend enormous resources that are more sustainable than USAID which does not seem to change the behavior of those to whom it provides assistance. USAID should focus on birth control rather than enabling those in need to continue irresponsible behavior.
7. Bottom line: strong evidence of likely harm, but measurable excess deaths remain forecast, not fully observed
The balance of evidence in these analyses indicates a plausible, model-backed pathway from USAID defunding to large numbers of excess deaths, particularly among children, with precise magnitude dependent on assumptions and mitigation actions [1]. However, existing reviews and commentaries document disruption without presenting direct, observed tallies of attributable excess deaths to date, highlighting the difference between robust forecasting and verified epidemiological attribution [2] [3]. Decision-makers should treat the projections as high-priority risk signals warranting immediate action and strengthened monitoring.
USAID did provide condoms and other birth control, but it also had focus on providing foodstuffs to famine-struck areas and vaccines/treatments to as to ultimately lower the likelihood of infecting US persons.
I’m pro life: I don’t put any limitations on the life of the unborn. I don’t restrict the baby’s right to life to be conditional on whether he/ she is born to wealthy parents and not to poor ones. I don’t restrict it to exclude those whose fathers acted badly in participating in their creation, nor do I believe that innocent babies must be destroyed for the crimes of their fathers and/or the convenience of their mother’s future life as their mother. The mothers can give their live born babies to parents eager to adopt them if they choose not to keep them. Nor do I demand the baby be disease free. I don’t demand that the babies who live must receive 62 vaccines during their childhood with unnecessary vaccines being administered before they even go home from the hospital. Regarding the cause of reappearing diseases, I think an investigation into Big Pharma’s testing and claims about the safety of their vaccines is a good place to start investigating that problem. After that, an investigation into the adverse effects of vaccines would be smart. As far as previously eradicated diseases being connected to “ vaccine hesitancy” goes, I think the connection of reappearing diseases is more likely connected to 20 or more million unvetted illegals’ from countries all over the world and their invasion into the U.S.. is a better place to investigate for cause. I also believe genuine pro lifers should be vigilant about protecting all life from harm, regardless of what stages of life they exist in. That harm takes many forms. A people who do not value life in the womb is not a people who can be trusted to value any life that they do not deem worthy of life.
If the mother’s physical life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, the doctor explains this to the mother and explains what must be done to preserve the mother’s life. The number of abortions performed for this reason is less than 1%.
Girls that are 8 or 9 (and really under 18) should not be giving birth at all.
The number you're stating is for late-term abortions, not for all abortions where such pregnancies are dangerous. Those numbers are skewed because we do have legal abortion that allows those not wanting to be pregnant to abort.
Delivery is itself dangerous too.
Why put any woman or girl through the risks?
On the topic of doctors talking to patients: all of the risks surrounding vaccination are readily available, and it's on parents to make informed decisions. And a big part of that is understanding relative risk.
You always get the last word SG because we could converse about this forever. I’m well aware of your arguments and I have counter arguments. But we disagree.
Yes, it's obvious we disagree - I just don't see much in the way of a counter towards any argument made that makes it OK to force women and girls to attempt to carry a pregnancy to term.
I will say one more thing about giving birth under age 18. Many babies have been born to women under 18 in which both mother and child turned out fine. I know several of them.
The lifeform is not a human until it is at a certain stage of development. And it's also important to agree on what makes us human: is it simply a life form with our DNA (in which case both sperm and egg fall under that definition as both are alive and contain human DNA), or does brain and body development also factor in? In general, we should be able to agree that more than "it's life" or "it has a heartbeat" matter to the definition of what makes a human being.
Is it when the organs are in their final positions (~16-18 weeks)? How about the brain area responsible for senses (~20th week)? Lung development (fully developed at ~24 weeks, but not ready to work outside the uterus due to surfactant development)? And what of the ability to survive premature birth (~24 weeks with access to advanced medical tech, ~32 weeks naturally?) I for one favor viability or close to it, considering the above.
There is indeed a significant overlap between the anti-abortion and the anti-welfare groups. Post-natal care is one thing: welfare another entirely. If it's going to be government policy to disallow abortions, then the government needs to pay for the raising of the resulting children.
Donald Trump has been all over the map on the abortion issue. Far from being "the most pro-life President in history," imo, he has been one of the worst, because he won't stake out a position and stick to it.
As an aside, we will have to agree to disagree on the issue in general. If one is for the killing of human beings in the womb, that person is on the side of evil, period, full stop. And i personally don't know of any pro-lifers who aren't also in favor of post-birth care for both mother and baby. There may be some, but I don't know of any.
Nice post.
I personally support medical viability (currently generally considered around 20 weeks) as the time limit on abortion.
I agree that most “pro-lifers” are in fact merely antiabortionists , who care deeply about the fetus taking its first breath, then couldn’t GAF about them at any point thereafter.
I tend to agree with SGman on abortion. I'm generally opposed to it but there is obviously a period of time between conception and an embryo becoming viable. I would be very conservative when establishing that time frame. I favor free birth control for anyone who wants it and will use it.
One thing I'm sure about is that young women who are involuntarily impregnated by rape or incest are already viable humans and should not have their life ruined by being forced to give birth.
If a primary principle is being pro-life is preventing deaths around the globe, there are ways to spend enormous resources that are more sustainable than USAID which does not seem to change the behavior of those to whom it provides assistance. USAID should focus on birth control rather than enabling those in need to continue irresponsible behavior.
From: https://factually.co/fact-checks/health/usaid-defunding-excess-deaths-b3f532
7. Bottom line: strong evidence of likely harm, but measurable excess deaths remain forecast, not fully observed
The balance of evidence in these analyses indicates a plausible, model-backed pathway from USAID defunding to large numbers of excess deaths, particularly among children, with precise magnitude dependent on assumptions and mitigation actions [1]. However, existing reviews and commentaries document disruption without presenting direct, observed tallies of attributable excess deaths to date, highlighting the difference between robust forecasting and verified epidemiological attribution [2] [3]. Decision-makers should treat the projections as high-priority risk signals warranting immediate action and strengthened monitoring.
USAID did provide condoms and other birth control, but it also had focus on providing foodstuffs to famine-struck areas and vaccines/treatments to as to ultimately lower the likelihood of infecting US persons.
I’m pro life: I don’t put any limitations on the life of the unborn. I don’t restrict the baby’s right to life to be conditional on whether he/ she is born to wealthy parents and not to poor ones. I don’t restrict it to exclude those whose fathers acted badly in participating in their creation, nor do I believe that innocent babies must be destroyed for the crimes of their fathers and/or the convenience of their mother’s future life as their mother. The mothers can give their live born babies to parents eager to adopt them if they choose not to keep them. Nor do I demand the baby be disease free. I don’t demand that the babies who live must receive 62 vaccines during their childhood with unnecessary vaccines being administered before they even go home from the hospital. Regarding the cause of reappearing diseases, I think an investigation into Big Pharma’s testing and claims about the safety of their vaccines is a good place to start investigating that problem. After that, an investigation into the adverse effects of vaccines would be smart. As far as previously eradicated diseases being connected to “ vaccine hesitancy” goes, I think the connection of reappearing diseases is more likely connected to 20 or more million unvetted illegals’ from countries all over the world and their invasion into the U.S.. is a better place to investigate for cause. I also believe genuine pro lifers should be vigilant about protecting all life from harm, regardless of what stages of life they exist in. That harm takes many forms. A people who do not value life in the womb is not a people who can be trusted to value any life that they do not deem worthy of life.
So you *do* want to force women and girls to have to proceed with pregnancy, even when it's dangerous. How is that pro-life for them?
The other counter arguments I made are conveniently omitted. Let’s just move on.
If the mother’s physical life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, the doctor explains this to the mother and explains what must be done to preserve the mother’s life. The number of abortions performed for this reason is less than 1%.
Girls that are 8 or 9 (and really under 18) should not be giving birth at all.
The number you're stating is for late-term abortions, not for all abortions where such pregnancies are dangerous. Those numbers are skewed because we do have legal abortion that allows those not wanting to be pregnant to abort.
Delivery is itself dangerous too.
Why put any woman or girl through the risks?
On the topic of doctors talking to patients: all of the risks surrounding vaccination are readily available, and it's on parents to make informed decisions. And a big part of that is understanding relative risk.
You always get the last word SG because we could converse about this forever. I’m well aware of your arguments and I have counter arguments. But we disagree.
Yes, it's obvious we disagree - I just don't see much in the way of a counter towards any argument made that makes it OK to force women and girls to attempt to carry a pregnancy to term.
I will say one more thing about giving birth under age 18. Many babies have been born to women under 18 in which both mother and child turned out fine. I know several of them.
And many died in childbirth or lost the ability to have children entirely.
The lifeform is not a human until it is at a certain stage of development. And it's also important to agree on what makes us human: is it simply a life form with our DNA (in which case both sperm and egg fall under that definition as both are alive and contain human DNA), or does brain and body development also factor in? In general, we should be able to agree that more than "it's life" or "it has a heartbeat" matter to the definition of what makes a human being.
Is it when the organs are in their final positions (~16-18 weeks)? How about the brain area responsible for senses (~20th week)? Lung development (fully developed at ~24 weeks, but not ready to work outside the uterus due to surfactant development)? And what of the ability to survive premature birth (~24 weeks with access to advanced medical tech, ~32 weeks naturally?) I for one favor viability or close to it, considering the above.
There is indeed a significant overlap between the anti-abortion and the anti-welfare groups. Post-natal care is one thing: welfare another entirely. If it's going to be government policy to disallow abortions, then the government needs to pay for the raising of the resulting children.
What might this "lifeform" develop into, other than a human?
Last year my daughters gave birth to a human boy and a human girl. Thank goodness the lifeforms did not develop into a, I dunno, cat or tulip.
Just so it was voluntary on their part.
So again, at some point it is not human and then later it is. What it *may* become is irrelevant, only what it is at the time.
Donald Trump has been all over the map on the abortion issue. Far from being "the most pro-life President in history," imo, he has been one of the worst, because he won't stake out a position and stick to it.
As an aside, we will have to agree to disagree on the issue in general. If one is for the killing of human beings in the womb, that person is on the side of evil, period, full stop. And i personally don't know of any pro-lifers who aren't also in favor of post-birth care for both mother and baby. There may be some, but I don't know of any.