Kansas votes 62% to retain the right to access an abortion in its constitution.

[rjs330]

Lungs?

Lungs begin to develope between 5-16 weeks. They actually aren't fully developed until after birth. So I think the 12 week mark is a good compromise position.

 

[rjs330]

I think that three months is an acceptable timeframe when it comes to compromise between pro-choice and pro-life proponents. It allows the mother to realise that she is pregnant and make an informed choice, but prevents unneccessary suffering on the part of the fetus.

I also think that there should be exceptions for fetal defects, rape and other extenuating circumstances, but as many people in this thread have mentioned, this is a minority of cases that shouldn't inform general policy except for those exceptions.

Sadly, I'm afraid that there is no possibility for compromise. Many pro-life proponents are of the "no fetus left behind" mindset, while many pro-choice proponents fear a slippery slope. A huge part of both sides then follow the arguments of those proponents, and you're left with an argumentativ deadlock where a lot of energy is expended on not achieving anything at all.

While I am in agreement with no human left behind group, there are enough opponents to that which would typically make that impossible. So, if we can't get that we might as well save as many as we can. Saving that many is far better than saving none.

I am for the states still making this decision. So if a state wants zero that's great. If a state wants no restrictions, that's not great, but that's the way the people who live there want it. We just have to try harder to convince them.

 

[Nithavela]

Lungs begin to develope between 5-16 weeks. They actually aren't fully developed until after birth. So I think the 12 week mark is a good compromise position.

In germany, that's the cutoff for abortions being not persecuted as criminal. They aren't fully legal in terms of the law, but in practice they are.

(What's actually counted are 14 weeks since the last menstruation cycle).

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Total ad hom. Attacking the person is a terrible argument guaranteed to lose.

Why do you say that? We here on the Christian Forum have given people who support abortion factual point after factual point but yet pro abortion supporters let those points fall on deaf ears. But boy you sure notice when we call a pro-abortion person a factual name such as obstinate. So, stop trying to throw such name calling out. Your arguments for abortion are extremely illogical and you NEVER admit that 97% of the abortions are unwarranted. Your arguments are only about the 3% (rape, incest, health of the mother) of abortions. So, DaisyDay stop your heckling and start acknowledging the real issue here - stopping the unnecessary killing of pre-born children.

You come to a Christian site to do your heckling then expect tough responses!!! (yes, I went with three; are you going to cry about it?)

 

[Hvizsgyak]

"Guaranteed to lose"? Has already lost.

See my response further down to DaisyDay. It applies to you as well! We are on a Christian Forum so expect logical criticism of yours and other illogical pro-abortion remarks. You do not have any good grounds for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of pre-born children.

 

[Belk]

See 457. The heart is critical to life. We all know that the body pretty much dies immediately if the heart stops. It's always been known as the center of life for the body. But let's say it's the brain then. Thats about 8 weeks. Or we could go with 12 since that's when the rest of the organs are working. You know just to avoid any arguments over which organ is more important to life.

But why? What is the reason behind using those as as deadlines? That the organs have formed is a milestone to be sure but if the fetus is not viable it seems rather an arbitrary line.

 

[rjs330]

See my response further down to DaisyDay. It applies to you as well! We are on a Christian Forum so expect logical criticism of yours and other illogical pro-abortion remarks. You do not have any good grounds for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of pre-born children.

I absolutely agree with this. As you note the pro abortion group have a hard stance on abortion by and large. But there are some who are willing to compromise. We are dealing with unbelievers who don't have the same values as us and won't. When trying to accomplish something politically we have to keep the pressure on and we should be willing to compromise politically in order to get something done as opposed to getting nothing done. I woild most be in favor of 10 weeks as thats when the babay has a heart. There are those who are ao obstinant and stubborn that they wont budge. But there are orhera who will. If we can save some its better than saving zero. I would also be in favor of a fully informed decision. Which would require mothers to be fully informed as to the status of their baby before getting an abortion. This would.include ultra.sounds which I would be willing to pay for as a taxpayer. Anything to save the babies, including political compromise if necessary to fet something done. But then we don't stop there. Once we get that. It's only the beginning of continuing to.convince those who we can.

 

[rjs330]

But why? What is the reason behind using those as as deadlines? That the organs have formed is a milestone to be sure but if the fetus is not viable it seems rather an arbitrary line.

It's a good line. Viability is not the beat line. A human being has life. And life is worth trying to save. Thats why we try and save babies after they are born, even if born prematurely. They are placed under medical care to keep them alive. There have been surgeries preformed on new borns to keep them alive. They were not viable either, but we dis all we could to.save them.

Viability is arbitrary. Being a human life should be the line. And a human life has value. Especially so in the beginning becauae we have no idea what that human life will bring to this world.

Viability ignores value and is arbitrary because it is not a fixed position.

 

[Nithavela]

I absolutely agree with this. As you note the pro abortion group have a hard stance on abortion by and large. But there are some who are willing to compromise. We are dealing with unbelievers who don't have the same values as us and won't. When trying to accomplish something politically we have to keep the pressure on and we should be willing to compromise politically in order to get something done as opposed to getting nothing done. I woild most be in favor of 10 weeks as thats when the babay has a heart. There are those who are ao obstinant and stubborn that they wont budge. But there are orhera who will. If we can save some its better than saving zero. I would also be in favor of a fully informed decision. Which would require mothers to be fully informed as to the status of their baby before getting an abortion. This would.include ultra.sounds which I would be willing to pay for as a taxpayer. Anything to save the babies, including political compromise if necessary to fet something done. But then we don't stop there. Once we get that. It's only the beginning of continuing to.convince those who we can.

A problem that arises from such an approach is that when you put a deadline on being allowed an abortion and then you throw all those obstacles (ultrasound, mandatory consultations, having to travel dozens, if not hundreds of miles to the nearest place that performs abortions, huge crowds in front of the abortion clinics threatening any clients) in the way of women who want to aqcuire an abortion, it looks like you are just trying to act like there is a way for legal abortion and then try to run down the clock on anyone who wants to follow that path. This kind of thing makes a compromise on this issue appear less like a compromise and more like a trap.

This might give you the short term gain of saving a few lives, but burns bridges and makes future deals far less likely.

 

[Belk]

It's a good line. Viability is not the beat line. A human being has life. And life is worth trying to save. Thats why we try and save babies after they are born, even if born prematurely. They are placed under medical care to keep them alive. There have been surgeries preformed on new borns to keep them alive. They were not viable either, but we dis all we could to.save them.

Viability is arbitrary. Being a human life should be the line. And a human life has value. Especially so in the beginning becauae we have no idea what that human life will bring to this world.

Viability ignores value and is arbitrary because it is not a fixed position.

Viability is not arbitrary. It is quite literally the point at which it can survive as a distinct being. That is why the SCOTUS used it as the cut off in its compromise position between pro-choice and pro-life. If we are looking at when to balance the rights between two persons it seems logical to me that you base it on when they are both able to survive as distinct individuals.

 

[Belk]

Yes, I was and still am tired of listening to nonsensical arguments (in my opinion).

What arguments? I am prevented from presenting any arguments by this website.

 

[DaisyDay]

Lungs begin to develope between 5-16 weeks. They actually aren't fully developed until after birth. So I think the 12 week mark is a good compromise position.

No fetus can survive with 12 week old lungs. I'm pretty sure you know that.

 

[rjs330]

A problem that arises from such an approach is that when you put a deadline on being allowed an abortion and then you throw all those obstacles (ultrasound, mandatory consultations, having to travel dozens, if not hundreds of miles to the nearest place that performs abortions, huge crowds in front of the abortion clinics threatening any clients) in the way of women who want to aqcuire an abortion, it looks like you are just trying to act like there is a way for legal abortion and then try to run down the clock on anyone who wants to follow that path. This kind of thing makes a compromise on this issue appear less like a compromise and more like a trap.

This might give you the short term gain of saving a few lives, but burns bridges and makes future deals far less likely.

Future deals is dependent on convincing people that the fetus is indeed a human being. You can't do that with just a number. Just a number is just a number. It means nothing.

And there is no need to travel hundreds of miles to get a sonogram or go to an abortion clinic. You could get one pretty much anywhere there is a medical clinic. It doesn't have to be an abortion one. Once you have had the free ultrasound and the free consultation, you can then get your pills if you still want it.

Practically every single town has a clinic and a pharmacy. Good grief you have to go to the doctor to get any kind of prescription anyway.

You can't get any kind of medical.procedure done without seeing a doctor and having a consultation. So it's really no hardship.

Having an abortion shouldn't be as easy as buying a candy bar.

For Pete's sake, what I proposed is easier that renewing your driver license.

 

[rjs330]

Viability is not arbitrary. It is quite literally the point at which it can survive as a distinct being. That is why the SCOTUS used it as the cut off in its compromise position between pro-choice and pro-life. If we are looking at when to balance the rights between two persons it seems logical to me that you base it on when they are both able to survive as distinct individuals.

I disagree. I gave you plenty of examples. A baby born at 9 months isn't viable either. It can't survive on its own.

Rhats why the viability argument isn't a good one. I know you don't agree, so that's on you.

 

[rjs330]

No fetus can survive with 12 week old lungs. I'm pretty sure you know that.

We aren't talking about survivability. A baby with fully developed lungs can't survive either.

Survivability is a really bad argument for determining whether something is a human life.

 

[RileyG]

I disagree. I gave you plenty of examples. A baby born at 9 months isn't viable either. It can't survive on its own.

Rhats why the viability argument isn't a good one. I know you don't agree, so that's on you.

EXACTLY! A baby left on its own would die. It depends on their parents or guardians to take care of it.

These excuses for abortion are no excuses at all.

 

[RileyG]

See my response further down to DaisyDay. It applies to you as well! We are on a Christian Forum so expect logical criticism of yours and other illogical pro-abortion remarks. You do not have any good grounds for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of pre-born children.

Agreed. There is zero excuse for a vast majority of abortions and I refuse to accept compromises or make excuses.

No innocent being deserves to die just because they’re unwanted.

It’s disgusting as a society we have come this far.

 

[RileyG]

Why do you say that? We here on the Christian Forum have given people who support abortion factual point after factual point but yet pro abortion supporters let those points fall on deaf ears. But boy you sure notice when we call a pro-abortion person a factual name such as obstinate. So, stop trying to throw such name calling out. Your arguments for abortion are extremely illogical and you NEVER admit that 97% of the abortions are unwarranted. Your arguments are only about the 3% (rape, incest, health of the mother) of abortions. So, DaisyDay stop your heckling and start acknowledging the real issue here - stopping the unnecessary killing of pre-born children.

You come to a Christian site to do your heckling then expect tough responses!!! (yes, I went with three; are you going to cry about it?)

Amen.

I have no idea why pro choice non-Christians scream and demand we accept their views on abortion.

From a pro life perspective, its MURDER.

PERIOD.

 

[RileyG]

Lungs begin to develope between 5-16 weeks. They actually aren't fully developed until after birth. So I think the 12 week mark is a good compromise position.

No compromises from me.

From the moment of conception, it’s already too late.

I refuse to appease the pro choice crowd.

 

[Belk]

I disagree. I gave you plenty of examples. A baby born at 9 months isn't viable either. It can't survive on its own.

Rhats why the viability argument isn't a good one. I know you don't agree, so that's on you.

That is not what viability means and I think you know that.

As far as it not being a good argument I'll go with all the legal scholars who say it is. I find their reasoning compelling.