Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.
Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization.
Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
>and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger?
You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority.
I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.
You're ignoring my point in favor of what you consider to be a scissor statement. You can flog to continue a highly polarized, politically intractable conversation, but it's not getting us anywhere good. I didn't take any position other than: I don't think that legislators should be making blanket policies on an issue that should be a joint decision of doctor and patient. What happened is that you ignored my position, and claimed that I took the position you hate. I did not take your hated position. I maintain that such decisions should be between doctor and patient.
You have me mixed up with a different poster I suppose. I don't hate any position on the subject. I'm not religious and I'm not for a complete ban on abortions. I simply pointed out that your original claim that a "super majority of people" support no regulations on abortion, falls apart when you ask if they support elective abortions at 39 weeks. Almost nobody supports that, which means by definition, most people support some regulations on abortions.
So then logically that leaves us needing to draw the line somewhere with regulations. Just because a particular doctor[1] might be more than happy to perform something most people see as grotesque, doesn't mean society should just allow it.
> Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient's clothing and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her: "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." She regained consciousness twelve hours later at her aunt's home, the abortion having been completed against her will.
Yeah, we don't need anti-abortion laws to make sure guys like this see justice, as he's guilty of an entire pantheon of medical malpractice.
> Patients given labor- and delivery-inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery.[73] Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified "it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets" while waiting for his arrival.
> Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).
See, that's not even an abortion by any stretch of the imagination. Those are live births followed up by infanticide. No need for anti-abortion laws.
I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks where the life of the mother wasn't in danger and there was no permanent medical issues with the child. I'm specifically referring to regulations on elective abortions that late in term, what is the argument against that?
Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually.
> Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually.
You're still missing the very important context of the original comment you replied to, so I'll self-quote:
> Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
You're ignoring this, and going straight back to debating minutae, and using a completely ludicrous case that (a) nobody wants to be legal and (b) is already totally illegal without any kind of abortion law.
> I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks
See, you keep claiming that I'm in support of an abortion at 39 weeks. I didn't take that position, did I? Look to Canada, whose Supreme Court ruled that this is a matter between doctor and patient. But, doctors are highly regulated with regards to their behavior and ethics, and gosh, they aren't running around murdering babies like the example you keep trotting out, are they?
>Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof.
Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
