In only to bring this back into the debate

Lol at dudes telling women what to do with their bodies is this 1500

Perhaps I'll address this tomorrow, but while not surprising that you're pushing back on it--it sort of is surprising (given CN's large intelligence) that she would slip up and argue that it is morality that separates us from the animals. Because she had been doing a great job at keeping her side of the framing focused on how this is a women's health issue, and once morality comes into the picture it brings with it all sorts of stickiness. I.e. stuff about life, kangaroos, etc. Best to just keep pretending every abortion is a life or death scenario. (Which well...it is of course, just not for the woman).

You're probably right of course although there are probably some outliers out there that neither of us are aware of. But being hypocrites is something humans are even better at than murdering other humans.

For the record:

I DO NOT believe that either Clinton or Pelosi are racists.

I DO NOT believe that either Clinton or Pelosi support her odious views, except for abortion.

I DO believe that PP whitewashes her odious views, and that there is a double standard, such as many lefties wanting to remove statues of Washington and Jefferson.

I don't plan to mention Sanger again.

Lag tight,

At what point does your (or the states) right to protect a fetus override the woman's choice to abort the fetus?

It figures that a discussion surrounding a serious issue that affects the lives of women would ultimately turn into a discussion where some random mediocre man neck-beards ad nauseum about marsupials.

Actually the person whose views are more relevant to this discussion is not Sanger, but rather Singer.

Actually I think it's Saysher

It’s a common defect of your kind iyam.

Yeah unfortunately

I assume you're talking about the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, and not the guy who invented the sewing machine?

There are only three cases I can think of in which it is arguably defensible to override the right to life of the baby:

1. Rape

2. Incest

3. Catastrophic health risk to the mother.

are you forgetting those bodies carry another human life? so are we loling at protection/destruction of human life ???? is this 2020

That didn't not answer the question but is it safe to assume that you believe a baby is immediately vested with the right to life upon conception?

Yes.

Just got pooped on. Can I change my vote?

So no rights of the woman to balance against the state's interest in protecting the fetus, got it! What about negligence claims and criminal liability for a mothers exposure of an fetus to drugs and/or alcohol when she is unaware of her pregnancy? Are doctors criminally liable to report all pregnancies? What about the home pregnancy tests and their use? Do those now become subject to government reporting and regulation?

What about female birth control and male masturbation? Both of those criminal acts as well? If a hospital loses frozen eggs and embryos because their machines malfunction, criminal conduct and wrongful death liability?

When I was younger (like in my early 20s)--I used to think that you should be able to kill kids up until the age of three or so. And let's say that either fortunately (or unfortunately) what I think has never mattered. But I figured that it was around that age that consciousness (or personhood) starts (and hopefully Chez will tell us where his line is)--but nobody even has memories until around the age of 4. At least that's when my earliest memories are so I had been killed before then would it even matter?
And it is absolutely true that these babies are a mess--and I don't mean literally although they are and I really did just get pooped on--but I mean they are emotional messes without any kind of rational thought. Move the play-pen into the kitchen because I need to cook something and they start going crazy and then pick them up and take them outside and they forget instantly that they were just literally screaming their eyes out. They don't make any sense and I don't handle irrationality super well.
But kids from around 3-7 I think are great because they can communicate but they aren't yet *******s who are jaded about the world. The 7 year old here is starting to become jaded unfortunately, but when she was 3 she was great. Once she wanted to pick some flowers for her mom and she picked one then I went to get one and she stopped me saying (back when she only spoke Portuguese) "para para...as flores são para os borboletas/stop stop the flowers are for the butterflies".
She was right but that's the sort of stuff that only a three year old would say. So that's why kids are ok but babies idk. I've never been around a baby in the sort of capacity that I am now before. She's currently sleeping on my bed while her mom is sleeping on the couch, leaving me with nothing to do but troll this thread.
But I've changed my tune on killing babies from when I was younger. And even these 9 month olds do legitimately have some personality. So if you can't kill them then--and if the whole inside-the-womb vs outside-the-womb dichotomy is blown up by kangaroos, then is there any point at which you can kill them? Probably not.
Not that I am going to judge people who do. An ex of mine had an abortion. It was my mistake from bad birth control practices (thought I pulled out but I guess not). I was out of town when she found out she was pregnant and she didn't tell me about it until later, after the fact. So I would have a 15 year old kid now. Which seems crazy and undoubtedly my life would be completely different. And some of my closest female friends have had them--one just gave birth to a kid she did want.
I do appreciate the whole "her body her choice" arguments fwiw. There at least is a logic behind that. I still ultimately think it's problematic and dehumanizing, but it's better than other arbitrary cut-offs like 20 weeks or whatever. Idk. People are going to do what they want and nobody should be offended by anything I have to say about marsupials.

No worries. Of all the offensive things you have said, the marsupial comments barely break the top ten.

Thanks JJJ.
Because you're one of my favorite people to engage with, what is your whole take on this? 20 weeks? Age up three? Anytime before birth? If it's the last one then do you think marsupials have anything to offer in the discussion?
If it's about women then do you agree there would be more of them without abortion? Etc.
Curious as to your thoughts.

I mean I think it's pretty much universally accepted that the worst and most heartbreaking age for anyone to die is at the age of 6. There was just a 6 year old girl killed here in South Carolina and it teared me up just thinking about it.
And so if any of us were faced with the sort of scenario where you had to either kill a 45 y/o man or a 6 y/o girl (and if you don't a whole bus load of school kids will blow up)--you'd kill the man. Because we value the lives of children moreso than adults. Kelhus will probably have all sorts of ev. psych reasons for this. But there does reach a point in which we might start valuing the life of the adult moreso than the child. 1 y/o baby not even toddling vs 30 y/o female. What if that woman has a family at home? And this kid doesn't even have any rational thought. This is probably why Lagtight says abortion is ok if the life of the woman is at risk. But what about when it isn't at risk?

I once wrote a paper for a political philosophy class I took on the right to privacy and I know Roe was involved, but it was a long time ago and I forget all about it. Can you refresh me?
What does privacy have to do with life vs death? Please do not reference anything about the umbra of the 14th amendment in your answer for everyone's sake.

I think Roe and Casey, etc. provide a logical basis to use viability as the determining factor (or point in time) of balancing a woman's right to privacy and control of her reproductive body against the state's interest in protecting life. Medical tech obviously moves this factor earlier over time.

It should be used less and should be (and is) the most "offensive" form of birth control. Sex education should be stronger to avoid its frequency. The right of the woman is not absolute and At some point the state has a right to step in and protect the fetus but I trust women to make this decision more than most state state legislatures. Marsupials have no bearing on the issue but are cool animals.

Privacy rights are inherent in the Constitution and arise in different ways not enumerated such as the right to be left alone, including the right to control your own body, right to sexual freedom, reproductive rights. Roe balances this right against the states right to protect its citizens and draws a definitive line where the governments has no right to invade a woman's privacy rights.

I think viability is sort of a nonsense standard as I've argued--the sort of stuff that lawyers would come up with who are looking for a compromise but lacking in logical basis.
But the issue will be that as technology improves (as has been argued) what is considered viable will get pushed back earlier and earlier, right? So it seems like it shouldn't be something that abortion rights defenders want to hang their hat on.