"Personhood" sounds good rather than all the gymnastics involved trying to avoid the anti-abortion-rights definition traps with "life".

No, it's not.

Indeed. It's where the abortion debate (and some others) should build from

Then we have to deal with the fine line fallacy.

It's pretty much all downhill from there. We won't all agree but any half reasonable disagreement centers around when it's a person (or some other similar concept)

Best possible world (what we should always strive for): Each individual has the right and ability to choose their path without restricting the path of another/others. Where two or more mingle, choices must be made, sometimes rules put in place, compromise often takes place.

Two people have sex.

The result is pregnancy.

Sometimes, one person decides to end the pregnancy.

Sometimes, both parties make the decision to end the pregnancy.

Many times the decision is made to stay pregnant and hopefully have a baby. One or both of the involved parties are involved in this decision.

Keeping in mind the first paragraph, both parties must understand that each has the right to pursue a rewarding life path. If the woman decides she is going to be a professional, working 50-60 hour weeks, the man may have to stay at home and raise the child. Sometimes the opposite. Often a complex combination of both.

If the man can decide to not be involved in the child's life, then the woman must have the same right. And, they must both have the right to not be involved with the other if they so choose for personal reasons.

These are just some of the real life considerations (hopefully) adults (hopefully) will take into account when making decisions in regards to a pregnancy and possible child.

All the other discussion about viability, cells, etc. are valid arguments to be had, but only in the same way that the considerations above are valid. As a society we SHOULD decide at what point, under what circumstances it's okay to have an abortion. But, it has to be a compromise.

Outlawing abortion would/does/has been proven throughout history to inordinately effect the ability of a woman to choose a life path. Much more so than a man. For that reason and that reason alone, abortion should be legal.

Yes it is.

Your opinion is already noted. No need to repeat yourself.

He does, though. He fits in one part up until a particular developmental stage, then he switches over to the other part. If he is prolife at a particular developmental stage, he's not prochoice, and you are right, he does not fit in to it.

This is another one of those spots where, in the face of reason, you just double down. Pro-abortion-rights advocates do not generally support elective abortion (where there is no compelling medical reason) at like 9 months, dude, and you know that. You're trying to do more bad-faith framing by saying that position is not pro-choice.

FFS, you self-identified that perspective as "prolife", and your accusing me of "framing"? Seriously, screw you. You can't keep your story straight.

No, I am pro life at all points, which I explained is not to be confused with the so-called "pro life" terminology used in bad-faith framing of the abortion-rights issue. The opposite of pro life is anti life and I am not that, so **** that bad-faith framing.

Pro life and pro choice are not mutually exclusive. Pro life and pro abortion-rights are not mutually exclusive.

Me claiming to not be anti life (i.e., pro life) is not inconsistent with the pro abortion-rights position I have taken here. Just because you dislike my rejection of the bad-faith framing does not mean I am not keeping a straight story. I await you trying even harder.

I think Max is right about the bad faith framing. Taking the opposite tack, I am not pro life - i.e., think everything God created should live simply because it was conceived. I kill bugs, viruses, bacteria and other simple/single cell organisms everyday. I eat animals and plants.

But I also support the state's right to protect a fetus at some time at or near its viability. The only logic of pushing the rights of the fetus back to conception or even these heartbeat bills is to deny women a choice on reproduction after the pregnancy occurs.

Ah, the ulterior motive. When people say they think life starts at conception, it's some sort of Machiavellian scheme. People use this type of argument to delegitimize the principles of the other side, and to relegate those principles as fake. Ironically, the very definition of bad faith, to believe in that scheme, you have to have faith in it. Even more ironically, exposing this is what led max to blow a gasket.

Keep the faith in these Machiavellian conspiracy theories, it's worked so well...and keeps you willfully ignorant.

you support the states right to criminalize it at your chosen arbitrary cutoff point, but when someone chooses a different arbitrary cutoff point - then their intent is some kind of fascistic plot to limit womens rights?

why can't there be an intermediary point where it's less than murder but more than stepping on a bug? does something have to be nearly the equivalent of murder for there to be laws to discourage it? it doesn't even have to be a criminal matter - it could be in the form of a tax based on a variety of factors.

yikes I've never seen a man almost literally turn himself inside out like this rather than take such a small loss like a reasonable adult

I did not chose the arbitrary cutoff date nor making it a criminal matter. The SC determined the viability of the fetus was when a state could start acting to protect its life based on the medical standard at the time. The state legislature's that pass the laws outlawing it want harsh criminal sanctions. The heartbeat bills are pretty fascist if you read them in conjunction with the medical evidence of a fetus's development at six weeks.

Lol outlawing a medical procedure is not "violating bodily autonomy". If there were a law banning surgery to add a third arm, would that violate the bodily autonomy of those who wished to get a third arm?

P.S. I'm not pro-life. Before or after birth.

I reject the premise of this post.

If you believe in your own mind that you have never lost a point here, you go to great lengths to maintain a perfect record.

[Mod note: the next 60 posts or so were excised from the Antifa thread...]

How many people in this thread who are outraged by people not wearing masks, are at least equally outraged by about half a million babies in the womb being murdered every year?

I oppose violence and threats of violence no matter who the violence is used against.

I oppose violence whether the victims are black or white or candy-striped.

Trust and obey the Prince of Peace!

This fascist isn't, obviously.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...fe-sustaining/

Anyone who supports abortion is wicked.

Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

How many at least equally outraged by a woman not vowing to obey her husband?

How many at least equally outraged by sex out of wedlock?

How many by same sex marriages?

How many by sex between consenting adult males?