If the only question is between "murdering babies" vs "surgically removing fetuses" (or whatever) then yeah--it's nittery. There isn't a reason to caught up on the terminology.

Had a little mini-vacation for birdwatching in northern Ohio.

For me to best answer your question, it might be helpful for you to define "reproductive rights" for me.

What is the origin of this alleged "right"? Can this "right" ever be superceded by someone else's rights?

I can say that, in my opinion, a woman ought not to have an UNIVOCAL RIGHT to terminate her pregnancy.

I believe they are part of the penumbra “right to privacy” concept from interpretation by the SC opinions over the years but I am rusty on my Constitutional law. Usually when two rights conflict, a balancing test is developed to determine which right supersedes the other.

Reproductive rights would be the right to engage in sex in and out of marriage for procreation and for pleasure, use or not use birth control and what kind and decide to terminate a pregnancy.

Do you mean unequivocal right? What about the the other parts of reproductive rights do you think they should not have an unequivocal choice?

Did you see the giant looney bird by Lake Erie that was in the msm?

There is when people like lagtight characterise the opposite position as "in favour of murdering babies", and make the debate about the morality of "baby murder."

You're confusing me a bit. Sounded like you would give me a univocal right to switch my baby making machine off. Did I misunderstand?

Basic question .
Is there any period in the pregnancy that an abortion is ok ?

Is a virus life ?
It can even reproduce ...

It would seen so. There isn't a consensus on what defines life but reproductive ability would seem to be one of the main requirements.

There is a consensus and no , it’s not alive .

If men really cared about stopping abortion they would immediately enact laws requiring mandatory vasectomies for males once they hit puberty, to be reversed when they are ready to intentionally procreate with a partner.

Quit playing yourselves.

And if any man impregnates a woman who doesn’t intend to carry the fetus to term then that man should be charged with a crime. Amirite?

So your solution is to legislation that would vastly disproportionately negatively effect young men of color? Interesting.

Nobody will be negatively affected by reversible vasectomies. It will just become a routine aspect of life for boys when they reach sexual maturity. Since the procedure is for men it will LDO be totally covered by both private and subsidized government insurance.

So you think the right to intentionally procreate would be evenly applied to all member of society? And penalties for abusing this right would also be evenly applied?

Oh you sweet summer child.

With the decriminalization of drug laws, if nothing else Crossnerd's proposal would provide a creative new avenue for the for profit prison system to refill its ranks, disproportionately with young black men of color.

-Touching on something WN brought up in the LC thread, if nothing else Crossnerd's legislative proposals demonstrate how problematic it is to broad brush using "male" and "female" as social locations, as she is wont to do.

I’m just trying to save as many lives as possible! It seems clear from a logical standpoint that the easiest and best way to achieve that goal, if that’s really the goal, is with mandatory vasectomies for men. It’s reversible and safe and superior mathematically since each woman can only produce one pregnancy per year but each man is capable of producing hundreds, and vasectomies have a better success rate as a form of birth control. I don’t see what the issue is. Everyone has to do it, and you can only have it reversed when a woman formally agrees to carry a pregnancy with you.

Any doctor who performs a reversal without a woman agreeing to carry a pregnancy has committed a crime. Unwanted pregnancies kill millions of women and unborn cell blobs every year.

What? What’s the problem?

What if she changes her mind after she signs the paperwork and the guy gets the reversal? Do we send the poor bastard back?

Reversal is stupid. Just get some sperm and do it artificially. Bigger problem is the consequent rise in STDs as condom use losses attraction for irresponsible men.

As I've said to crossnerd before, the only solution is to cut off their goolies.

not so keen on the 'snap'

Can I suggest like a 10 day waiting/cooling off period from the time the lady signs and when the reversal is done? That way we wont have all the dudes spending the rest of their days in an out of hospitals.

Re mandatory vasectomies:
It would be between maximizing humans vs preventing deaths. If the goal is the former then mandatory vasectomies would obviously be a bad idea. It's the same sort of idea that can justify meat-eating. If we didn't eat those cows there would be a lot less of them.

Here's where kel completely ignores the obvious points the hypothetical illustrates because he is incapable of discussing things in good faith and instead goes straight to a strawman deflection. Then puts his ass hole calling card signature on it, interesting.

In my opinion, there is no period during the pregnancy where abortion is an absolute right.

FYP