[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Mithea III]

Your right. The woman is omitting the fetus the ability to inhabit her uterus, and by doing so, death is the result. It isn't that she chose to kill the fetus, but only that it happened by consequence. But I want to take away her ability to do that. The fetus is not capable of understanding its situation and therefore cannot reasonably be considered a sentient being to disagree with its demise, assuming of course its being aborted. But I, as the government, am a collection of sentient beings, and we decide that the mother can't be allowed to omit her body from the fetus. We act as proxy for the fetus until it is born, and from there, we only step in again if the mother is unfit to protect her child.

But the question is why the mother should be denied that choice. The whole reason I've been arguing that abortion is an omission (ie withdrawal of consent) rather than an act is because we live in an individualistic society, where we impose restrictions on you infringing the autonomy and sovereignty of others, but you are under no obligation to actively sacrifice your body, your time, your property for the benefit of others, because you are a free and independent agent. I'm not obliged to mandatorily donate blood or organs to you to help you survive, but I am prevented from stabbing you to death. I'm not allowed to invade and trespass your land, but I am allowed to eject you from my land. In the same way, I don't believe mothers should be allowed to murder their babies as independent human beings, but I don't believe mothers should be mandatorily required to make their bodies available as incubating machines for foetuses. As an extension of the abovementioned principles. Unless you want to overhaul the law to ban any omission that results in death (which would be a very radical reform indeed, since it means if I don't donate to a charity for starving children, and a kid dies as a result, I'm now a murderer).

Bodily sovereignty rights for the fetus... GO!

[Neutraligon]

And induced births? Oh and, those C-sections occurred mostly because there was already a complication.
I note you missed this part "women who were having an elective c-section had the lowest rate of serious complications: 7.1%"

The 7.1% figure is a disanalagous comparison, since the D & E figure of 6.4% refers to the risk of complications amongst all D & E operations generally (which will likely include cases where a mother's health is at risk if the pregnancy continues, given that late-term abortions are generally rare and tend to be performed because of health complications) whereas the 7.1% is only for c-sections performed without any prior complications, so to compare the 7.1% figure to the 6.4% figure is to compare apples to oranges.

Except that we are specifically discussing abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger. Thus to use figures where the mothers life is in danger is not accurate at all.

[Katganistan]

If a 16-year-old wanted to adopt a child, the government wouldn't allow it. She isn't done with her education, she can't financially support herself, and she isn't a legal adult.

But if she gets pregnant, the government can ban her from getting an abortion

How is that logical?

If a 16 year old doesn't adopt a child, that child does not cease to exist, and can be adopted by someone else.

A sixteen year old cannot support a child, and is not mature enough to raise a child.

How is this not a bad idea all around?

Can someone break down the bodily sovereignty argument? I know what it means but I find it unconvincing.

I need a kidney. You have my perfect match. I can't just snatch it out of your body because it belongs to you, even if I will die without it.

Or are you unconvinced that I have no right to your organs without your consent?

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

I think it tells a lot either regarding how much you value human life or how disconnected you are to reality that you compare fetuses to unreleased video games.

We don't count fetuses in censuses, nor do we issue them social security numbers and tax them.

They're not people until they are born, and they're not viable until roughly 28 weeks -- and even then, with a lot of medical intervention. They aren't able to experience thought/consciousness until roughly six months because their brains and spinal cord aren't fully developed until then.

Here's a simple argument to shut you all up.
Do you call games in alpha-stage development "released"?
If not, why are you calling Fetuses "alive".

Frankenstein didn't say "it's alive" while he was still working on his monster. (Yes, I'm using that as an example.)

A Fetus is developing. It will become a human, LATER.


And it's also pretty unnecessary to remove this Right in the first place.

Some people seriously cannot have children, like their life depends on not having any children.

Alpha games are released to testers, being partially released; just like a fetus is partially alive, they may not be smart enough to be aware of themselves and so they are partially conscious but their heart is pumping. With the Frankenstein analogy, the heart of the monster wasn't beating until he sparked life into them. A fetus's heart is beating and so that's the analogy deconstructed. Besides, know the consequences before doing the action, know the many risks before having sex.

In addition, even if the fetus isn't considered alive, it will be in the future and that isn't murder. It's the absolute deletion of what could've been a successful happy person, the absolute deletion of a human being, the destruction of someone who didn't have a chance to even be born, if that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I have no idea what will...

A ten year old being forced to carry and birth a child that will likely kill her unless taken by caserian sickens me. It apparently sickens doctors, too.

https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

I don't think so. That rule tends to be pretty much applicable in all cases. Though I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?

"At it's core it's the argument that your right to control what happens to your body trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff and letting go.
"your right to control what happens to your body"
Letting go. My hands, my control.
"trumps someone else's right to use your body to stay alive."
Holding a child over a cliff. Needs my body to stay alive.
Not discrediting bodily sovereignty, only saying that your definition requires more detail.

"For example, if there was a dying person who needed your kidney to survive, and no others would do. Should you be forced to give that person your kidney, even if you didn't want to?"
Comparing intervening action to non action. I am not actively killing the dying man by not giving him my kidney, his kidney failure is. In abortion, an action is taken to end a life that would not have died if left to natural processes.

False equivalence. They are already born, therefore a person. That's murder.

No. You don't get to take something without permission just because you don't know you're doing it. A fox isn't allowed to kill chickens just because it has no concept of the farmer's ownership of said chickens.

So I can put the fox in jail?

They're generally shot dead.

Nope, do be a parasite they need to directly remove nutrients from a host body. A born child does not do this.

ok, but an unborn does.
THEY"RE LITERALLY SUCKING BLOOD FROM A VAGINA.

You rally need to consult a biology textbook if you think the unborn are sucking blood from a vagina.

In other words: does the fetus have the right to enslave the woman for 9 months, a right that no actual person has?

Does the mother have the right to murder an innocent baby just because, a right that no actual person has? I can use hyperbole as well.

No one has the right to murder a baby, which is a born person. Plenty of people have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

For the pro-life is the only choice unless it is killing the mother or the child won't make but You have to realize what would happen if your mother aborted you you have the choice to have love and give it a chance

If my mother had aborted me, I would not exist to care about it. That honestly is a pretty stupid argument.

It isn't murder as it isn't a person, but the woman is a person and therefore enslavement applies.

It is murder as it is a human, but the woman is not enslaved because the woman is not made the property of the fetus. In fact, by being given the ability to choose to kill the fetus or not, I would say the fetus is more the property of the woman.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
Now you are saying the fetus is property. People have the right to dispose of their property or to destroy it. I could throw my iPhone into the ocean, or run it over with my car, or smash it with a hammer.

Are you sure you want to go with that definition?

Really? This is what we are doing? I have tried to compromise here. I have ceded points and tried to reclarify my arguments when need be and in return I have to explain my reasoning for why an unknowing fetus is not enslaving a free, capable woman?

The pro-choice crowd doesn't have much common moral ground to come to agreement with. They see no inherent value in life, so what more can you discuss with them? An unborn child is apparently as good as pond scum. As someone who has wasted too much time on these threads before, don't get too exasperated. Be pro-life in the real world, and let the pro-choicers fester here on an obscure forum.

Please go read the rest of the thread before you make such statements. The "you're all murderous immoral bastards" nonsense is untrue, and a very poor argument.

Why should those clinics emotionally manipulate those who come to them. That is not their job. They are there to provide a medical procedure.

with all do respect they do manipulate these women they to comfort them but also think it is ok yeah we get a few messed up people who become cearal killers but we also get people who we love and adore

How much do you think someone forced to remain pregnant will love and adore their offspring?

And I could murder a bowl of raisin bran about now.

yes there are other choices there is no such thing as unwanted pregnancy for God has plans for every one of them

Not everyone is religious, and if God is a just God, why does he make pregnant people who don't want/can't have/will die from pregnancy?

Because honestly, that's a shitty, malicious God that would let a five year old be raped and become pregnant, and be forced to bear a child.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/youngest-mother/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

The woman is being forced to carry the fetus against her will. Enslaved, on other words.

We have this interesting question when you get to slavery. In the US you cannot legally own another person, as such using Mithea's definition slavery does not happen in the US. Can we actually claim that though?

Nope. Human trafficking happens. And we have had undocumented workers locked up and used as slaves in households as well. Both are examples of slavery happening in the US, Not to mention the cases of young girls kidnapped and used as sex slaves by their captors until they find a way to escape them.

None

why did you say that you do not believe in my god then

If they believe in no god, your god is one of many in the group of "all gods".
This is very basic logic.

Personally I believe that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception so to have an abortion is murder. Every human has a right to life no human has the right to murder and take away an innocent life.

You may believe that, but that's not the definition of murder.

[Galloism]

with all do respect they do manipulate these women they to comfort them but also think it is ok yeah we get a few messed up people who become cearal killers but we also get people who we love and adore

How much do you think someone forced to remain pregnant will love and adore their offspring?

Probably a lot. Biology is pretty determinative in this regard, even if it’s not 100%.

Principally not arguing as to the core topic, but the notion that parents of unwanted children just don’t love and adore them is pretty offensive.

[Genivaria]

Kat please don't dropping all the mics! Those are expensive!

[Katganistan]

Kat please don't dropping all the mics! Those are expensive!

Don't I know it. We're looking into what it would cost to get a new sound system for my school.

[Godular]

Kat please don't dropping all the mics! Those are expensive!

Don't I know it. We're looking into what it would cost to get a new sound system for my school.

My school's too cheap to get one, and the super doesn't want to crowdfund for a new one because 'it'd make us look cheap'.

I forgot to check if the board accepted her resignation or not.

God I hope that bitch is gone.

[Katganistan]

How much do you think someone forced to remain pregnant will love and adore their offspring?

Probably a lot. Biology is pretty determinative in this regard, even if it’s not 100%.

Principally not arguing as to the core topic, but the notion that parents of unwanted children just don’t love and adore them is pretty offensive.

I suppose that the reason children are abused and murdered by their parents shows that they love them?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/f ... index.html

There are several reasons why
Dr. Timothy Mariano, the study's lead author, offered up three theories: the parents are often mentally ill, they usually have higher levels of testosterone and the offspring that they kill may be considered unwanted.

Reality can be offensive.

[Galloism]

Probably a lot. Biology is pretty determinative in this regard, even if it’s not 100%.

Principally not arguing as to the core topic, but the notion that parents of unwanted children just don’t love and adore them is pretty offensive.

I suppose that the reason children are abused and murdered by their parents shows that they love them?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/f ... index.html

There are several reasons why
Dr. Timothy Mariano, the study's lead author, offered up three theories: the parents are often mentally ill, they usually have higher levels of testosterone and the offspring that they kill may be considered unwanted.

Reality can be offensive.

Parents abuse and murder children they planned for and intended to have too.

And you’re making a broad statement based on a theory regarding a very limited data set.

This statement:

How much do you think someone forced to remain pregnant will love and adore their offspring?

Is implying to children if their parent didn’t originally want them they don’t love them, and nothing can be further from the truth. Even in those incidents where women don’t know they’re pregnant until they go into labor, they generally love their children. Even in countries and places where abortion is unavailable, they generally love their children.

The notion that people don’t love originally unwanted children is both untrue and monstrous.

Notwithstanding a few children who are murdered = wanted or not.

[Luminesa]

I suppose that the reason children are abused and murdered by their parents shows that they love them?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/f ... index.html



Reality can be offensive.

Parents abuse and murder children they planned for and intended to have too.

And you’re making a broad statement based on a theory regarding a very limited data set.

This statement:

How much do you think someone forced to remain pregnant will love and adore their offspring?

Is implying to children if their parent didn’t originally want them they don’t love them, and nothing can be further from the truth. Even in those incidents where women don’t know they’re pregnant until they go into labor, they generally love their children. Even in countries and places where abortion is unavailable, they generally love their children.

The notion that people don’t love originally unwanted children is both untrue and monstrous.

Notwithstanding a few children who are murdered = wanted or not.

In most cultures, people are taught to look at children, and many children, as a blessing. Of course this is not an absolute for every person. But it’s definitely there.

[Griemvarant]

I've leaned pro-choice for a long time, but BS like women openly sobbing when it's ruled that their child having a heartbeat means they can't kill it? That pushes me in the other direction. Plus, there are far too many double standards. Men have no opportunity to renounce fatherhood, even legally, and despite a guy being on the hook for child support if the mother decides to keep the baby he has no say if she decides to abort it even if he'd adopt it and take sole custody. Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18, and if a man slips his partner the morning-after pill he can be tried for murder despite no such consequence when the woman does it of her own volition.

Plus, infanticide itself should be done away with and turned back into trial for murder: infanticide was only invented because juries were uncomfortable sentencing a mother for murder when she killed her child, so a lesser charge was created - one that almost exclusively applies to women while men are given the (rightful) sentence for murder when killing a baby.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I've leaned pro-choice for a long time, but BS like women openly sobbing when it's ruled that their child having a heartbeat means they can't kill it? That pushes me in the other direction. Plus, there are far too many double standards. Men have no opportunity to renounce fatherhood, even legally, and despite a guy being on the hook for child support if the mother decides to keep the baby he has no say if she decides to abort it even if he'd adopt it and take sole custody. Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18, and if a man slips his partner the morning-after pill he can be tried for murder despite no such consequence when the woman does it of her own volition.

Plus, infanticide itself should be done away with and turned back into trial for murder: infanticide was only invented because juries were uncomfortable sentencing a mother for murder when she killed her child, so a lesser charge was created - one that almost exclusively applies to women while men are given the (rightful) sentence for murder when killing a baby.

While I cannot speak for all, I do acknowledge the double standard and would prefer it to be eliminated (perhaps by offering unwilling fathers some option to cede responsibility for an impending child). The presence of that double standard should not be used as justification to make matters worse for others though.

Work to fix the problem, don’t heap additional problems on others.

[The New California Republic]

I've leaned pro-choice for a long time, but BS like women openly sobbing when it's ruled that their child having a heartbeat means they can't kill it? That pushes me in the other direction.

And what is so essential about heartbeat anyway? Having a heart isn't anywhere in the usual definitions of personhood, and it doesn't mean the fetus is viable outside of the womb, so I really don't see what difference a heartbeat makes. They may as well have chosen something equally as irrelevant, such as whether the fetus hiccups or not.

---

if the mother decides to keep the baby he has no say if she decides to abort it even if he'd adopt it and take sole custody.

So? She still has to carry it to term, not him...

---

Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18

...

...the actual fuck is this...?

---

Plus, infanticide itself should be done away with and turned back into trial for murder: infanticide was only invented because juries were uncomfortable sentencing a mother for murder when she killed her child, so a lesser charge was created - one that almost exclusively applies to women while men are given the (rightful) sentence for murder when killing a baby.

Killing a child =/= aborting a fetus, so I really don't see why you are mentioning it here.

[Vassenor]

Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18

I take it you're willing to provide examples of this actually happening then?

[Griemvarant]

Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18

I take it you're willing to provide examples of this actually happening then?

Gladly.
https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/841-on-courts-ordering-b-841
https://www.rawstory.com/2014/09/statutory-rape-victim-owes-more-than-15000-in-child-support-for-daughter-he-fathered-at-14/

[Godular]

I take it you're willing to provide examples of this actually happening then?

Gladly.
https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/841-on-courts-ordering-b-841
https://www.rawstory.com/2014/09/statutory-rape-victim-owes-more-than-15000-in-child-support-for-daughter-he-fathered-at-14/

I don't see anything in there about the rapist being a teacher.

Even so, such is quite unjust and should be rectified. Still, it is no reason to make things harder for others.

[Mithea III]

But the question is why the mother should be denied that choice. The whole reason I've been arguing that abortion is an omission (ie withdrawal of consent) rather than an act is because we live in an individualistic society, where we impose restrictions on you infringing the autonomy and sovereignty of others, but you are under no obligation to actively sacrifice your body, your time, your property for the benefit of others, because you are a free and independent agent. I'm not obliged to mandatorily donate blood or organs to you to help you survive, but I am prevented from stabbing you to death. I'm not allowed to invade and trespass your land, but I am allowed to eject you from my land. In the same way, I don't believe mothers should be allowed to murder their babies as independent human beings, but I don't believe mothers should be mandatorily required to make their bodies available as incubating machines for foetuses. As an extension of the abovementioned principles. Unless you want to overhaul the law to ban any omission that results in death (which would be a very radical reform indeed, since it means if I don't donate to a charity for starving children, and a kid dies as a result, I'm now a murderer).

I agree that in the case of forcing someone to donate a kidney to a needing recipient, bodily sovereignty is an able argument to deny that request. The healthy man has a right to his kidneys and bares no responsibility for the state of the other man's kidneys. However, that is not the case for the woman. She is, to the definition of what pregnancy is, 50% responsible for the conception of that fetus when acting in a consensual manner. Her eggs are what interact with the sperm cells to create the zygote and the zygote develops from there. I can quote from an earlier post of yours to see your general view of what I have said,

Well actually, even in the case where a woman intended to get pregnant, I still consider abortion justified then, because when you're talking about occupying someone's body, I subscribe to a 'continuous consent' view. In the same way as if someone consents to have sex with you, but halfway through penetration they tell you to pull out, you can't argue that since they let you penetrate them they are obliged to keep you inside them until you're done. That would be rape, pure and simple. Likewise, even if a woman consented at one point to have the foetus implanted inside her (ie she intended to get pregnant), her bodily orifice and her womb belongs to her still, and she's entitled to withdraw consent to have it occupied and used thereafter, just as she is entitled to demand a man pull out of her halfway through intercourse/penetration. Consent isn't a one-time thing where once you've given it, there's no takebacks.

Now, part of what you said here is absolutely true, for instance,

In the same way as if someone consents to have sex with you, but halfway through penetration they tell you to pull out, you can't argue that since they let you penetrate them they are obliged to keep you inside them until you're done. That would be rape, pure and simple.

To quote what you said before, a 'continuous consent' view is true for this example. The woman has the right at anytime to revoke her consent, and to go against that by the man should be and is considered rape. She did not portray continuous consent. However, I see flaws in the parallels you draw with pregnancy, as shows,

Likewise, even if a woman consented at one point to have the foetus implanted inside her (ie she intended to get pregnant), her bodily orifice and her womb belongs to her still, and she's entitled to withdraw consent to have it occupied and used thereafter

I find this line of logic misguided. The fetus is not created as a result of the woman's consent. A zygote does not come to the woman and ask her for her uterus to stay and develop, at which point the woman can accept and is allowed to terminate the residence at any time like she is a landowner. The fetus is created as a consequence of an action she participated in, and in instances where she consented all the way through (the majority), she is responsible for its creation, whether she intended it or not. To allow abortion simply on the grounds that you set requires the separation of consequence from responsibility, which is a dangerous precedent, wouldn't you say? Now, I will cede that being responsible for the creation of the fetus is not the same as the responsibility to carry to term, but that is where the ‘personhood’ debate comes in. Because if it is a being of intrinsic value that she is responsible for creating, intended or not, it is abhorrent to believe that she doesn’t have the responsibility to birth it, and that holds true for whatever cut off point one wants to set for personhood.

[The New California Republic]

She is, to the definition of what pregnancy is, 50% responsible for the conception of that fetus when acting in a consensual manner. [...] The fetus is created as a consequence of an action she participated in, and in instances where she consented all the way through (the majority), she is responsible for its creation, whether she intended it or not.

How many times does this need to be reiterated in this thread: contraception can and does fail. Consent to have sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

[Mithea III]

She is, to the definition of what pregnancy is, 50% responsible for the conception of that fetus when acting in a consensual manner. [...] The fetus is created as a consequence of an action she participated in, and in instances where she consented all the way through (the majority), she is responsible for its creation, whether she intended it or not.

How many times does this need to be reiterated in this thread: contraception can and does fail. Consent to have sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I am not equating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy, I am equating responsibility. No one simply consents to pregnancy, as I stated in one part of my post. I am equating responsibility to consent to sex. The woman is still responsible for that fetus whether her intent is to get pregnant or not.

[Northern Guaniet Sover]

I am back catch me up on what I missed

[The New California Republic]

How many times does this need to be reiterated in this thread: contraception can and does fail. Consent to have sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I am not equating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy, I am equating responsibility.

And she can take responsibility by getting an abortion.

No one simply consents to pregnancy, as I stated in one part of my post.

Women sure can. If she doesn't consent to becoming pregnant then she can use contraceptives during the act. If that fails then she can use the morning after pill. If she was not aware she was pregnant and it is too late to use the morning after pill then she can get an abortion.

I am equating responsibility to consent to sex. The woman is still responsible for that fetus whether her intent is to get pregnant or not.

So basically if contraception fails then it is just a case of "get rekt woman, you are stuck with that fetus, good luck!"

[Mithea III]

I am not equating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy, I am equating responsibility.

And she can take responsibility by getting an abortion.

Of course. I am not saying that my reasoning disregards abortion. If you read from the top of my original post, you will see its in the context of using kidney transplants and the human dialysis machine analogy as a basis for the bodily sovereignty argument in abortion. I find it bad reasoning because in no cases am I responsible for the victim's kidney failure, and therefore not responsible for the victim's treatment. That is not the case for women. You can say they don't consent to pregnancy, but that is different than the lines I was drawing about responsibility.

No one simply consents to pregnancy, as I stated in one part of my post.

Women sure can. If she doesn't consent to becoming pregnant then she can use contraceptives during the act. If that fails then she can use the morning after pill. If she was not aware she was pregnant and it is too late to use the morning after pill then she can get an abortion.

This is not the context in which I was using consent. I meant it as a woman does not simply become pregnant due to her consenting to be so, she must first partake in an action.

I am equating responsibility to consent to sex. The woman is still responsible for that fetus whether her intent is to get pregnant or not.

So basically if contraception fails then it is just a case of "get rekt woman, you are stuck with that fetus, good luck!"

I mean, not in the words I would use, but as far as the premise goes, yes.

[Wohlstantia]

So is there any compromise in here, or is it just one side screaming 'parasite' while the other screams 'babies'?
Are there any parents discussing this topic, or is it a slew of 'armchair incubators' as it were?

Do you have something to bring to the table other than vitriol?

Maybe. I never had an issue with voluntary abortions within the first trimester, or even ones that were facilitated following sexual violence, or an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy if the mothers life is put into jeopardy. However, I wholeheartedly stand against voluntary abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters, and the latter of the two I straight up consider infanticide.

But my two cents will get equally torn apart by both sides, I'm either not valuing life in its entirety enough, or I don't respect a woman's body enough. Go figure.

Its why I'm curious as to how many parents are in this thread. Sometimes I feel like the only one.

[The New California Republic]

So basically if contraception fails then it is just a case of "get rekt woman, you are stuck with that fetus, good luck!"

I mean, not in the words I would use, but as far as the premise goes, yes.

And why should that be the case?

---

I never had an issue with voluntary abortions within the first trimester, or even ones that were facilitated following sexual violence, or an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy if the mothers life is put into jeopardy. However, I wholeheartedly stand against voluntary abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters, and the latter of the two I straight up consider infanticide.

It is fairly common for countries have a limit at around or before 24 weeks. Any reason that you want to set the limit significantly earlier than that, at 12 weeks?

[Mithea III]

Do you have something to bring to the table other than vitriol?

Maybe. I never had an issue with voluntary abortions within the first trimester, or even ones that were facilitated following sexual violence, or an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy if the mothers life is put into jeopardy. However, I wholeheartedly stand against voluntary abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters, and the latter of the two I straight up consider infanticide.

But my two cents will get equally torn apart by both sides, I'm either not valuing life in its entirety enough, or I don't respect a woman's body enough. Go figure.

Its why I'm curious as to how many parents are in this thread. Sometimes I feel like the only one.

If you were just going to say that your opinion is going to get "torn apart" and adding a "Go figure" at the end to hint at some sort of predictable malice you presume to find on this thread, then I have to question if either of your two posts were written because you are genuinely interested or you just want attention.