Be careful - you can get shot/killed anywhere/anytime

[tallguy]

Jun 21, 2023 10:01:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 21, 2023 0:05:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am sure I have posted it before, but there are two main tenets that undergird virtually every one of my political positions.  In fact, they are so ingrained that I never even have to think about them.  The first is a respect for individual rights and individual liberties.  (Concurrent with that, of course, is the responsibility to NOT infringe on the rights of others.  I well know you understand that intrinsically, but not everyone automatically equates the two, so the explanation is for their benefit.)  The second is the principle of equal treatment under the law for everybody.  No person in this country should be either advantaged or disadvantaged under the law by any aspect of their situation.  Anything that violates either of these two principles is almost necessarily invalid.  The foregoing examples fall under the first principle, but their validity is based on the mandate to not infringe on or harm others.  That obligation outweighs one's own self-interest.   

Well stated. For myself, living and witnessing the heat of human existence has tempered my rigid adherence to high principle. Humanity and humility demands nothing less of me. YMMV

I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that humanity and humility require a sacrifice of principle, at least in some cases* and at least for you.  I hope that is not true.  It seems, at the very least, suboptimal.  While I can admittedly accept, though be disappointed by, certain examples of principle not being followed or achieved, I fail to find a benefit in disregarding either of these two in particular.  At any rate, if a principle is worth striving for, we should always do so. 

Apologies if I misunderstood your point.

* I can imagine a couple of possible cases, such as 1) Should a homeless encampment be allowed to take over public spaces, such as parks, if there is no housing support offered, or 2) Should a starving person be allowed to steal food?  There are others, of course, though those spring immediately to mind. 

[billisonboard]

Jun 21, 2023 10:57:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:01:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Well stated. For myself, living and witnessing the heat of human existence has tempered my rigid adherence to high principle. Humanity and humility demands nothing less of me. YMMV

I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that humanity and humility require a sacrifice of principle, at least in some cases* and at least for you.  I hope that is not true.  It seems, at the very least, suboptimal.  While I can admittedly accept, though be disappointed by, certain examples of principle not being followed or achieved, I fail to find a benefit in disregarding either of these two in particular.  At any rate, if a principle is worth striving for, we should always do so. 

Apologies if I misunderstood your point.

* I can imagine a couple of possible cases, such as 1) Should a homeless encampment be allowed to take over public spaces, such as parks, if there is no housing support offered, or 2) Should a starving person be allowed to steal food?  There are others, of course, though those spring immediately to mind. 

Oh, very suboptimal. Humanity is suboptimal which requires humility by those blessed to welcome acceptance into their souls.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2023 10:57:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:01:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Well stated. For myself, living and witnessing the heat of human existence has tempered my rigid adherence to high principle. Humanity and humility demands nothing less of me. YMMV

I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that humanity and humility require a sacrifice of principle, at least in some cases* and at least for you.  I hope that is not true.  It seems, at the very least, suboptimal.  While I can admittedly accept, though be disappointed by, certain examples of principle not being followed or achieved, I fail to find a benefit in disregarding either of these two in particular.  At any rate, if a principle is worth striving for, we should always do so. 

Apologies if I misunderstood your point.

* I can imagine a couple of possible cases, such as 1) Should a homeless encampment be allowed to take over public spaces, such as parks, if there is no housing support offered, or 2) Should a starving person be allowed to steal food?  There are others, of course, though those spring immediately to mind. 

nah, he is implying you are an arrogant prick, especially compared to him.  no need to come up with ethical cases that make his point more narrow than it was.

glad i could help you with that.

[Tennesseer]

I too can say , “Works for me.”

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

Ann Coulter is a well-known conservative media expert. In one of her tweets, she shared, “Ban abortion for registered Republicans only.” While some saw it as “provocative,” others replied, “Works for me.” Regardless, it only opened further discussions. Some wondered if the account was hacked Many people asked if Coulter’s account was hacked. Some wondered, ...

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

[djAdvocate]

no, her account wasn't hacked.  she is calling out the GOP on this issue.

[tallguy]

Jun 21, 2023 17:48:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 21, 2023 10:57:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that humanity and humility require a sacrifice of principle, at least in some cases* and at least for you.  I hope that is not true.  It seems, at the very least, suboptimal.  While I can admittedly accept, though be disappointed by, certain examples of principle not being followed or achieved, I fail to find a benefit in disregarding either of these two in particular.  At any rate, if a principle is worth striving for, we should always do so. 

Apologies if I misunderstood your point.

* I can imagine a couple of possible cases, such as 1) Should a homeless encampment be allowed to take over public spaces, such as parks, if there is no housing support offered, or 2) Should a starving person be allowed to steal food?  There are others, of course, though those spring immediately to mind. 

nah, he is implying you are an arrogant prick, especially compared to him.  no need to come up with ethical cases that make his point more narrow than it was.

glad i could help you with that.

Well, yeah, that was another option, seemingly confirmed later.  Didn't want to just assume, though.  

[chiver78]

Jun 21, 2023 17:51:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I too can say , “Works for me.”

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

Ann Coulter is a well-known conservative media expert. In one of her tweets, she shared, “Ban abortion for registered Republicans only.” While some saw it as “provocative,” others replied, “Works for me.” Regardless, it only opened further discussions. Some wondered if the account was hacked Many people asked if Coulter’s account was hacked. Some wondered, ...

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

curious to see what discussions come, actually. but at face value, yah, works for me. 

[tbop77]

Jun 21, 2023 18:53:16 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 21, 2023 17:51:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I too can say , “Works for me.”

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

Ann Coulter is a well-known conservative media expert. In one of her tweets, she shared, “Ban abortion for registered Republicans only.” While some saw it as “provocative,” others replied, “Works for me.” Regardless, it only opened further discussions. Some wondered if the account was hacked Many people asked if Coulter’s account was hacked. Some wondered, ...

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

curious to see what discussions come, actually. but at face value, yah, works for me. 

Because their policies do not win elections.  After all these years and finally achieving their goal of overturning R v W, they can't campaign on it because they saw what happened in the midterms.  Par for the course with Republicans.  They will not even state where they stand on a national ban when interviewed.  


The monumental shift for abortion rights since the Dobbs decision helped lead to a number of prominent victories for Democrats in the 2022 midterms, including in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, where abortion was a top issue on the campaign trail. It also helped Democrats and progressives win in a number of special elections over the past year, while a series of anti-abortion ballot initiatives, like one in Kansas, failed when put before voters.
www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-abortion-rights-billboards-anniversary-roe-v-wade-struck-down/

[teen persuasion]

Jun 21, 2023 18:53:16 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 21, 2023 17:51:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I too can say , “Works for me.”

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

Ann Coulter is a well-known conservative media expert. In one of her tweets, she shared, “Ban abortion for registered Republicans only.” While some saw it as “provocative,” others replied, “Works for me.” Regardless, it only opened further discussions. Some wondered if the account was hacked Many people asked if Coulter’s account was hacked. Some wondered, ...

Ann Coulter "solves" the abortion debate by calling for a ban "for registered Republicans only"

curious to see what discussions come, actually. but at face value, yah, works for me. 

Works for me!


one quote from the slideshow (why a slideshow format, it's all text?):

 Another said, “You don’t compromise on murder!” This person was reminded, “Sure you do…. All the time… school shootings. You keep your AR15s, and every now and then, kids die.”

[teen persuasion]

A 2 year old boy fatally shot his pregnant mother

A 2-year-old boy in Norwalk, Ohio, shot his pregnant mother in the back, killing her and the unborn child, police say...

The weapon, along with a spent shell casing, was seized from the home, police said, adding that the pistol’s magazine was loaded with an additional 12 rounds.

The Norwalk Police Department’s detective bureau executed a search warrant and found a number of child safety features in the home, including safety gates at almost every doorway and child locks on all drawers, the release said.

During their search, detectives seized an additional 12-round magazine for the pistol that the 2-year-old had gotten hold of in a nightstand in the master bedroom. They also discovered a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun with six rounds in the master bedroom closet and an airsoft rifle in the computer room closet.

[Tiny]

America - the home of the fearful and land of the terrified.

I'm guessing this family was afraid in their own home (they needed to have loaded guns ready to go in case of emergency?).
I guess they didn't think they would need protection from their 2 year old.

[scgal]

Jun 20, 2023 12:31:01 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:09:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Why? It is done all the time. I know several people who don't think they should wear a seatbelt, ingnore speed limits smoke in public areas, walk around nude, they all think these should be a personal choice yet there are laws and rules. What makes abortion any different? 

Seat belt laws save lives of actual humans. If that was all there was, a libertarian argument would be adequate. However, there are societal costs to accidents. Injured people wind up in the hospital, many times needing expensive medical care. We all pay for that. So, someone not wearing a seatbelt costs me money. If they are uninsured, someone, usually the government, meaning the taxpayer pays. I thought conservatives didn’t like to pay taxes for other people.

Now, how does someone having an abortion affect you? Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer, since you don’t like answering these sort of questions

Yet an aborton ends the live of an actual human. No medical definition of life can deny that that. Once conceived there is a life being formed that should without question but in this screwed up word needs to be protected becasuse they cannot speak for themselves. You are also getting this wrong it does not affect me at all I'm advocating for the baby. Thats is why I use my voice to advocate against it

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 23, 2023 7:48:45 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 20, 2023 12:31:01 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Seat belt laws save lives of actual humans. If that was all there was, a libertarian argument would be adequate. However, there are societal costs to accidents. Injured people wind up in the hospital, many times needing expensive medical care. We all pay for that. So, someone not wearing a seatbelt costs me money. If they are uninsured, someone, usually the government, meaning the taxpayer pays. I thought conservatives didn’t like to pay taxes for other people.

Now, how does someone having an abortion affect you? Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer, since you don’t like answering these sort of questions

Yet an aborton ends the live of an actual human. No medical definition of life can deny that that. Once conceived there is a life being formed that should without question but in this screwed up word needs to be protected becasuse they cannot speak for themselves. You are also getting this wrong it does not affect me at all I'm advocating for the baby. Thats is why I use my voice to advocate against it

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that


www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/life

www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/


quillette.com/2023/04/17/how-do-we-define-life/

Every one of these definitions dispute your belief that a medical definition of life can deny your position. Defining life is not easy, and people can disagree. A 12 week fetus cannot survive without one specific host. If that host dies, it dies because it is not viable. Requiring someone to do something to ensure the survival f someone else violates the bodily autonomy of that person. Unless you believe we should force people to donate kidneys to those on the waiting list. Explain how forced organ donation is different that forced pregnancy. Use you words and reasoning skills if you have any

[billisonboard]

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 23, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

In regards to #1, I said that
#2 she is allowed to act n her opinion. She should not be allowed to impose her opinion on someone else
#3 when des life begin and what the definition of life is are existential questions. I don not believe there is a definite right or wrong. Which is why imposing your opinion on someone else is wrong

[tallguy]

Jun 23, 2023 10:25:03 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 23, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

In regards to #1, I said that
#2 she is allowed to act n her opinion. She should not be allowed to impose her opinion on someone else
#3 when des life begin and what the definition of life is are existential questions. I don not believe there is a definite right or wrong. Which is why imposing your opinion on someone else is wrong

If logic and reason worked on narcissists, not even Donald Trump would be a threat.  

[billisonboard]

Jun 23, 2023 10:40:49 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 23, 2023 10:25:03 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

In regards to #1, I said that
#2 she is allowed to act n her opinion. She should not be allowed to impose her opinion on someone else
#3 when des life begin and what the definition of life is are existential questions. I don not believe there is a definite right or wrong. Which is why imposing your opinion on someone else is wrong

If logic and reason worked on narcissists, not even Donald Trump would be a threat.  

I certainly wouldn't waste my time attempting to use logic nor reason to convince Trump of anything. Nor would I repeatedly attempt it with his supporters. Just as I would not use them in an attempt to get someone who supports an abortion ban on an emotional basis to change their minds and then ridicule them when I fail.

[tallguy]

Jun 23, 2023 11:19:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 23, 2023 10:40:49 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If logic and reason worked on narcissists, not even Donald Trump would be a threat.  

I certainly wouldn't waste my time attempting to use logic nor reason to convince Trump of anything. Nor would I repeatedly attempt it with his supporters. Just as I would not use them in an attempt to get someone who supports an abortion ban on an emotional basis to change their minds and then ridicule them when I fail.

And you seemingly fail to realize that a discussion is rarely limited merely to those who are actively in it.  I have zero hope of ever convincing the poster of what logic and reason dictate, or what facts and truth actually are.  The poster is too far gone for that.  Others are not, and while most participating in the thread agree with me, who's to say there are not others reading whose minds are neither already made up nor closed?  I consider it worth my time to make the argument.  You may not think that far.  That's okay. 

[billisonboard]

Jun 23, 2023 12:29:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 23, 2023 11:19:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I certainly wouldn't waste my time attempting to use logic nor reason to convince Trump of anything. Nor would I repeatedly attempt it with his supporters. Just as I would not use them in an attempt to get someone who supports an abortion ban on an emotional basis to change their minds and then ridicule them when I fail.

And you seemingly fail to realize that a discussion is rarely limited merely to those who are actively in it.  I have zero hope of ever convincing the poster of what logic and reason dictate, or what facts and truth actually are.  The poster is too far gone for that.  Others are not, and while most participating in the thread agree with me, who's to say there are not others reading whose minds are neither already made up nor closed?  I consider it worth my time to make the argument.  You may not think that far.  That's okay. 

I so totally agree with you that solid arguments focused on supporting choice are worth making. They do have the possibility of convincing others.

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 9:25:00 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 23, 2023 7:48:45 GMT -5 scgal said:

Yet an aborton ends the live of an actual human. No medical definition of life can deny that that. Once conceived there is a life being formed that should without question but in this screwed up word needs to be protected becasuse they cannot speak for themselves. You are also getting this wrong it does not affect me at all I'm advocating for the baby. Thats is why I use my voice to advocate against it

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that


www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/life

www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/


quillette.com/2023/04/17/how-do-we-define-life/

Every one of these definitions dispute your belief that a medical definition of life can deny your position. Defining life is not easy, and people can disagree. A 12 week fetus cannot survive without one specific host. If that host dies, it dies because it is not viable. Requiring someone to do something to ensure the survival f someone else violates the bodily autonomy of that person. Unless you believe we should force people to donate kidneys to those on the waiting list. Explain how forced organ donation is different that forced pregnancy. Use you words and reasoning skills if you have any

Ok here we go all those definitions do not define life. Even in your own words it is not easy. It doesnt matter if a fetus is not viable at 12 weeks it will be in another 3 mos. 

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 12:38:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 23, 2023 12:29:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And you seemingly fail to realize that a discussion is rarely limited merely to those who are actively in it.  I have zero hope of ever convincing the poster of what logic and reason dictate, or what facts and truth actually are.  The poster is too far gone for that.  Others are not, and while most participating in the thread agree with me, who's to say there are not others reading whose minds are neither already made up nor closed?  I consider it worth my time to make the argument.  You may not think that far.  That's okay. 

I so totally agree with you that solid arguments focused on supporting choice are worth making. They do have the possibility of convincing others.

That there is what you're truly scared of. I'm not alone in my thinking there are alot of people who think the same way about abortion. You make your argument and I make mine this is not personal to me although I'm sure some on here actually hate me just because of my position on a few hot topics. 

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

1. you would be suprised how accepted it is (kinda makes you scared)
2. Exactly
3. No its not you are. At least my opinion saves babies

[tallguy]

Jun 23, 2023 13:19:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 12:38:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I so totally agree with you that solid arguments focused on supporting choice are worth making. They do have the possibility of convincing others.

That there is what you're truly scared of. I'm not alone in my thinking there are alot of people who think the same way about abortion. You make your argument and I make mine this is not personal to me although I'm sure some on here actually hate me just because of my position on a few hot topics. 

No, and please don't think that.  Any liberal worthy of the name defends your right to think whatever you want, whether it is guns, abortion, or whatever.

The reason you are not respected is because you want to act on that.  Because you think your opinion should outweigh other people's reality.  You think your opinion outweighs other people's rights.  You do not have that right.  You will never have that right in a free society.  Ergo, the only conclusion is that you, like most typical social conservatives, do not believe in a free society and do not even grant much less respect the rights of anyone who believes different from you.  Why should that be respected?

[tallguy]

Jun 23, 2023 13:22:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

1. you would be suprised how accepted it is (kinda makes you scared)
2. Exactly
3. No its not you are. At least my opinion saves babies

Now you are bordering on both delusion and stupidity.  A substantial majority of Americans believes in abortion access.  Nobody is scared of ANYTHING in this discussion, other than women scared of their rights trampled and their lives endangered.  Public policy allowing people to act on their own opinion encompasses both choices, not just the one you favor.  And your opinion is still not fact.  Never will be.  0-for-3.

[billisonboard]

Jun 23, 2023 13:19:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 12:38:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I so totally agree with you that solid arguments focused on supporting choice are worth making. They do have the possibility of convincing others.

That there is what you're truly scared of. I'm not alone in my thinking there are alot of people who think the same way about abortion. You make your argument and I make mine this is not personal to me although I'm sure some on here actually hate me just because of my position on a few hot topics. 

Scared?

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 23, 2023 13:15:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 9:25:00 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that


www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/life

www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/


quillette.com/2023/04/17/how-do-we-define-life/

Every one of these definitions dispute your belief that a medical definition of life can deny your position. Defining life is not easy, and people can disagree. A 12 week fetus cannot survive without one specific host. If that host dies, it dies because it is not viable. Requiring someone to do something to ensure the survival f someone else violates the bodily autonomy of that person. Unless you believe we should force people to donate kidneys to those on the waiting list. Explain how forced organ donation is different that forced pregnancy. Use you words and reasoning skills if you have any

Ok here we go all those definitions do not define life. Even in your own words it is not easy. It doesnt matter if a fetus is not viable at 12 weeks it will be in another 3 mos. 

In your opinion. The definition of life is not provable, no matter what you wish to be the case. That is what you either are unable or unwilling to understand.

A 12 week fetus is not viable. It is at the edge of viability in another 12 weeks, but only with incredibly aggressive intervention and with an uncertain outcome. Much can happen between week 12 and 24 that could affect its potential survival, and many pregnancies do not make it.

Nothing to say about forced organ donation? You sure have a lot t say about forcing a uterus to be used regardless of whether a women wants to or not.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 23, 2023 13:22:57 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 10:16:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That is your opinion. It is not universally accepted. You just refuse to accept that

It is interesting that the above ends with no punctuation. I could finish it in a few ways: 1) ... it is not universally accepted, 2) ... public policy should allow for individuals to act on their own opinion, 3) ... your opinion is wrong.

1. you would be suprised how accepted it is (kinda makes you scared)
2. Exactly
3. No its not you are. At least my opinion saves babies

60% of people think abortion should be legal in some fashion. That appears to be a majority.

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 13:36:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 23, 2023 13:19:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

That there is what you're truly scared of. I'm not alone in my thinking there are alot of people who think the same way about abortion. You make your argument and I make mine this is not personal to me although I'm sure some on here actually hate me just because of my position on a few hot topics. 

No, and please don't think that.  Any liberal worthy of the name defends your right to think whatever you want, whether it is guns, abortion, or whatever.

The reason you are not respected is because you want to act on that.  Because you think your opinion should outweigh other people's reality.  You think your opinion outweighs other people's rights.  You do not have that right.  You will never have that right in a free society.  Ergo, the only conclusion is that you, like most typical social conservatives, do not believe in a free society and do not even grant much less respect the rights of anyone who believes different from you.  Why should that be respected?

Ok lets play...You say I think my opinion outweighs other peoples rights. What about if there was a ban on elective non-medical abortion, and the SC said there is baby rights here. It is no longer just my opinion correct then does your opinion matter just because you don't agree with me? After all its just your opinion

[Tiny]

Well this is interesting:

www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/health/abortion-is-ancient-history-and-that-matters-today-scn/index.html

The first written references to abortion are contained in an ancient Egyptian papyrus written about 3,500 years ago. The Ebers Papyrus, a medical text, suggested around 1550 BC that abortion could be induced using a “plant-fibre tampon coated with a compound that included honey and crushed dates.”

In ancient Greek and Rome, references to abortion and botanical substances that induce abortion were common in medical and other texts — although it’s not clear how widely they were used, Fissell said.

And there's even a couple of Catholic Saints (who are credited with ending an unwanted pregnancy):

The most famous was Saint Brigid, a lesser-known patron saint of Ireland than Patrick, and one whose standing was honored with an inaugural public holiday this year.

According to a churchman named Cogitosus, who wrote the first biography of Brigid around 650 AD — some 200 years after her birth — she miraculously ended a woman’s unwanted pregnancy, “causing the fetus to disappear without coming to birth and without pain.”

And then there's this:

In ancient Rome, for example, abortion was only an issue for elite women, who were thought to be covering up adulterous relationships. In the Renaissance, abortion was linked to witchcraft. For most of history, abortion has not been an issue about the fetus, like it is today, but rather about women’s behavior.

Not suggesting that the way something is viewed (ethical or moral/immoral) doesn't change over time... just that it's been the last 150 or so years (as per article) that the Christian/Catholic (if you don't think Catholics are christian)  religious have gotten their undies in a bunch over abortions.

The article doesn't discuss the views of the other religions (or the historical views of abortion of the rest of the humans on the planet).  

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 13:53:27 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 23, 2023 13:15:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

Ok here we go all those definitions do not define life. Even in your own words it is not easy. It doesnt matter if a fetus is not viable at 12 weeks it will be in another 3 mos. 

In your opinion. The definition of life is not provable, no matter what you wish to be the case. That is what you either are unable or unwilling to understand.

A 12 week fetus is not viable. It is at the edge of viability in another 12 weeks, but only with incredibly aggressive intervention and with an uncertain outcome. Much can happen between week 12 and 24 that could affect its potential survival, and many pregnancies do not make it.

Nothing to say about forced organ donation? You sure have a lot t say about forcing a uterus to be used regardless of whether a women wants to or not.

Exactly that is why it should be left alone if the mothers health is not in danger