Counterhill: All pregnancies are the Property of Government Lawmakers If and Only If they can ensure a full, painless removal and no further consequences for the bearer.
Is THAT why gun owners treat their guns like babies? Carrying? Bearing? They use the same language. Creepy…
I was born at 6 months, about a year b4 it was legal. I was a problem pregnancy and I’m grateful to be here.
But: if I was aborted, I wouldn’t know the difference. If she lost me to complications I wouldn’t know the difference. I wouldn’t exist. And, that’s fine.
I’m speaking for myself. I was the property and responsibility of my mother until the moment of my birth. After birth, if she was a bad mother, the state could take me away.
Now, taken too far, you could end up in this situation:
How deep into the human body should the State be allowed to go?
It has to be considered “one person” before that because there’s no separation possible that would result in “two people”.
Still, it’s an aggressive stance to force your will upon the human bearing the fetus. What gives them less worth?
Thanks Cassey. You took a hard position to hold and I appreciate it. I *actually* _would be_ “pro-life *if* there was some “magical way” to teleport the fetus out and a stable whole life care system in place to take care of this product.
But there’s not. Just a lot of “IT’S H E R F A U L T” crap. The way *I* see it? She’s taking RESPONSIBILITY because NO ONE ELSE will.
Maybe they can blow up men’s prostates so they’re big enough to be wombs and transplant into pro-life men activists.
I’m trying to comprehend your position at the moment, that’s all. If you were to go that route, I’d do it at 3 months, as it’s about 3 months that you start to see learning taking place, some basic recognition of self.
I think the first 3 months are basically post-birth trauma. It’s a huge change of environment and location. Got sea legs still.
Oh, dude, “late term”abortions are exceedingly rare as it is. Most of what you see is absolute trashy hype.
The reason why I’d support the OP’s position is that putting restrictions in place makes things exceedingly difficult for women who are ALREADY IN exceedingly difficult positions, for the few that would need or choose late term.
I remember pro-life propaganda videos from the 80s + early 90s that told the same story although the real world #s didn’t match up to their claims at all.
Silent scream I think was the famous one.
After a baby is born, there’s lots of ugly stuff that has to be done. Life or death, it’s not pretty either way.
I was born at 6 months. TINY. 1972. I could’ve been fullly blind but only partly. I could be fully deaf but only partly. They diagnosed me with cerebral palsy and I went through extensve physical therapy ’til I was 4.5 and was able to attend regular school. I could hide my problems well and appear normal and still do.
I’m grateful to be here. Now, my mom didn’t have a choice in 1972. Neither did any other woman have a choice.
For all I’m grateful for, I’d still stand behind it being the bearer’s choice. It’s their choice and responsibility. If the state wants it, the state will have to take it away and raise it.
That’s fine. But for this to be a politically viable / pragmatic position, how do you enact it?
To me, the solution is that the State then must take responsibility for that being, just as they would if if was 6 yrs old.
Have you seen the state of the foster care system in the USA? It needs help. Without a fully functioning infrastructure in place, to me it would be premature to give birth to a novel program of compelled aftercare.
They can’t handle the current caseloads and you want to add more? The quality of the program _does_ matter.
If you want to just “dump and run”, you might as well continue things as they are instead as you’re not attempting responsibility for either way.
I don’t know. I also don’t want to find out. With the system as it stands, the mother is taking responsibility. If you want to change that, it’s you who are shifting responsibility to the state. I’m ok with the current system.‘