France makes abortion a constitutional right in historic vote

a reply to: Vermilion

She did. Because the thought experiment she was getting into didn't involve a fully formed birthed new born or baby, or late term fetus.

She was specific, an embryo. If fully formed new borns don't even have full rights, then why would an embryo have anything close to it?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Somehow i suspect France is not going anywhere anytime soon.

And if 85% of the public supports the amendment, then it's the will of the people given the majority.

Surely you cannot have an issue with that?

So if 85% of the people support dog bumming ... will of the people, something something. Surely you cannot have and issue with that.

What kind of logic is that?

a reply to: Venkuish1

Great . The World could use less Frenchmen .

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, a human life is a human life. I won't argue with you on that point, but now we enter the realm of which group of people do you pull the track switch to be run over by the run away trolley.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, a human life is a human life. I won't argue with you on that point, but now we enter the realm of which group of people do you pull the track switch to be run over by the run away trolley.

I think pre-born are perhaps the most innocent of all the developmental stages.

a reply to: Halfswede

What a pathetic attempt to pervert the will of the people.

And simple logic really.

The majority rules and 85% of the French public support the amendment.

If dogs are your speed, I have to point out that bestiality is a crime in most of the US states, never mind in most other civilized nations around the world.

a reply to: Annee

and all those women will have a penis lol

a reply to: DBCowboy

I find this statement emotional. I agree with you. I really do, but in a heartbreaking practical manner, pre development stages are so innocent, they don't even know suffering.
Human life once born, is a life of suffering. From day one outside the mother, you could argue it begins shortly before birth, but, once you're outside the mother, that's it, welcome to the world, and the parents bare the burden to line you up for a life of carrying subjective rights.

If a woman decides to not bring a person into the world of suffering based on their own experiences, and abides by what is a logical time frame to make a sound decision, I don't see an issue. And you might, I won't argue. And thus brings me back to the debate is like beating a dead horse.

a reply to: Venkuish1

all that ... and you still didnt answer the question....

where did the use of "fetal viability" originate? where was this "so scientific you just dont understand" term coined?

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

all that ... and you still didnt answer the question....

where did the use of "fetal viability" originate? where was this "so scientific you just dont understand" term coined?

Do you need the history of how the term was 'coined'?

Don't you know how terms appear or you think the medical experts have created a term out of nowhere?

Why not read the links I have posted. It's about time you start reading some peer reviewed scientific publications (if you can). Same advise I gave to creationists.

Medical and scientific definitions are not 'coined' they are formed based on hard evidence and facts.

One more link

In short, it's the point at which a fetus is capable of living outside the womb with medical intervention.

www.bloomberg.com...

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Somehow i suspect France is not going anywhere anytime soon.

And if 85% of the public supports the amendment, then it's the will of the people given the majority.

Surely you cannot have an issue with that?

So if 85% of the people support dog bumming ... will of the people, something something. Surely you cannot have and issue with that.

What kind of logic is that?

The comparison you made is just beyond belief...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Halfswede

What a pathetic attempt to pervert the will of the people.

And simple logic really.

The majority rules and 85% of the French public support the amendment.

If dogs are your speed, I have to point out that bestiality is a crime in most of the US states, never mind in most other civilized nations around the world.

No. The point was your logic of: because the will of the people was such and such, "Surely you cannot have an issue with that" is not any kind of logic whatsoever.

Having issue with something is about morals. The will of the people is not. It is a logical fallacy infer that one surely shouldn't take issue with the "will of the people".

a reply to: strongfp

“parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs.”

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror.”

“For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

Doom and gloom from a lady married 50 years who never had any children.
Funny how she can attempt to school anybody on any of these specific issues.
She’s just another hollow ideologue with zero experience.
Truly the hero of abortion.

a reply to: Vermilion

I think you're missing the point.

Rand was a staunch advocate for libertarian values and even wrote several essays to show that selfishness can be a virtue, hence the co publication of the book "the virtues of selfishness". She's in full argument mode against forcing someone to give up their entire life for the unborn.

Again, growing up in a socialist society she most likely was subjected to women being heavily coerced to carry a fetus to term no matter what.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Medical and scientific definitions are not 'coined' they are formed based on hard evidence and facts.

Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [59]

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

Medical and scientific definitions are not 'coined' they are formed based on hard evidence and facts.

Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [59]

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Which is in agreement (last paragraph) with the current understanding and definition of what fetal viability is.

I don't think anyone has doubts about the meaning of the term. Medical and scientific definitions are not coined, they are evidence-based and evidence-driven.

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Venkuish1

Good for France and good for woman rights.

The contrast between France and Texas.

In France abortion is a constitutional right and in Texas abortions are banned with the threat of jailing any physicians who may assist in an abortion or even jailing the pregnant women who may seek an abortion.

If you removed the names of the locations, I would have thought you were discussing some backwards middle eastern country run under sharia law - instead, it's just Texas.

And they are very proud of their laws.

Abortions have been banned for good
And state executions place Texas first among all other states in the US

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Halfswede

What a pathetic attempt to pervert the will of the people.

And simple logic really.

The majority rules and 85% of the French public support the amendment.

If dogs are your speed, I have to point out that bestiality is a crime in most of the US states, never mind in most other civilized nations around the world.

No. The point was your logic of: because the will of the people was such and such, "Surely you cannot have an issue with that" is not any kind of logic whatsoever.

Having issue with something is about morals. The will of the people is not. It is a logical fallacy infer that one surely shouldn't take issue with the "will of the people".

It's a political/social issue and a moral/ethical issue. The decision should be taken by the people and not by politicians or bureaucrats.

a reply to: Halfswede

If you cannot fathom why the concept of the majority rules is the colour of the day or somehow take issue with it.

That's your own bag of rusty spanners to carry and contend with.

As to morals you just tried to equate "dog bumming" with 85% of the French public support the abortion amendment and fell on your arse.

Seek help and staying away from animals would be my best advice to you Halfswede.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: strongfp

“parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs.”

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror.”

“For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

Doom and gloom from a lady married 50 years who never had any children.
Funny how she can attempt to school anybody on any of these specific issues.
She’s just another hollow ideologue with zero experience.
Truly the hero of abortion.

There is also doom and gloom from very young career-minded women who never want children and some of these young women explain why in the link below.

www.msn.com...

Women bear the brunt of child rearing and have very little help from their governments.

Birth rates will continue to decline, so governments need to start paying attention to women's needs in society if they want more workers to fill the tax coffers. Maybe that's why France's government is allowing it's country to be inundated by migrants. This will be the only way to populate countries if women stop choosing to have children.

www.msn.com...