Bitcoin Forum

Morning gents 😊  Was curious to the opinions on the board. Personally, I dont see that a whole lot has changed; this is pretty much Roe v Wade. The "termination up to birth" consideration is a rare case; a very low percentage of abortions go on past five months, let alone nine. And typically in the event of medical necessity. It's a no brainer in those cases, hell yes abort the child if it will not be viable. To not do so is medically irresponsible.

The practice is legally contentious in the first place; most doctors wont touch abortions of this type for the legal liability it creates. So as I see it, this essentially decriminalized abortion in these cases; this is the most profound change by far. Potentially life saving procedures should not have the threat of legal force behind them; this ties the hands of caregivers to provide the most informed situational solutions for the health of a patient.

And empirically, we have seen that restricting early term abortion seems to actually increase the rate at which late term abortions occur. Seriously.

Is the poor reaction to this just a product of the politics we live with now, or am I missing something?

And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.

On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.

Thoughts?

I think arguments for and against here are often mischaracterized. In my personal opinion, I find abortion a repugnant act, but also recognize that there are some valid arguments for it. It seems to me that we have gone well beyond these valid arguments now and have just gone full blown allowing "abortion" on demand, even after birth. The new laws on the books and New York and being debated now in Virginia demonstrate this.

In my opinion most of the push back against abortion is a result of the shift from abortion being a rare last resort, kind of intervention, to a method of contraception in lieu of others. There is no reason abortion needs to be used as a form of contraception for consensual sex. By definition this is a choice, and you also have the choice to use contraceptives of various sorts to prevent insemination to begin with, or God forbid not engage in sex with some one you don't plan to partner with long term.

There are a lot of things people are not taking into consideration when they look at this debate. Of course it is about as white hot of a contentious debate as any, so most tend to avoid it all together, and as a result get very limited superficial information. Also frankly, if you want real information on this subject, you have to look at some VERY depressing, unpleasant, and sick facts, and there is not much motivation for people to jump into that dumpster of medical waste.

For one, no one ever bothers informing these women that they could have long lasting health issues resulting from abortion, and that each abortion they have makes their chances of raising a viable child later more slim. It seems to me this is just a denial of personal responsibility being wrapped in a veil of choice, and having it being maximally abused until everyone is acclimated to the new standard, and then pushing it even further so no one ever has to take responsibility for their actions. This is a dangerous trend leading to Eugenics and genocide.

This is going to be turned into a system for exterminating disabled children. If women can chose to "abort" the baby at birth, then if the child has a disability they can choose to simply kill the infant. Furthermore no one addresses the profit motive here for keeping these discarded children alive just a little bit longer in order to harvest their very valuable tissues. This is going to get out of control really fast, especially when you combine it with a state run single payer healthcare system. You will not be paying the bills, so you don't get a choice any more when it really comes down to it down the line.

I don't think abortion needs to be banned, but I definitely think the direction we are heading is in Mengele territory, and we need to have a major correction on how approach the subject of abortion as a culture, and treat it more like an emergency medical procedure than a more complicated morning after pill.

Tough nut to crack it is and we have to remember how rare those medically recommanded abortions are.
Never was a fan of abortion sponsored by the state, to me it looks to much like the eugenic plan for population reduction. However law should recognise the cases where such procedure is unpreventable, inevitable in order to save mothers life. Yet with such late upper limits for the abortion to be legal, state and society enters a very dangerous territory of determining who's life is more valuable to preserve. Mostly because five month old pregnancy has some actual chances for survival outside the womb.

I would be keen to accept those regulations under one condition: it can't be sponsored by the state.
If it is, than every member of given society is putting his hand to it and one should have the right to be free of such burden.

When I was younger, I used to be totally pro-choice, but now I'm mildly pro-life. When I was pro-choice, it was based mainly on:

1. The "evictionism" argument: the woman's body is fundamentally hers to do with what she wishes. If eg. you live at the south pole and someone barges into your house and must stay for 9 months or else die from the cold, your property rights allow you to refuse them, especially if their presence creates risks for you.
2. Unborn children aren't developed enough to be moral agents with rights. If you treat them the same as full humans because they can (at certain points) feel pain, have a heartbeat, etc., then you might as well consider animals as full humans too.

My opinion on the evictionism argument was changed by the counter-argument that it's more as if you hit someone with a car far from civilization, and they're going to die if you don't shelter them in your house. By bringing a child into life knowingly or through carelessness, you've created a sort of tort against both them and your partner which obliges you to at least try to keep the child alive until birth.

I still somewhat agree with #2, which is why I'm only mildly pro-life. If the subject has never been able to form thoughts objecting to it, I can't consider it fully murder, at least.

That said, I find it very problematic on an intellectual level to set hard timeline-borders such as "it's totally OK 1 second before birth, but murder 1 second after birth". If you believe that abortion is OK just before <time X> then the only consistent position is to believe that it's not much worse just after <time X>. So in the Northam controversy, I actually find his "post-birth abortion" position more intellectually honest than many of the more extreme pro-choice advocates, even if I strongly disagree with him. I think that you have to define "moral agency" as a continuous function over time, starting at conception and ending at some point in the future, perhaps even after birth. So perhaps killing the fetus should be treated as "75% murder" both 1 second before and 1 second after birth, for example. I'm not advocating any specific function, though -- I suppose it should be based on the local cultural standards and the available scientific data.

It's frustrating when one side of this issue totally fails to perceive the other side's legitimate arguments. Many people scream "you're killing babies!" or "you want to control women's bodies!", completely closing their minds to the opposing arguments.

These sorts of tricky issues which will never have a single universally-agreed-upon answer is a major thing which attracted me to David-Friedman-style anarcho-capitalism, which in a very natural way allows for different people with different ideologies to have different laws.

---

My instincts have developed as I've gotten older. The thought of abortion used to not bother me at all, but now it makes me uncomfortable even very soon after conception. But we must remain aware that this sort of instinctual discomfort is an external factor enforced by evolution, and it is disconnected from rationality.

Also, from a utilitarian perspective I totally reject over-population arguments. Humans create usable resources on net through innovation - practically-speaking, resources are not some limited pool which we all fight over in a zero-sum way. The more people, the better.


Agreed, while I don't think that this kind of thinking is all that common, where it exists it is really unpleasant.

Oh no?

Thou shalt NOT Kill

This is another issue that always seems to get swept under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable. What about a father's reproductive rights? While I don't advocate for women being forced to carry children against their will, as we explained earlier getting pregnant is largely a choice to begin with as we have many options to prevent this even if you are sexually active. Both parents choose to engage in sex.

After that point the man has no further say in what happens, but he is also financially responsible for the upbringing of that child until 18 years of age if the mother so chooses. It seems to me there should be some kind of counterbalance of rights and responsibilities here, or at least some kind of option for the father to be released of these rights and responsibilities if the child is carried to term against his wishes. Without this there is quite a clear double standard of rights. This combined with some kind of clearly defined term limit (with the usual physical health, rape, incest, etc exceptions), and perhaps some informed consent protocols IMO would go a long way toward deflating this conflict of ideologies.

Right! The more people, the more CO2. The more greenhouse gasses, the warmer the climate. The warmer the climate, the more moisture and heat in the atmosphere. Northern Canada and Siberia (and even Antarctica) will warm up, and there will be more room for habitation. The Sahara will become a fertile jungle (almost) from the CO2. More moisture in the atmosphere will cause more H2O2 to be made naturally, and it will flood the waters and the atmosphere, killing of all kinds of pathogens.

There is a whole lot of room to inhabit the oceans. Ocean farming will have to become stabilized. World controls will be needed to keep people from destroying nature, and thereby destroying other people.

We need more people, and the earth can handle them. The more people, the more geniuses. The sooner we reach the stars... and figure out how to live to 1000-y-o so that we can enjoy the stars.

Abortion only means destruction, and women are being whipped up into a freedom frenzy by the elite, just to keep us all slaves longer through abortion.

8)

There are a number of times I have had conversations on this subject with friends who were fundamentalist Christian, and they felt very deeply about it. Almost to the point of being able to call them single issue voters.

I don't find myself getting emotionally aroused much about this subject. I am willing to ascribe that to basic personality flaws, rather than any grand ethics and morality.

I find all this to be a bit of a non debate.

There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.

But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.

How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?

As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.

For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^


Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.

So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.

Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.

I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?

Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this...


No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away...

Good to know thinking there is no absolute answer here is the same thing for you than supporting genocidal eugenics programs

Which is, clearly, an opinion brought here only to show that there are even more extreme positions than the ones I was criticizing.

I'm explicitely starting my post pointing out that extreme opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration.

I'm sorry it's hard for you to consider that someone can be aware his own opinion shouldn't be applied on a practical basis.

I considerer anything under 1 year old isn't really human. I also know it wouldn't do any good to apply this opinion on a real life society. I said it explicitely.

So shut the fuck up and as usual try to read before answering something completely irrelevant.

Thanks for yet another brilliant gem from MOgliE. I read your words just fine. Children under 1 are not human in your opinion. Got it. Carry on Dr. Mengele.

Children under 1 are not human in my opinion and I'm aware this idea shouldn't be applied in society as I don't see what good it could do.

But I guess it's easier to just get rid of the second part of what I write.

Funny how you're as fast at raising the "nazi" argument than the left you criticize so much ^^

As a doctor, I had some interesting points I could have made here, particularly in relation to those posted by theymos, but I see it's taken us less than 10 replies for this thread to degenerate in to accusations of eugenics and Nazism...

Ironically, etymologically speaking, fetus (or foetus, in the case of the Irish, Commonwealth and British - since at least 1594 in all probability) from the Latin fētus, means “offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young” when it is clear that fetus does not sound like, and neither is a baby at all; those tiny, extremely fragile little humans mothers and fathers become very emotional and protective over.

In fact, addressing an embryo (called so from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy) as a "developing baby" is not only a misnomer, but also misleading at the same time.

An embryo is an embryo, just as a fetus (called so after the eighth week of pregnancy until the moment of birth) is a fetus, and neither of these to be considered a baby, which is what happens when a woman brings forth (gives birth to) her and her husband's offspring.

These are the medical facts, nothing more, and nothing less.

So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age? Or the fact that these new laws will allow the killing of born children, which would then easily degenerate into a Eugenics program from there? These are not wild baseless accusations, America has been here before... Hitler himself even mentioned American Eugenics programs for giving him inspiration for some of his laws.

Right, because that's exactly what I said. ::)

Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison. Do you deny these events are part of the history of the US, and that these new laws are opening the doors to all kinds of abuse?

At least for those of us in the USA, we should be knowledgable about the history of eugenics and the progressive trends including abortion. Those ideas were generated here, and carried over to Germany from here.

Calling them "Nazi ideas' and "thread degenerating into accusations of Nazi..." isn't really historically accurate.

Sounds like your heart is in the right place but why do you feel the Bible is not clear on the topic? Both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not murder." and the New Testament "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." are very easy to apply to the situation.

Your free will argument is flawed. We do indeed have free will but that right stops when it infringes on the rights of others. Your right to life supersedes my right to kill you because you inconvenience me. The fact that you may be elderly and weak or disabled and disadvantaged or even a newborn and utterly helpless changes nothing in the moral calculus.

Abortion is not a "health outcome" it is the powerful and fully grown exercising power to snuff out the life of the helpless because that life is young, weak and dependent.

It is an act of barbarism that differs from the barbarism of earlier eras when helpless children were left to die because they were not born perfect or sacrificed to pagan idols only in manifestation not essence.

^^^ In addition, when a man and a woman get together and make a baby, they are doing so in trust. The beneficiary is the baby's soul/spirit. The baby's body is the property in trust. The man is the grantor, and the woman is the trustee.

A woman getting an abortion is a trust breaker. And the trust she breaks is one that gives a body to an innocent soul/spirit.

8)

The medical and religious ethics correlate quite well when it comes to human lives. Medically, aborting a viable fetus is synonymous to taking a life. Unless the fetus is not medically viable or not performing the abortion could risk the life of the mother, then I don't think abortion should be legally allowed.

A part of the New York abortion law states that, "A health care practitioner may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s  life or health.”

 the part of this law I don't support is the issue of legalizing the abortion occuring before the 24th week of pregnancy (The 3rd trimester) Owing to the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place before the 24th week of pregnancy, the law is virtually covering over 90% of abortions without any segregation as to whether the fetus is be fit for delivery or not.

 In my opinion ( also from the religious and medical perspective), Provided the fetus is viable and it's delivery will not risk the life of the mother, the baby reserves the rights to be born. Even if the mother would give him out to a charity home of some sort, LET HIM STILL BE BORN.

The link between me thinking any baby under 1 is not really more than an animal before the age of one because it has no self consciousness and Nazis being?

Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.

Never said that.
Never said that.
What's the moral error in saying that someone having different mental abilities is different?

I say under 1 year old you have less mental habilities making you closer to an animal than once you grow and get new mental habilities.

You are the ones saying I want to kill babies under 1 year old Oo

In my opinion before child birth, the mother should have full right to choose abortion or not. Some women might suffer mental, finance, or any terrible reason to keep the kid, if our sociality isn’t able to help woman give birth straight away, then don’t punish the woman if she don’t want to continue their pregnancy. I know there are many religious believe this is very cruel, but I think it is more cruel to punish a woman and give birth to unwanted child, it is painful to see abortion, I don’t think a woman want to harm their own body or own child for not reason.

I have no idea what your personal proclivities towards murder are and they are irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong in saying that human infants are more like animals than human adults. That is simple observation. However you said something very different.

Your claim is:

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

Whether you personally want to kill babies under one year of age is irrelevant. If people of your ideology are allowed to obtain power they will be missing the necessary moral check that makes it inconceivable to strip away the rights of the weak and vulnerable.

You are confused. You have mistaken right from wrong and up from down. Your confusion if allowed to spread and grow unopposed would someday allow people to lawfully murder babies under the age of one. Many people are confused like you are and as a result New York now allows fully developed and viable babies to be murdered up to the day of delivery if the mother can find an abortion doctor willing to claim that the babies continued life harms her mental health.  

The woman made a deal with the man to get pregnant if it came to that. If she wanted to be safe, she should have abstained.

Now that she is pregnant, she should kill the baby?!?

There might be a few cases where arrangements need to be made... like rape, or where the birth of the child will for-a-fact kill the mother. But the arrangements shouldn't include death of the child.

8)

I suspect this whole blackface event was designed to distract from these new post birth abortion laws...

Abortion, is a no no for me. If an unmarried partners get pregnant, then its best to keep the baby. The society would talk for a while and then move on with their daily lives and then if its in marriage, the child should be spared. The child could be given to the convent after child birth for a proper care, later on the parents can re-adopt the child when their finances are better.

Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.

If we will remove religious beliefs and will focus on facing and solving the problem. Abortion law is the last option for avoiding such things.
I heard a discussion about it before and the person who was supporting abortion law were convincing.

Abortion law must consider only reasonable abortions such as,

- A woman who was raped by a man and got pregnant.
- An underage girl who will not be able to sustain and be liable to her child because.
- A person with a disorder that if she can barely do the labor and could die with it.

Abortion is the last option to control birth. Since we are human, people will not be able to avoid having premarital sex 100%. Contraceptives must always be there to avoid the abortion and that is a law we need to focus on executing.

You seem to believe in a completely binary world...

Are you aware that midles exist? I stand my claim saying children under 1 are not humans or that you need a different word to designate them as they are still to developp anything that would make them different from a puppy.

But not being fully human doesn't mean you have no right.

You seem to believe that what you think is morally right but please demonstrate so.

Considering a 2 months old child as a human being is stupid. A 3 year old dog is closer to a human than a 2 month old child in terms of intelligence, skills, affection, cognitive maturity... Of course it doesn't mean that the 2 month old child isn't extremely important as it has the potential. But that's just potential.

And stating this isn't a crime or morally wrong whatever you and your religious clan say.

[/quote]Taking a decision on this issue is very difficult.
Abortion can occur if there are serious genetic defects and abnormalities.
When is abortion necessary?

Conditions for therapeutic abortion
There are three strict and clear conditions committed by doctors and determine the position of the doctor of the abortion process is rejected or rejected, these conditions are:
• Pregnancy risk: pregnancy is considered a risk to the mother's life.
• The usefulness of abortion: that termination of pregnancy saves the mother from health risks for its continuation.
• Abortion safety: that abortion does not cause health problems that may be worse than continuing pregnancy.

The first reason why some of us don't agree about the abortion because it is actually a sin and against the religion. Having a baby is a blessing but killing it is no mercy. Mostly in the 3rd world countries people who are lack of education about planning is more active in having so many babies.

Now that we've established the 1 year olds can be put out of our misery as well as, of course, fetuses, we need to 'start a conversation' about the 'highest and best' use for the otherwise wasted tissues.

Clearly our advanced societies recognize the virtue of using these otherwise wasted tissue for 'science' (and 'intact cases' command a premium for some reason), but some people may have spiritual needs which can be satisfied by 'doing things' with the tissues.  Doesn't it make sense that the parents of the tissue should be able to reap the financial rewards by selling the tissues to occultists?

Just asking.

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

The only reason to play such word games is if one has an agenda. Human beings always attempt to define some other group of humans as sub human or not human as a way to ease our conscience before we get on with the extermination/genocide/murder we want to commit at the moment.

We do not need a new word for human beings under the age of one because we already have a fully functional one. We call them babies. Babies are human beings.

^^^ Absolutely right! Abortion is murder, and legalized abortion is legalized murder.


If you don't want children, abstain from sex.

If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. The man is the Creator, the woman is the Trustee, and the child is the Beneficiary. Since it is a trust, it falls under the law. When laws are made that break the trust through abortion, the lawmakers have become illegal and unlawful.

8)

Clearly you're all on the "good" side of moral here.

Telling a woman to suicide rather than to abort...

I guess that rape childe are also the " sacred trust between a man and a woman " Badecker. Obviously.


No one ever established that it's just a stupid deformation of my words from CoinCube.
Never said 1 year old had no right to live....


So there is no difference for you between the growth of a baby elephant and a human baby?
And you're the one talking about scientific ground?

The only thing that makes human fully different from animals is self consciousness and the ability to conceive the world outside as a different part from us. Cogito ergo sum.
This is an ability acquired by everyone around the age of 1. Until then, what's the difference between a baby and a dog? You're going to talk about the soul?

Give me one element, just one, that make a human different from an animal and that is developped in a 5 months old and I'll withdraw my claim as you will have brought to my attention an objective element.

Until now all you've done is said how "morally wrong" it is.

Great but your moral means nothing to me.

But rape isn't the thing we are really talking about.

If a woman kills somebody, she should be executed just like anyone else... for murder. The suicide idea is simply the way she should murder her child if she is going to do it at all.

The rapist should be executed whether or not there is an abortion. A smart person will make a signed agreement with the prostitute/slut so that he will have to pay rather than die.

8)

You're making generalisations hence including all cases.

No abortion in case of rape?
No abortion in case of important health risk for the mother?
No abortion in case of definitive and important physical/mental/genetic malformation of the baby?

The difference is that elephants don't abort people. If they did, they should be put to death for murder, just like if they killed any human, or just like any human should for killing another human.

You only have the belief that humans are simply greater animals. There is much evidence that humans have a soul. Your religion that they don't is just another religion.

The evidence is the religions throughout the world. Science has only made some of us THINK that we are superior enough to be able to get out of being religious. Science is blinding us to the reality that we are religious. Science has become our religion when it so blinds us.

8)

The only time there should be abortion is when it is medically certain that the mother's life is endangered by the birth. Most of these cases, there can be cesareans done to save both mother and child. There is such a thing as adoption if the mother doesn't want the child.

Let death come naturally or by accident - as it does for all of us in old age, if we aren't killed in a car or plane accident first - not by murder. Not by abortion murder.

8)

I disagree, I guess even a rape victim won't abort the baby if she really have the heart, regardless of what had happened to the mother it's still unjust to kill the baby and don't let him live and isn't his fault, anyway. Just let the baby live.


Of course, this will be case to case basis and as what baddecker said, it's medical circumstance.

I will only support abortion in rare cases and when it is highly needed. It is because there is exactly some random situations in which we feel the need to do it. An example that is in my mind is when the mother and child are both in danger during pregnancy and the only last resort is to give up the unborn baby.

Now when we do talk about fvcking without thinking that being pregnant is really going to happen wil be the fvcking reason to abort a child is just fully bullsh*t. Not because you were given a feedom to decide it makes you right or not being liable for it. That is why we have laws to follow 

I'm against the law and authority telling people what to do with their own bodies, therefore I believe abortion should be legal, just like suicide is. It shouldn't be morally accepted though, and a young woman who gets pregnant and decides to kill the child, because she still wants to have fun, should be treated like human trash and shunned by the society. Every action has consequences. If you murder someone, don't expect a kind word and a pat on the back.
I'm against abortion morally, and wouldn't agree if my woman wanted to do it (unless the pregnancy would endanger her life, or the child was brain dead), but I wouldn't stop someone else from doing it. It's their choice and their life.

Yeah but what about the NEW abortion laws this whole thread is about?

since women are being forced upon all social responsibility of what comes out of their stomach they should be able to decide that themselves.

So does anyone have anything to say about THE NEW ABORTION LAWS WHICH ARE THE ACTUAL TOPIC of discussion?

which abortion law? which country?

my oppinion is fixed, the problem is that women have to carry the financial burden of raising children, if thats the case they should have freedom to do an abortion

If only there was a convenient thread filled with discussion you could read to answer all of your questions...

Completely no difference, my point still stands. If someone wants to do it, it's not up to the government to stop them. I wouldn't do it for moral reasons, regardless of the age, although, like I said, if the life of the woman was on the line I wouldn't think twice. The life of the mother should always come before the life of an unborn child, regardless of the stage of development it is in.
And what if the child is disabled and fully developed, you might ask? I'd say it's up to the doctor. They were taught not to do harm and they should be able to refuse to abort a developed pregnancy if they see that it's more of a mother's fancy than a necessity.

this topic started in a way that it is not clear what the legislation is.

Just go away if you aren't going to bother reading the thread or commenting on its actual subject matter.

if you want people to respond to your "topic" then write it appropriately, i cant see anywhere which court in which country decided what exactly.

i just asked a simple question which court in which country. and you didnt bothered to answer a simply question, meaning for me you are just rambling with your thread.

when you discuss laws, and legislation write in first sentences

court name, country name, date, decision etc.

thats how discussions about laws always are being held.

I am very sorry you are too stupid/lazy to read what is already there.

you should be sorry that you are to stupid to write text according to priority, so people can use your "text" efficiently.

you are here in an international forum, where people from all over the world meet, you have to point out which court even in the headline of this topic, which you didnt.

you have enoguh space in your text in your headline to actually add a countryname or cityname to it. so the audience knows what you are talking about.

but you didnt this looks to me more like a sign of arrogance as if everyone is supposed to care about "your" abortion law.

Yep, I am arrogant for expecting you to reply to the topic of the thread located in the title. Not my thread BTW, but you are smart, you know that already right? I guess it is my fault you didn't bother reading the thread which is literally about "my" abortion law, which you came here to post about not even bothering to read the thread. It is arrogant of me to expect you to discuss the topic of the thread. Lets talk about the rare endangered narwhal instead.

country of that law into the title!

learn to use language so its useful and helpful not confusing.

and time+ressources draining

for example

So, let's talk about that new abortion law from france

Well articulated argument against the recent abortion laws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqS4qFc_I6A

Though I understand the idea, it's impossible because you can't know if the sperm has impregnanted the lady so early.
Then what is your definition of "unique life of its own"?
When the female and male gamete met? When they start multiplying? When you vaguely recognize the shape of a bean? When the eyes appear?

The reason people support late term abortion is because as long as it's in the womb, the foetus is constantly evolving in something more complex and more complete. There is no possibility to define an objective limite saying "before it's a foetus and you can abort" and "after it's a baby and you can't abort". As long as it's in the womb, it's a foetus, not a living thing. It's by definition a parasite sustaining on its host. You can get rid of a parasite if you wish.
yeah, all those empty orphanages  ::)

Some people would like to adopt yes. But orphans are more numerous than possible parents.
Now grant homosexuals the right to adopt and... Maybe you can reach an adoption demand high enough to sustain the unwanted pregnancies? Don't know.
Problem is that you talk about a potential life.
Pills is destroying potential life, condoms are taking potential lifes. Masturbation is taking potential life.

Potential isn't a valid argument or else you have to apply it everywhere.
What you don't understand is that NOBODY says that. Anyone pro choice simply consider that a 6 months old foetus is just a foetus, not a human being. So abortion is not murder, it's just a chirugical operation to remove an internal parasite. Nothing wrong with that.
Which is fine as long as you're consistent and consider you should also ban pills and condoms as they take away potential lifes.

i am pro choice, women should have the freedom to be strong independent and free individuals,

there are actually technologies out there under development which allow men to reproduce without women.

women should have freedom to pursue their dreams careers. like politician, warlordess  :D, presidentess etc.

all those pro life, anti abortion, anti same sex marriage are in the end just money printing central bankers and other capitalists, that want to "educate" human money earning cattle to deliver profit and value to their fucked up currencies they create, for their individual private wealth gain.