New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

I knew as I wrote it I would regret answering those questions properly and you wouldn't be capable of getting why you are in the wrong. My bad. I didn't answer for three pages because it's an irrelevant distraction to the problem of abortion, a terrible, flawed argument and most importantly there is no answer that will satisfy you - as you have so graciously demonstrated, now I get the grilling on exactly what I do/did, which of course will never be enough or I will refuse to dox myself just to prove it, which of course means I am wrong to hold the position that abortion is immoral. uncommondenominator wins by stupidity. Congratulations.





So your line of argument is in fact irrelevant to the moral problem of abortion? Which is what I said.


Ask someone else to explain it to you. I'm not sure if you are tall enough for this ride but even if you are it is abundantly clear that you are too emotionally invested to hear it from me.

Gotten good at spotting regret in advance, eh? Have a lot of regrets, do you? Must have gotten good at spotting them somehow. Still haven't mastered avoiding them, apparently...

Prattling about "irrelevant distractions" while moaning about gEoRgE fLoYd!! ! for three pages instead of talking about the topic at hand - WHILE claiming you didn't answer the question cos it was "an unrelated distraction". It's like your list of tactics to try and your list of excuses to give are the same list.

No answer will satisfy me? How would you know? You've barely tried. Three pages in, you dredge up a vague reference to being a paid employee at a place that does things "along those lines", with no further details. For all I know, you were a janitor at a church for the food bank you donated to (cos a pregnant woman MIGHT have gotten something from there! *superhero pose!*). But not-trying seems par for the course. "I'vE tRiEd NOTHING aNd Im AlL oUt oF iDeAs!! !"

"Get someone else to teach you" is also par for the course - "get someone else to do it" seems to be all you're capable of.

Yeah, how silly of me to be emotionally invested in something that's important to me. I should be more indifferent and unbothered, like you, right? "YoU'Re BeInG tOo EmtIoNaL!! !" Yes, cos emotional MUST mean irrational. Because no discussion about abortion would be complete without a little casual sexism.

Not tall enough for the ride? Skippy, you're not even ON the ride, not even TRYING to get on the ride, you're off on the sidelines TALKING about the ride that you've never actually ridden, while OTHER PEOPLE actually get on it and GO.

"I kNeW i ShOuLdNt HaVe aNsWeReD tHoSe QuEstiOnS!! !" Hindsight, eh? It's no wonder you desperately tried to avoid answering them. Your "list of achievements" wasn't as impressive on paper as it sounded in your head, I guess. I will agree, that answering questions in this thread really hasn't helped you make your case, and I don't blame you for avoiding them.

"What do you DO" is NOT a hard question, IF you actually DO things.

The depth and sincerity of your conviction reveal themselves. All talk, no walk, blustering about what OTHER people do, or don't do - while continuing to do nothing but talk and squawk.

Updated list:

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5. "No YoU aNsWeR MY rAnDoM uNrElAtEd QuEsTiOn FIRST!"
6. "StOp AsKiNg ThE qUeStIoN i ReFuSe To AnSwEr AnD KeEp AnSwErInG mY qUeStIoNs"
7. "I cAnT bE dOiNg SoMeThInG bAd If Im NoT dOiNg AnYtHiNg At AlL"
8. "YoU'Re StUpId, yOu"rE sTuPid!! !"
9. Paid employee at (mystery place) that TOTALLY helps unborn babies, in some obscure and unmentionable way!
10. Cleaned out pantry and gave unwanted cans to food bank, postulated the possibility of a pregnant woman receiving their cans in a fanfic.

You'd almost have been better off lying and making things up. I couldn't prove or disprove them either way. But in order to make up things you DO, the idea of DOING THINGS would have to register first. In simple terms, since you don't bother TO DO anything, coming UP with things TO DO wasn't within the realm of possibilities you're used to entertaining.

You think "making noise" constitutes "fighting for a cause"? That's adorable

It's not that you are invested in the argument surrounding abortion (if you were you'd argue properly), it's that you are invested in me. I could tell you that dogs sometimes bark and you either wouldn't agree because I'm the one that said it or you'd ignore it entirely. Then you'd probably ask what I do for dogs.



It can't be said I didn't try. You will have to find someone else to break it down for you. Anyone with a triple digit IQ should suffice, even on your side of the argument. Have them read our exchange.

"YoU'Re NoT aRguInG pRoPeRlY!! ! StOp ChAnGiNg ThE sUbJeCt! DoGs SoMeTiMeS BaRk!! ! WhAt Do YoU dO fOr DoGs?!?!"

"UnBoRn kIdS sHoUlD bE PrOtEcTed!! !"

Ok, how do you protect them?

"StOp AsKiNg SuCh IrReLeVaNt QuEsTiOnS!! ! FoCuS On ThE SuBjEcT! GeOrGe FlOyD bLaCk CrImInAlS DoGs CaN bArK!! !"

Cos apparent, asking what people actually DO to support the causes they whine about, is not actually relevant to the cause in question. According to what I'm going to loosely call your "logic", performing real world acts to actually protect the health and safety of unborn (and born) children has NOTHING TO DO with protecting unborn children. That's like saying "giving food to hungry people has nothing to do with feeding the hungry".

BTW, dogs sometimes bark. Congratulations. You may now put on your sarcastic victory party, or make your pre-chambered comments such as "HeY hE'S lEaRnInG ThErEs HoPe fOr HiM YeT!" or whatever you had planned if I agreed with you that "dogs sometimes bark". Of course, if I had decided to be a smart-ass and argue the point on any level, you'd immediately be all over that to "prove" that I was just arguing to argue. Undercutting my points my fantasizing about it being "personal" somehow. Not sure what your clever plan there actually was, but I'm sure I'm giving you too much credit for it.

"iF yOu WeRe YoU'D aRgUe PrOpErLy!! !" Please forgive me, Your Majesty. I had forgotten that I am not permitted to argue in any fashion other than those permitted by His Grace

Stamp your feet and and raise your voice all you want. Claim whatever you want about me. Surely they'll take hold and become true any minute now. Do you have any ruby slippers or pixie dust? They'd probably help.

"YoU wIlL hAvE tO fInD sOmEoNe eLsE...! !!" That pretty much sums things up, doesn't it? "SoMeOnE eLse! sOmEoNe eLsE! Must be REAL HARD, making noise until SOMEONE ELSE does everything. "BuT I mAdE tHe NoIsE!! !" Yeah... so does a brat who screams till they get their way.

Updated list for His Majesty's convenience.

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5. "No YoU aNsWeR MY rAnDoM uNrElAtEd QuEsTiOn FIRST!"
6. "StOp AsKiNg ThE qUeStIoN i ReFuSe To AnSwEr AnD KeEp AnSwErInG mY qUeStIoNs"
7. "I cAnT bE dOiNg SoMeThInG bAd If Im NoT dOiNg AnYtHiNg At AlL"
8. "YoU'Re StUpId, yOu"rE sTuPid!! !"
9. Paid employee at (mystery place) that TOTALLY helps unborn babies, in some obscure and unmentionable way!
10. Cleaned out pantry and gave unwanted cans to food bank, postulated the possibility of a pregnant woman receiving their cans in a fanfic.
11. "i'M nOt CrAzY yOu'Re CrAzY StOp ArGuInG i'M nOt ArGuInG StAy On ToPiC gEoRgE fLoYd dOgS cAn BaRk!! !"
12.

Yes, one definitely cannot say you're "not trying". As to WHAT you're trying, that's anyone's guess.

The whole point of this topic is the fact that there are new abortion restrictions, and that they have real world consequences. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, there are still consequences associated with either outcome of ideology. If you demand an action that carries with it a consequence, and have no desire to alleviate that consequence, despite having personally demanded it, you're just barking orders and want things your way.

Before you go and claim that both ways are demanding that things be a certain way - they aren't. Demanding that women cannot ever have abortions primarily effects pregnant women, and forces them to do it a certain way. It puts most of the demand on the women actually having the kids. Saying that women should be free to choose for themselves whether they get one is literally saying "I'm NOT going to tell you what to do". If you don't support abortion, don't get one. I don't support buying certain products, but I also don't go around demanding that nobody else buys them either.

Bark all you want. Nobody has to follow your orders.

Find someone else to explain it to you, uncommondenominator. If you ever want to actually argue about abortion, then I'll be waiting.

"FiNd SoMeOnE eLsE!" Yes yes, we've already heard that one. It sums up your level of commitment nicely. So far it's the best advice you've given.

So, I'm supposed to go out and find someone (presumably smarter than you), to convince me of your point of view. Basically, I should go out and convince myself for your benefit so you can be right. What else does His Majesty expect people to do for him?

Nobody had to listen to you. Nobody has to listen to me, either. That's the beauty of it. People can make up their own minds, and DO as they see fit. I don't need people to believe me, or believe in me, for me to fight for what I believe in. That's what it means to have conviction of belief.

I was never arguing with you. I never expected to change your mind. You are irrelevant. You could be any source of hot air being expelled at great length to little effect. I too am irrelevant, in the grand scheme, except to those who I DO THINGS FOR. TO THEM, I made a difference. A REAL difference. Not just heating up a room with my breath while I complain about things, or making demands and expecting "sOmEoNe ElSe!! !" to actually DO all the work.

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5. "No YoU aNsWeR MY rAnDoM uNrElAtEd QuEsTiOn FIRST!"
6. "StOp AsKiNg ThE qUeStIoN i ReFuSe To AnSwEr AnD KeEp AnSwErInG mY qUeStIoNs"
7. "I cAnT bE dOiNg SoMeThInG bAd If Im NoT dOiNg AnYtHiNg At AlL"
8. "YoU'Re StUpId, yOu'rE sTuPid!! !"
9. Paid employee at (mystery place) that TOTALLY helps unborn babies, in some obscure and unmentionable way!
10. Cleaned out pantry and gave unwanted cans to food bank, postulated the possibility of a pregnant woman receiving their cans in a fanfic.
11. "i'M nOt CrAzY yOu'Re CrAzY StOp ArGuInG i'M nOt ArGuInG StAy On ToPiC gEoRgE fLoYd dOgS cAn BaRk!! !"
12. Give up and leave it to sOmEoNe ElSe!! !
13.

Maybe you should find "SoMeOnE eLsE!" to do your arguing for you, too...

Then what was the point of all this? Honesty would be best here, though it will be difficult to admit.



It doesn't have to be someone smarter than me. Just someone who is not emotionally invested in our back and forth. Argument is how we learn, how we refine our understanding of a topic or the world as a whole. You should do it not for me, but for yourself.

"WhY aRe YoU eVeN hErE?! HoNeStY wOuLd Be BeSt HeRe, ThOuGh It WiLl BeDiFfIcUlT tO aDmIt!! !" How was this "clever" plan supposed to work? I take offense and start trying to defend my integrity, rather than adhering to the point? The fact that you cannot understand my reasons says more about the narrowness of your thoughts than it does for the existence or validity of my reasons. It's adorable that you think I'm obligated to take your silly accusations seriously

I am here to state my position. If someone decides to engage with me, I'm happy to engage with them in return.
Nothing more, nothing less.

So now you expect "SoMeOnE eLsE!! !" to explain to you what your reasons for participating in a dialogue were? You mean to tell me that YOU don't even know what your reasons are for participating in this discussion? You've certainly invested a lot of time involving yourself in something which you don't even know why you're here.

Your reasons should be your own, and not depend on your imaginary expectations of how you think other people should respond to you. If your hot air mighty words can't even spur yourself into action, what hopes do they have of driving others to act?

I apologize to His Majesty for not conforming to His expectations of what He believes a debate should be. Near as I can tell, His Majesty mistakenly believes that a debate or argument MUST have a "winner" and a "loser".

Now it seems I'm supposed to go find someone else (not YOU of course) to convince me of your point, so that you can be right, and that's for MY benefit somehow. You sound like a whiney kid trying to con their parents into the idea that if they REALLY loved you, they'd let you eat cookies for dinner, not cos YOU want them, but cos THEY should WANT you to HAVE them, for THEIR benefit.

Funny, I've been to quite a lot of school, and I don't remember arguing with the teacher - or anyone - ever being necessary to learn things. I've never hard to argue with the book I was reading to learn things from it. When I ask someone for the time, we don't have to bicker first for the information to reveal itself.

When you say "arguing is how we learn", I think what you're really referring to is "shouting people down into compliance". In essence, "throw a tantrum till I get my way". I'm sure that, in the past, burying people in loud noise until they can't deal with it and give up or go away seemed like a "win", and may have been mistaken for being "right", instead of simply being "loudest".

This isn't "debate club". It's not about "winning and losing". The end result of a debate or argument doesn't have to be a "right" side and a "wrong" side. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then you're playing a completely different "game" - which would explain why you whine so much about how I'm not "arguing the right way".

It's worth mention that "the right way" that His Majesty expects me to argue, conveniently requires that I just accept what His Majesty says is true, and to not argue, but sit nod and agree as His Majesty regales us with His decrees, so that we may go forth and do His Will, FOR Him.

"YoU ShOuLd LeT mE hAvE mY wAy!! ! NoT fOr Me, BuT fOr YoUrSeLf!! !"

Funny how the same people who holler about "openness to new ideas" also already seem to know everything, and are exempt from listening to a word said by others - unless it agrees with them. They don't even follow the very rules they try to demand others adhere to. Yet another fine example of "sOmEoNe ElSe, NoT mEeEeEeEEE!! !"

This has been a surprisingly long and repetitive "lAsT dItCh!" to try to get me to concede to your mighty tantrum logic. The diminishing enthusiasm behind your impotent squealing reminds be of a noisy air leak, running out of pressure, to a brief final flatulent squeak.

No trap, it was simply a reminder to be honest with yourself when thinking about what is really motivating you here.



You don't engage. All you've really done is restate your position when challenged, while deflecting the challenges themselves.



That does not surprise me, given the state of today's education. Well, thank I don't know if he will read this when he block quotes, let's hope not. I've noticed a tiresome pattern in his responses and just for fun I'm going to predict what he does next - assuming he doesn't read this and ruin the fun. He is so far beyond proper argument so my responses here, while not false, and however lame some of them are, are mainly designed to enrage him further. From previous posts, because he appears incapable of original thought and response, what he will do is try to reuse and rework my responses (No U) in this post against me, in the hopes that they will enrage me - because they enraged him. e.g. accuse me of projection or sarcastically call something I wrote clever in a similar fashion to the way I did. Let's see how many we get. <Insert teacher name here> for your performance then. They let you down. My teachers always encouraged argument, with them personally or other students, seeing it as vital to critical thinking ability.



I did not say this, nor does it follow from anything I have said.



Again I haven't said this or even implied it, you are just building those straw men and tearing them down. I imagine you are just spouting all this garbage in the hopes that your own poor performance will go unnoticed amid the flood of semi-literate ranting.



I'll just let this stand for eternity in the bowels of the internet.



What a devastatingly clever comeback to the statement that argument is a learning method. Really, well done. Totally refuted that. My poor bunghole.



You are unintentionally hilarious. I'm not the one screaming and shouting here. I'm not the one having a "tantrum". Re-read your own posts and compare them to mine. How many words do you capitalise? How urgent is the tone of your writing? The truth is that because you are in a blind incoherent rage for being challenged, which because you are less than adult, have taken as an attack on you personally. You are the one desperately firing off non-sequiturs and straw men in an attempt to strike back. You are assuming that I am doing exactly the same thing. It's called psychological projection and you are wrong.

You still seem to have this silly idea that I care what you say about me. Or that saying thing about me magically makes them become true.

"YoU sHoUlD bE hOnEsT aBoUt wHaTs ReAlLy mOtIvAtInG yOu!! !" Say it like you mean it. Maybe then it will become true

Yeah, between answering all of your silly questions, and asking a few of my own, I've hardly engaged at all Quite a silly claim from the "GeOrGe fLoYd! bLaCk CrImInaLs! dOgS cAn BaRk!" guy. "StAy On ToPiC!! ! BaRk BaRk! No you're dOiT wRoNG! yOu'Re ToO eMoTiOnAl! bArK bArK!"

"i'M nOt HaViNg A tAnTrUm YoU'rE hAvInG a TaNtRum!! ! i'M nOt PrOjEcTiNg YoU aRe!! ! No MoRe NoN sEqIuToRs!! ! BaRk bArK gEoRgE fLoYd NaRwHaLs BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!! !"

Your "logic" is, because I use capitalized letters and a serious tone, I'm "too emotional"? This from the guy who just made a post who's sole purpose was to go after me. Just cos capitalized letters is internet parlance for yelling, doesn't mean that if I take the time to use capitalization for tonal emphasis in text - which otherwise has no tone - means I'm foaming at the mouth with a desperate "need" to "attack" you.

"BeInG cHaLlEnGeD!! !" There you go again, thinking you or your opinion matters.

What, are you accusing me of doing all the things you've done, so that when I point out the absurdity of that, you can claim I'm 'PrOjEcTiNg"? You played the "pRoJeCtIng" card, so I suspect so.

Don't blame other people for your inadequacies.

Tell me again. How exactly do you protect unborn babies? Oh, right. You don't. You just make noise. "Doing things" is for "sOmEoNe ElsE!! !"

As a neutral observer to this debate who actually leans more towards the abortion side, if I had to say who won this debate so far it would have to be Mikah. Again this is just my unbiased opinion.

I'm kinda knocked out from my vacation today and working out at the gym so maybe my decision is wrong, but so far none of Mikah's central arguments have been refuted. All ive seen were sarcastic barbs and attacks and snarky comments, but not actual refutations of his main arguments.

Personally I lean towards allowing abortion in cases when deemed necessary. Just my 2 cents

Mikah's central argument seems to be that fetuses are humans and that everything should be done to preserve human life.

His support for restrictive abortion laws seems to be based on his belief that more restrictive laws will reduce the number of abortions.

However, this doesn't seem to be the case.

That report also stated something like 22 million unsafe abortions annually, with an estimated 47000 dying from it. Now, they estimated this 22 million figure by multiplying the number of women who were hospitalized due to complications from an unsafe abortion by 2-7x. Which means that the number of women who have complications from unsafe abortions is anywhere from 3-10 million. There are no figures for this but some of these complications undoubtedly include infertility, which is a tragic loss of potential human life.

So, unless Mikah can provide evidence to the contrary (i.e more restrictive abortion laws reduce number of abortions), if he wants to preserve as many human lives as possible, he should actually be for less restrictions on abortion, not more.

Yes, and no. I'm not a pacifist. I would phrase it: Unborn life is human life and human life should not be taken without very good reason.



Yes, provided the punishment is severe enough and enforced properly.



I can provide some contrary data for the UK at least, if you really want it. The "plague" of backstreet abortions and mothers dying was the main argument for extending legalisation here. The data available from medical reports in 1950s and 1960s suggests this was a mischaracterisation of what was really going on and even by their own claims, the number of abortions hasn't remained steady by any metric, but risen dramatically since "legalisation", which is what you might expect if the law was having a deterrent effect.

But then again even after proving that the number of abortions has risen substantially, you could also reasonably counter that that has risen due to cultural changes and attitudes towards sex, not a change in the law. Data of this sort, properly analysed, is a friend to neither side in this debate, it has many problems, and without dissecting the WHO report right now, I'd remain very sceptical of their claims. Measuring the prevalence of something illegal is fraught with difficulty and can often end up with wild estimates that usually only reflect the bias of the author, rather than reality.

But before I go dig out that old data on request: the main problem with this argument is this also sidesteps the morality of abortion (should theft be legal, safe and regulated because thieves sometimes die while thieving? Can you actually prove the laws against theft have a deterrent effect? - You can't stop theft, you can only stop safe theft. If you'd really accept this as an argument to legalise theft, I guess I'll go dig out those reports...). It strikes me that the argument that the "law has no deterrent effect" only appears when people want to do away with a law they already disagree with..



Again, I'm not a pacifist, nor a Catholic demanding that we should be fruitful and multiply. Just that unborn life is innocent life and should not be ended frivolously.

---

Whatever The Figures Are From the UK; They Are Minuscule Compared to the World Health Organization
From The Scope of ALL World; Yes, 22 Million Unsafe Abortions, With An Estimated 47,000 Dying From It;
And Accordingly At Least Millions of Complications Ranging From Harm to Permanent Disability Relates

A Different Part of Morality

Than Black And White Think

Of A So-Called Golden Rule

Of i Get to Live And So

Do Fetuses; Well,

Guess What; Yes,

There Are Mothers;

There is Harm;

Yes, There is Raping;

And Yes, There is Maiming

And Killing That Are part of the

Unsafe Abortion That Is Going to Happen,

No Matter What Opinions Come And Go on

At Brick And Mortar Church/State Level; or on,

HAha, Discussion Board Level Same; Do the Least Harm

Is Surely An Ethical And Moral Position Remaining As Well;

It's Not Much Different Than Folks Who Morally Believe They

Should Be Able to Go Unmasked in A Deadly Pandemic; As Oh

Their Freedom Is More Important Than Spreading A Deadly Pandemic;

In This Case, The Reality That Humans Are Humans And No One is Going to

Rid Abortion Through Laws, When Human Nature is A REAL PART OF THE EQUATION

OF NATURE OVERALL; GUESS WHAT, Abortion Is A Natural Part of Life; Like It or not,

Civilized Human

Beings Will

Use Rational

Means And Technology

To Lesson the Harm, Rape,

Maiming, And Killing; Or they will

Sink to Ignorance of Third World Countries

That Most Often Put 'Church/State' Above Common Human Decency;

in Respect of the Fact That Life Takes Sacrifices For Other to Keep Living, Healthy, And Well...

Breathing Life

Takes Sanctity

Over Non-Breathing

Life among Some Folks;

Of Course With Limitation,

Of Human Development; In this

Case, Morality is Relative; Yet No One

is Gonna Win An Argument When Morality IS RELATIVE;

Some Folks Aim to Make Folks See the World, The Way they Do;

Other Folks Take the Do Least Harm Approach of a little more Cognitive Empathy As well...

Left
in

Tact;

There Are No
Winners When The

Blood Flows on Either

Side of 'This Moral Equation';

Yet What There is, is the Ability

To Do Least Harm; The 'WHO Figures' Are

Convincing enough, No Matter What May

Or May Have Not Happened Back In Tiny

England in the 50's and 60's; Before it Became the Bigger UK Now...

If Someone Believes Abortion is Immoral That is Surely Fine; If Someone

Believes That Those 47,000 or so Women Dying And Millions Suffering Harm

And Maiming is Okay, i For one Believe that is Morally Reprehensible; Different

Strokes for Different Folks; Perhaps it's A Matter of How Much Pain And Suffering

The One Who Views

The Topic At Hand

Has Actually

Witnessed

And Experienced in Life;

Hmm.. Tends to Flavor Life

With Do Least Harm, At least in

my Case...

NO ONE IS EVER GONNA CONVINCE ME
THAT DO LEAST HARM IS IMMORAL; PERIOD,

In Regard to All BREATHING Life And NATURE IT Stands UP on...

Other Than That Abortions Are At the Lowest Rates Since 1973,

In The United States; Credit Lifting Blinds Of Ignorance And Doing What Works

To Actually Effect Improvements in Life Standards For All That And Who are Considered...

Effecting Ignorance

In 'The Name

Of Morality'

Isn't Going to

Lessen The Pain,

Misery, Suffering, Maiming, And Death....

https://apnews.com/article/7e45fe6f70cf ... ef9ad2187c

---

Last edited by aghogday on 10 Jun 2021, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So how severely should the girl in the original post be punished for being raped and refusing to carry the result?

At what point does she get to own her own flesh again because as long as she's forced to carry a pregnancy that she doesn't desire to carry and didn't choose to conceive she's being denied that basic right.

As I said earlier I'd tolerate exceptions for rape and incest (0-1% of all abortions carried out today according to some), while recognising it is immoral. For the girl in question, there is also a medical argument for abortion, given the extra risks at her young age.



Much is said about forcing a woman to remain pregnant and birth a child she doesn't want. Yet almost everyone arguing against me accepts that late term abortion should not be legal, which "heinously" forces a woman to remain pregnant and give birth - the only difference is I disagree on where that line should be drawn. This is why I keep asking anyone who brings it up whether they think abortion should be legal the day before the due date, because if autonomy is one of the most important of rights that should logically follow.