GM had a few of those custom made by a coach works company to see if they wanted to actually release it as a concept. Well, you see why they didn't take it any further. Source: one of the many car shows that I've seen over the years.

Nah, there's an entire industry based on beating off living horses.

That's actually one of the biggest reasons to oppose restrictions at that point in pregnancy. Women who get abortions that late in a pregnancy almost always have exceptional situations, either medical or personal, and as you said, would be harmful. It's kinda like what the Utah governor said about the trans sports bans, there's so few of them and they're doing their best to work things out, that treating the situation with compassion rather than anger and prohibition makes the most sense (though sadly, they then overrode his veto, passing law that screwed over like 4 children in the state, at that time).

Biologically, this is mostly just dogma and legal definitions. Viability varies entirely by the technology available to the caregivers. For example, in low income countries, about half of babies born prior to 32 weeks died. Viability is not a biological fact, but simply shifting human medical capabilities. (Here's more on viability, including the various legal definitions.)

Of course, this brings up a controversial topic. Right now, we have the technology to put a fetus in an artificial womb. Lambs have been grown from 4 weeks in these conditions. The only reason why we haven't seen more experiments on humans is because of ethical issues and laws. This technology effectively puts viability into the first trimester (and eventually, we likely wouldn't even need gestation to start in a person at all).

Treating a fetus as a fully grown human simply because we have medical technology isn't much of an objective distinction, but is a shifting line that moves based on location, financial resources, time, and a ton of luck.

And yes, much of Europe is more backwards than the US is on abortion. It's something we were leading the world on for a long time.

I did, that's what led to that comment. I started to respond to various things, and then as your comment got worse and worse, I deleted that and made that comment. Also, I referenced parts of your comment from all over that comment, so it's a pretty ridiculous take to say that I didn't read it.

Either way, I'm not particularly interested in your discussion. You've made it clear that your stance is that a woman's body is not her's, but exists for the purpose of procreation. You've made this very clear in multiple statements (this requires no assumptions). I don't see me saying anything that will make you change your mind on this, and I don't see a reason to entertain the same BS that was pushed on me as a youth many years ago.

And when you were asked a direct question at the start, you ignored it, so I don't really think you're interested in discussion, either.

Also, there is little discussion available when one side is dodging questions, and the other side thinks that they're also a liar (I'll take the blame on that belief). Like I said, good luck in your path to understanding, if that's legitimate. You'll need it if you think that comment up there leads to actual discussion.

Edit: When I responded, the only thing in the comment above was the first line, and that's what I responded to. Unlike your prior comments, I'm not reading the rest. /u/tomtomcowboy: Editing in a much longer response 15 minutes after I made my response is pretty damned shitty.

> I have heard so many and continue to hear solely emotionally charged arguments and circular ethical stances within the "pro-choice" community.

Your entire comment here is based on emotional outtakes. You have made multiple claims that don't fit reality when it comes to the medical situation. You started with a denial of what I said, and then jumped with both feet into a long argument that a woman's body, mind, and "spirit" are to be devoted to reproduction. You pull the old tired (and always false) line to say that abortion is murder. You even compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust.

You decided to abandon the very things you claimed to base your stance on at the start, and instead relied on BS and emotional crap.

When you make a comment that comes close to living up to your standards, then maybe it'll warrant a response. And maybe if you answered my questions about practicality rather than making a emotional rant, we could have had a better conversation as well.

But I do need to pull this out and comment on it:

> Their body is literally meant to have children

Nobody who claims that they believe in the rights to bodily autonomy of women can ever say this and be honest and consistent. Their body is literally meant to do whatever the hell they want to do with it, because our country is supposed to care about freedom, and that line goes directly against that.

And I don't mean any offense (though I am calling you a liar here), but with that line and the paragraph on how women are "the channel" to some false inevitability, I don't believe most of the stuff that you said about doing research and coming to a new stance. It seems more like you spent some time talking to your pastor and listening to his bullshit instead of looking up how pregnancy or abortion work at all (or the laws as written right now).

It's funny, you start saying that I assumed things. I didn't assume anything. You said who you were and have just reinforced everything that I said above. Good luck in your path to understanding. I was once fooled by the BS that a religion taught me about abortion and pregnancy. You can learn the truth of how female biology works. It's not hard, and there are plenty of resources out there.

I do understand that it is your opinion that women don't deserve body autonomy rights. Generally, in western society, it's considered wrong to deny these rights. Unsurprisingly, some people who oppose these rights point to far right religious bullshit and mention things like "unalive a woman" in order to pretend that they aren't also on that same path. Of course, many others just point to their own religious justification for their stances as the reason to control others on this.

Meanwhile, it's interesting that you say "interfere with another's life in this kind of way", while making an argument that a fetus (a non-person) has the right to do that exact thing. Seems wildly inconsistent.

Either way, it seems your personal perspective on morals go directly against the core concepts of freedom, and you're denying that women should have rights over their own bodies as you or I do, so let's ignore the "rights" argument. Let's just go with a practicality discussion. Why is your opinion here a more practical stance for society?

> arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

This is not remotely arbitrary. It's based on the point where the fetus is no longer a growth on another person, but is it's own person (see below on this).

As compared to pretty much every time based abortion ban, which are generally based on an actual "arbitrary" point in time, sometimes attempted to be justified by calling it "viability", but that's all over the place biologically speaking, while the laws generally aren't. And sometimes they pass laws that are supposed to be based on a heartbeat, but they're actually time based, and the heartbeat of a fetus is mostly just a pulsing tube for the first few month. Also, since a heartbeat itself has no impact on what makes us a person, it's also entirely arbitrary.

So, if you actually believe that it shouldn't be arbitrary, then feel free to join me.

And yes, the laws that we have in the US recognize that a person isn't a person until they're born. Prior to that, they don't have any of the rights that a person has, because "person" is a legal term, not a biological one. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. Most states grant some rights to the unborn, but not based on any personhood.

Correct, we have a term for that time. It starts with a 'b'.

And we do weigh the rights of all of the people involved against each other. Since there's only one person involved until after birth, that's easy. "Potential" people (to use your term) aren't people.

Which makes it an older violation of her rights and not a newer one. Still fucked up.

Maybe that was part of the joke.

Yup.

> especially a wealthy high profile spouse

I was thinking this could be a major impact. She might view life with him, even if he's occasionally abusive, better than life without him (or what she thinks life without him would be like). It sounds awful, but living in luxury with few responsibilities would be worth it for some people to put up with an awful spouse.

You pretty much 100% agreed with me. Smaller companies have a harder time complying with regulations, while big guys don't. This is sometimes a good thing (the local McDonald's is likely cleaner than the local dive), but is often just a symptom of regulatory capture.

This is a factor in so much more than just this issue. For example, on basically any regulatory violation, large companies tend to comply better than smaller ones, but it's much easier to go after McDonald's or Wal-Mart than after the local mom & pops or even the mid-tier companies, and when you do go after the big guys, as you said, there's more money (and better press).

It's also a really well designed car (theoretically, this would have destroyed cars in the past if anyone tried it), and most importantly, it's having the ingenuity and guts to try it, as it's never been done. Something kinda similar has been tried in the past, but it failed. It's basically throwing out all of the conventional wisdom of how to race and doing something different and it working.

Then for some of us, it's also a bit of video game BS mixed in, as some of us would do this kind of thing in racing games in years past (which don't have any track or car damage).

This will likely be made illegal in the very near future to prevent others from doing it again.

Those aren't even close. They're impressive goals, but nothing in there is particularly crazy or out of the ordinary for soccer.

I would legitimately love to see a crazy soccer play that comes close to this absurd move. I've never seen anything close.

It was awesome, fun, exciting, and great, but it probably should be prevented in the future. If nothing else, this becoming a thing in races will result in accidents that hurt people, possibly spectators, eventually. It's the spirit of NASCAR..."That was awesome and brilliant....now never do it again!"

This might be one of the craziest things I've seen in all sports.

It's basically what I did in early NES NASCAR games as a small child. Brakes are for slowing down, and you're supposed to go fast!

McDaniel (in Miami) has a guy for those decisions, and I'd bet that he's basically a random Madden gamer (I'd also say this about McDaniel).

Or, do they know we're there in the same way that we know that the hurricane is coming to wreck us, or a glacier slowly progressing towards an area, or do they know that there's a being trying to kill them.