Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And I thought you totally incapable of spewing up the parasite and Stalin bullshit and actually believing it. You’re dumber than you act, Tigger.
[/quote]

Nice save. Wouldn’t want people to get the impression you’re mature or anything, now would you.

[quote]
By this line of thinking a preemie baby delivered by Cesarean section, let’s say due to a being in a traffic accident or such, could be legally killed by his/her mother OR legally obligate his/her mother to sustain its life.

Talk about choice.[/quote]

That doesn’t follow. Getting a Cesarean doesn’t mean you surrender custody of the child. If the pregnancy is advanced enough that that child can be born prematurely and survive, then a mercy killing is not necessary.

You’ve set up a situation where killing is not the lesser of two evils, this is not analogous. [/quote]

What do you care about the lesser of two evils?

I guess it only comes into play when you get to commandeer the options a child will have and decide for it that it will be better off being murdered than having a chance to live, regardless of the conditions it will face.

282

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

Well, that’s your own preference. It’s my preference too, don’t get me wrong, but since it is her uterus I don’t think I should have any say. [/quote]

Should you have any say if the child is one week old and lying in the crib? After all it’s her crib.

What if the child is one week old and lying on her abdomen? It’s her abdomen after all.

What if the child is one week old and lying in the front seat of her car? It’s her car after all.[/quote]

See, I knew you could make good arguments if you choose to. You’re smarter than you act, Push =p

By keeping the baby throughout the pregnancy and birthing it you are legally agreeing to care for it either for life or until you surrender custody over to someone else. Not doing so is a breach of your “legal contract” so to speak. Unless you’ve made a similar agreement in terms of remaining pregnant, you aren’t obligated to do so. [/quote]

Your terms of contractual obligation are arbitrary.

The actual decision and undertaking of the responsibility begins at the procreative act, hence, the contract with the child begins at its conception.

If you want the contract to begin with the magical, life-bestowing breaching of the vaginal threshold you are going to have to explain what mystical properties it is that the vagina contains that make the organism within the womb somehow different in kind with the organism that has luckily managed to run the vaginal gauntlet. [/quote]

The difference is once the child is born killing it as a way of surrendering custody is no longer the lesser of two evils.

283

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

Well, that’s your own preference. It’s my preference too, don’t get me wrong, but since it is her uterus I don’t think I should have any say. [/quote]

Should you have any say if the child is one week old and lying in the crib? After all it’s her crib.

What if the child is one week old and lying on her abdomen? It’s her abdomen after all.

What if the child is one week old and lying in the front seat of her car? It’s her car after all.[/quote]

See, I knew you could make good arguments if you choose to. You’re smarter than you act, Push =p

By keeping the baby throughout the pregnancy and birthing it you are legally agreeing to care for it either for life or until you surrender custody over to someone else. Not doing so is a breach of your “legal contract” so to speak. Unless you’ve made a similar agreement in terms of remaining pregnant, you aren’t obligated to do so. [/quote]

Your terms of contractual obligation are arbitrary.

The actual decision and undertaking of the responsibility begins at the procreative act, hence, the contract with the child begins at its conception.

If you want the contract to begin with the magical, life-bestowing breaching of the vaginal threshold you are going to have to explain what mystical properties it is that the vagina contains that make the organism within the womb somehow different in kind with the organism that has luckily managed to run the vaginal gauntlet. [/quote]

The difference is once the child is born killing it as a way of surrendering custody is no longer the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

But I thought you were a moral nihilist who doesn’t believe in evil. Just sounds like more arbitrariness, based upon your past statements.

284

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

Well, that’s your own preference. It’s my preference too, don’t get me wrong, but since it is her uterus I don’t think I should have any say. [/quote]

Should you have any say if the child is one week old and lying in the crib? After all it’s her crib.

What if the child is one week old and lying on her abdomen? It’s her abdomen after all.

What if the child is one week old and lying in the front seat of her car? It’s her car after all.[/quote]

See, I knew you could make good arguments if you choose to. You’re smarter than you act, Push =p

By keeping the baby throughout the pregnancy and birthing it you are legally agreeing to care for it either for life or until you surrender custody over to someone else. Not doing so is a breach of your “legal contract” so to speak. Unless you’ve made a similar agreement in terms of remaining pregnant, you aren’t obligated to do so. [/quote]

Your terms of contractual obligation are arbitrary.

The actual decision and undertaking of the responsibility begins at the procreative act, hence, the contract with the child begins at its conception.

If you want the contract to begin with the magical, life-bestowing breaching of the vaginal threshold you are going to have to explain what mystical properties it is that the vagina contains that make the organism within the womb somehow different in kind with the organism that has luckily managed to run the vaginal gauntlet. [/quote]

The difference is once the child is born killing it as a way of surrendering custody is no longer the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

But I thought you were a moral nihilist who doesn’t believe in evil. Just sounds like more arbitrariness, based upon your past statements.
[/quote]

Yeah, you’ll find I’m going to say a lot of things that seem contradictory if you don’t understand the meaning behind it.

Before you (or Pat… Pat’s always got something to say) say “well isn’t that the exact same statement you criticise US for using?”

Yes. Yes it is. The difference is I have no problem telling you what I mean in a straight forward manner.

I don’t view murder as immoral (because I don’t view anything as immoral), however it is my personal preference that people not don’t get murdered needlessly.

Since killing a child that can physically sustain itself is needless (all else being equal), it is logical hypocrisy.

285

I hate this thread ,The devil in me says , no ,The UNBORN is from FUCKING Mars , They are vnot FUCKING Human they are martians

286

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I hate this thread ,The devil in me says , no ,The UNBORN is from FUCKING Mars , They are vnot FUCKING Human they are martians [/quote]

…what?

I wouldn’t say that an unborn child isn’t human. Yes, it’s underdeveloped, but it still contains all our human chromosomes. It’s arguably as human as a child is.

289

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

…I don’t view murder as immoral (because I don’t view anything as immoral), however it is my personal preference that people not don’t get murdered needlessly…[/quote]

I see. So if they “need” murdering your “personal preference” changes. Gotcha.

You flat out are piece of work on this thread.[/quote]

I’m assuming you support the army? Are you against the murdering they deem necessary?

My personal preferences are relative to each other. I’d prefer if no one ever had to get killed, but that’s just not the kind of world we live in. Sometimes ending someone’s life is the lesser of two evils.

290

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

Well, that’s your own preference. It’s my preference too, don’t get me wrong, but since it is her uterus I don’t think I should have any say. [/quote]

Should you have any say if the child is one week old and lying in the crib? After all it’s her crib.

What if the child is one week old and lying on her abdomen? It’s her abdomen after all.

What if the child is one week old and lying in the front seat of her car? It’s her car after all.[/quote]

See, I knew you could make good arguments if you choose to. You’re smarter than you act, Push =p

By keeping the baby throughout the pregnancy and birthing it you are legally agreeing to care for it either for life or until you surrender custody over to someone else. Not doing so is a breach of your “legal contract” so to speak. Unless you’ve made a similar agreement in terms of remaining pregnant, you aren’t obligated to do so. [/quote]

Your terms of contractual obligation are arbitrary.

The actual decision and undertaking of the responsibility begins at the procreative act, hence, the contract with the child begins at its conception.

If you want the contract to begin with the magical, life-bestowing breaching of the vaginal threshold you are going to have to explain what mystical properties it is that the vagina contains that make the organism within the womb somehow different in kind with the organism that has luckily managed to run the vaginal gauntlet. [/quote]

The difference is once the child is born killing it as a way of surrendering custody is no longer the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

But I thought you were a moral nihilist who doesn’t believe in evil. Just sounds like more arbitrariness, based upon your past statements.
[/quote]

Yeah, you’ll find I’m going to say a lot of things that seem contradictory if you don’t understand the meaning behind it.

Before you (or Pat… Pat’s always got something to say) say “well isn’t that the exact same statement you criticise US for using?”

Yes. Yes it is. The difference is I have no problem telling you what I mean in a straight forward manner.

I don’t view murder as immoral (because I don’t view anything as immoral), however it is my personal preference that people not don’t get murdered needlessly.

Since killing a child that can physically sustain itself is needless (all else being equal), it is logical hypocrisy.[/quote]

You have not answered my question as to what the difference is between a child on one side of the vagina and a child on the other. How are these magical “sustaining” properties bestowed upon said child simply by merit of making it to the other side? What is the definition of “sustain?”

The whole thing still sounds mighty arbitrary to me. Almost sounds as arbitrary as, like, sending some people to hell just because they like butthole.

291

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

Well, that’s your own preference. It’s my preference too, don’t get me wrong, but since it is her uterus I don’t think I should have any say. [/quote]

Should you have any say if the child is one week old and lying in the crib? After all it’s her crib.

What if the child is one week old and lying on her abdomen? It’s her abdomen after all.

What if the child is one week old and lying in the front seat of her car? It’s her car after all.[/quote]

See, I knew you could make good arguments if you choose to. You’re smarter than you act, Push =p

By keeping the baby throughout the pregnancy and birthing it you are legally agreeing to care for it either for life or until you surrender custody over to someone else. Not doing so is a breach of your “legal contract” so to speak. Unless you’ve made a similar agreement in terms of remaining pregnant, you aren’t obligated to do so. [/quote]

Your terms of contractual obligation are arbitrary.

The actual decision and undertaking of the responsibility begins at the procreative act, hence, the contract with the child begins at its conception.

If you want the contract to begin with the magical, life-bestowing breaching of the vaginal threshold you are going to have to explain what mystical properties it is that the vagina contains that make the organism within the womb somehow different in kind with the organism that has luckily managed to run the vaginal gauntlet. [/quote]

The difference is once the child is born killing it as a way of surrendering custody is no longer the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

But I thought you were a moral nihilist who doesn’t believe in evil. Just sounds like more arbitrariness, based upon your past statements.
[/quote]

Yeah, you’ll find I’m going to say a lot of things that seem contradictory if you don’t understand the meaning behind it.

Before you (or Pat… Pat’s always got something to say) say “well isn’t that the exact same statement you criticise US for using?”

Yes. Yes it is. The difference is I have no problem telling you what I mean in a straight forward manner.

I don’t view murder as immoral (because I don’t view anything as immoral), however it is my personal preference that people not don’t get murdered needlessly.

Since killing a child that can physically sustain itself is needless (all else being equal), it is logical hypocrisy.[/quote]

You have not answered my question as to what the difference is between a child on one side of the vagina and a child on the other. How are these magical “sustaining” properties bestowed upon said child simply by merit of making it to the other side? What is the definition of “sustain?”

The whole thing still sounds mighty arbitrary to me. Almost sounds as arbitrary as, like, sending some people to hell just because they like butthole.
[/quote]

Let me put it like this. Abortion as it stands right now does in fact result in a dead fetus. I can’t deny this. What I also can’t deny is that it is better to end the life of a fetus while it’s still a fetus than to have it live out a life void of love or even a parent. I would argue that abortion is better than birthing the baby simply to throw it into an orphanage. However, once the baby is born, the damage is done. If you want to get technical, the damage is done by about 20 weeks pregnant as an abortion after that is not a good idea at all, even from a pro-choice perspective.

Once the baby is physically able to survive without being hooked up to the mother, killing it is not necessary. The last couple months of pregnancy, for example, the baby doesn’t technically need the mother to survive. You can remove the baby and it can carry on life more or less normally. The “sustaining powers” don’t come from being birthed.

… if this came off as vague at all, it’s because this is a UFC night, meaning the duration of my shift at work practically doubled and I’m one tired tiger.
I’ll rephrase anything that didn’t come out right in the morning.

292

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You have not answered my question as to what the difference is between a child on one side of the vagina and a child on the other. How are these magical “sustaining” properties bestowed upon said child simply by merit of making it to the other side? What is the definition of “sustain?”

The whole thing still sounds mighty arbitrary to me. Almost sounds as arbitrary as, like, sending some people to hell just because they like butthole.
[/quote]

Let me put it like this. Abortion as it stands right now does in fact result in a dead fetus. I can’t deny this. What I also can’t deny is that it is better to end the life of a fetus while it’s still a fetus than to have it live out a life void of love or even a parent. I would argue that abortion is better than birthing the baby simply to throw it into an orphanage. However, once the baby is born, the damage is done. If you want to get technical, the damage is done by about 20 weeks pregnant as an abortion after that is not a good idea at all, even from a pro-choice perspective.

Once the baby is physically able to survive without being hooked up to the mother, killing it is not necessary. The last couple months of pregnancy, for example, the baby doesn’t technically need the mother to survive. You can remove the baby and it can carry on life more or less normally. The “sustaining powers” don’t come from being birthed.
[/quote]

Still arbitrary.

What is so special about self-sustainment? That just means that there will be some way to keep it from dying if you remove it from the womb. But a child at ANY stage in development up to maybe 6 or 7 years, likely older, is going to die without appropriate care. I have a 2 year old son. If I left him in the house for a week by himself, I would probably likely come back home to a dead kid. Hence, he is not self-sustaining.

Second point, I’m certain there are many MANY adopted kids who would argue with your assessment that their lives where not worth living. Who are you, or I, or anybody to decide the value of the life or another to the point of denying it. Some of the greatest contributors to society have been orphans and people who were born into shitty circumstances. I would even argue that many of these people would not have done the things they did or become the people they did if they did not have the fire of adversity to harden and forge them.

293

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I hate this thread ,The devil in me says , no ,The UNBORN is from FUCKING Mars , They are vnot FUCKING Human they are martians [/quote]

:slight_smile:
Devil in you my ass, I see the good guy trying to peak out from the bushes.

294

[quote]kamui wrote:
even without re-criminalizing abortion, there is probably many things we could do, as a society, to ensure that abortion remains a “last ditch effort”.

If we really wanted to…

Allowing women to freely kill whoever they want in their own uterus is definitely not one of them.

[/quote]

What are some ideas you have?

295

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Abortion comes at a price to the mother as well. If I were a woman I would personally not get an abortion unless it was absolutely necessary. having said that, each woman has the right to decide which risks they want to take with their own body and if she REALLY wants to go out and get 10 abortions a year, fine. It’s her choice. I don’t like it and I can’t imagine why anyone would do that or be like that voluntarily, but it’s none of my business. [/quote]

I just had a major surgery and I am pretty sure if I had 10 more, you wouldn’t give a damn.

What I want to know is why wouldn’t you like it?

296

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You have not answered my question as to what the difference is between a child on one side of the vagina and a child on the other. How are these magical “sustaining” properties bestowed upon said child simply by merit of making it to the other side? What is the definition of “sustain?”

The whole thing still sounds mighty arbitrary to me. Almost sounds as arbitrary as, like, sending some people to hell just because they like butthole.
[/quote]

Let me put it like this. Abortion as it stands right now does in fact result in a dead fetus. I can’t deny this. What I also can’t deny is that it is better to end the life of a fetus while it’s still a fetus than to have it live out a life void of love or even a parent. I would argue that abortion is better than birthing the baby simply to throw it into an orphanage. However, once the baby is born, the damage is done. If you want to get technical, the damage is done by about 20 weeks pregnant as an abortion after that is not a good idea at all, even from a pro-choice perspective.

Once the baby is physically able to survive without being hooked up to the mother, killing it is not necessary. The last couple months of pregnancy, for example, the baby doesn’t technically need the mother to survive. You can remove the baby and it can carry on life more or less normally. The “sustaining powers” don’t come from being birthed.
[/quote]

Still arbitrary.

What is so special about self-sustainment? That just means that there will be some way to keep it from dying if you remove it from the womb. But a child at ANY stage in development up to maybe 6 or 7 years, likely older, is going to die without appropriate care. I have a 2 year old son. If I left him in the house for a week by himself, I would probably likely come back home to a dead kid. Hence, he is not self-sustaining.

Second point, I’m certain there are many MANY adopted kids who would argue with your assessment that their lives where not worth living. Who are you, or I, or anybody to decide the value of the life or another to the point of denying it. Some of the greatest contributors to society have been orphans and people who were born into shitty circumstances. I would even argue that many of these people would not have done the things they did or become the people they did if they did not have the fire of adversity to harden and forge them.
[/quote]

By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?

297

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Abortion comes at a price to the mother as well. If I were a woman I would personally not get an abortion unless it was absolutely necessary. having said that, each woman has the right to decide which risks they want to take with their own body and if she REALLY wants to go out and get 10 abortions a year, fine. It’s her choice. I don’t like it and I can’t imagine why anyone would do that or be like that voluntarily, but it’s none of my business. [/quote]

I just had a major surgery and I am pretty sure if I had 10 more, you wouldn’t give a damn.

What I want to know is why wouldn’t you like it? [/quote]

Well, I would give about as much of a damn actually. I don’t like it because it is extremely reckless. I’d like to think there aren’t people in the world who would go to such great lengths to put themselves at risk for something so needless.

298

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support.

299

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
By self sustaining I mean it can survive without being physically attached to a “host”.

You wouldn’t kill a self-sustaining child because it’s unnecessary. If the child can’t survive on it’s own outside of the mother, killing it is a mercy. It would die either way. If the child can, then killing it is not a mercy. Note that this is not my main reason for being pro-choice as obviously you can make this argument about anything. That is, you can say that a born child may grow up to hate life, so it’s best to kill him just in case. My main issue is a woman’s right to chose what sort of parasitic organisms live off of her.

Sure, abortion does kill a potential “person”, but so does master bating. So does menstruation. So long as the fetus isn’t self aware and can’t feel pain, what’s the difference between killing it and killing millions of sperm cells (here comes Push’s “gold bars”, I just know it)?
[/quote]

Again, wrong. Masturbation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. Menstruation will never ever ever, if left alone, result in a new human life. If push’s gold bars come, they are well deserved. There is a MASSIVE difference between a fertilized egg that will, if left alone, result in a zygote that will, if left alone, result in a fetus, that will, if left alone, result in a born child. At every step of the way in this process, that creature that will finally become a born child is a human life. It is never NOT a human life as I believe you, yourself, have admitted. Saying it doesn’t “feel pain” at this stage or that (highly debatable) and that it is not “self-aware” (completely arbitrary) changes not a single thing.

As far as the redefining terms thing you got all righteously indignant toward me about earlier, see yourself above. Calling the new human life a “parasite.” Redefining and dehumanizing it to justify murder. Exactly in the manner that the sons of pigs and monkeys and the Tutsi cockroaches were dehumanized before they where systematically exterminated.

You see, calling yourself “pro-choice” really is a misnomer. It is MY side that is actually pro-choice. I promote the freedom of a woman and a man to choose TO or NOT TO engage in activity that will possibly result in the formation of a new human life. If they choose TO engage in this activity and a new human life is formed, I promote the freedom of that new human to choose for itself whether it will live or die.

You see, when I call your side “pro-abortion,” I’m actually being euphemistic and kind. The taking of a completely innocent human life is NOT a choice. That’s murder, bub. And that’s what you support. [/quote]

A fertilized egg will result in a human life if left alone. So? I’m saying it can’t feel pain (before 20 weeks or so) and is not self aware because neither are gametes. You’re better off killing it before it matures into a self-sustaining life-form then to make a this mistake a life time burden. At least, one should have the choice.

You’re “pro-choice” because you give people the “choice” to agree with you? Wow, how generous. So you suggest that, instead of a quick and easy solution involving no pain and no loss of cognitive life, we force everyone in the world who has an unwanted pregnancy to go through the pregnancy and raise the child (or send it to an orphanage) so we can wait for it to decide if it would rather have been aborted back when it had no self-awareness and therefore wouldn’t care either way… brilliant.

Not that you would support this persons desire to kill themselves even if that’s what they ended up choosing =/

You Christians really like to tell people what to do…