Then you can’t impose that belief on others. Sorry Alabama, but at least you’re still brother and sister.
According to John Locke.
The accepted consensus is that a 12 year old is a child. There is currently no consensus on when a clump of cells in the womb becomes a full fledged human life.
I think this is bogus.
We should leave this to science and when a child can medically be sustained and grown to full term, which is roughly 22-24 weeks now - it is a life without question for anyone sane and with rational thought.
4 Likes
I agree with this. I think a rational cutoff for abortion (or an abortion that kills the unborn) is viability.
2 Likes
I agree with your view here and most abortions occur well before this timeframe. But since no one will take a stand at this reasonable middle ground we are stuck in endless arguments.
24 weeks I think is about the earliest for viability right now.
1 Like
Endless arguments with no rational basis or to just placate derangement. I don’t entertain those.
My 2 nephews and niece (triplets) were born at just shy of 23 weeks. They are almost 9 years old now and perfectly healthy.
I think now 22 weeks is the earliest as confirmed by medicine.
3 Likes
Glad they are healthy being that early. Modern medicine is indeed pretty good.
2 Likes
Parts of Minneapolis/ St Paul area would disagree.
That’s the democracy everyone claims to champion.
1 Like
They need to maintain an average IQ of 80.
It’s the opposite.
How ya figure?
Most people don’t want that kind of democracy.
1 Like
Yep. Totally agree.
You are arguing that a human fetus isn’t a human? This is a stupid semantics argument that only even works if you throw out biology.
Okay, let’s use your definition. What is your definition. It isn’t even that it’s the right definition, it’s the fact that it’s the only definition.
Right, but your opinion that a fetus isn’t valuable is wholly dependent on the opinion that human life is NOT inherently valuable. You must start from the premise that you do not believe in inherent human rights. A reality most on the pro-choice side obfuscate. It also means that your opinion on valuation isn’t any better or worse than anyone else. The only difference is that a Pro-life argument can be rationally coherent.
Zero. This is a red herring. A procedure who’s purpose is the mother’s health and incidentally results in the death of the fetus isn’t medically considered abortion. Those procedures hence remain legal even in heavy anti-abortion states like Texas. There isn’t a state that’s trying to make those procedures illegal. And again FTR it’s very very rare.
Like arguing abortion by talking about when the mothers life is in jeopardy or in the case of rape?
Abortion at the point of birth is still federally legal and and actively advocated by the left. And it’s poignant from that point, because most people would call it murder morally, and from that point pro-abortion advocates have the duty of defining a limiting principal to advocate for abolition earlier in the process. A principal I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument for.
Missing the point again. I’m not talking about the law. I’m discussing the nature of the argument. The argument from the left on the topic refuses to even consider the other perspective on the issue. It’s a dumb argument. You are assuming your conclusion in the premise. The pro-life side sees abortion as evil at least on par with murder. The pro-choice argument about how that’s “only a small fraction” of abortions, or planned parent hood, or whatever is a total non-starter for a rational discussion. It would be similar to the right making the argument that the left should support the NRA because they teach gun safety and only 1% of what they do is murder (if 1% of what NRA spent money on was murdering people). You don’t have to agree that abortion is murder, but you can’t assume that in your argument because you end up advocating absurd ideas in the context of the discussion.
1 Like
Doesn’t the fact that we assign value to human life make human life not inherently valuable?
An abortion is almost always safer for the mother than giving birth.
How do we decide how much risk is acceptable for someone else?
It depends on your perspective and beliefs. The point is that the pro-choice argument is inherently against inherent human value.
It’s a fair question, and we can discuss it if you’d like, but it’s the same question with born kids. How much burden do you feel entitled to place on a parent? It’s not zero, so there has to be a line somewhere. We regularly require people who make certain choices to assume added duties. I agree that it is a unique situation, but it’s not in a totally different ballpark.
And I don’t really buy abortion normally being safer, especially if you look into suicide rate and breast cancers and such.
2 Likes
If the miscarraige story is true, it sucks. It sounds like it was the doctor’s required all the follow ups as a way to mitigate legal liability for performing an abortion. I can only guess then that there were doubts as to the fetus actually being dead.
I don’t think it has to be. I think one can add full human value to the unborn and still come to a pro choice opinion.
I think one can make an argument about rights and which rights are above other rights to come to a pro choice argument. For me, I think rights to personal autonomy should come before right to life. I should say that when I say personal autonomy, I say that in the context of control over their body in a medical sense. Not in the context of expecting actions to be performed by ones body (helping a drowning kid in a fountain as an example).
I guess where I see the line is the right to autonomy in a medical sense. I see using ones body to care for a child as different than using ones internal organs / systems to care for another being.
Right, but you are proving my point here, you’d never make that distinction for a born human. You can’t slit the throat of a conjoined twin even to save the other. You can separate them and allow one to die as a biproduct. But there is no case where anyone ever advocates the active killing of a born human as a choice. And if not, you are devaluing the unborn. Again, you can do that, but you need to come up with some rationally sound limited principal to distinguish the 2. With the idea that some human life is more valuable than others.
And I think we already went over this, but it’s an easy rejoinder if you acknowledge the fetus as a valuable human life to note that an abortion is a procedure preformed on 2 people. Even if a person has the medical right to do what they want to their own bodies (numerous other laws also violate this principal) it doesn’t give them the right to have a doctor operate on a third party, which an abortion does. It’s like the conjoined twins scenario, at most that argues for the ability to separate.
I’m assuming you are against all drug law and board control of medicine?
And I don’t. You are literally having to use your organs either way. And again we do this all the time. Choices can come with legal responsibilities. If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn’t want the child, are you going to hold the gun to take child support payments from him? Are you against child support?
1 Like
My argument supports removing support of the unborn from the mother’s. The fetus will die as a biproduct if it isn’t viable.
I think the fact that the fetus is killed probably has something to do with being more humane than letting it die on it’s own.
Drug laws, yes. I haven’t really looked that much into the latter.
I have some issues with it, but I don’t think I’ve pondered that enough yet.
Right, this makes you an extreme right winger then. You are anti- Roe. And are in favor a placing huge new limits on abortion.
This is directly contradicted by the fact that many viable fetuses are aborted and abortions can cause immense pain to a fetus. I don’t like making mind reading statements like this but my read on it is very much that the point is both:
A: prevent the responsibility after birth
B: obfuscate the reality of what a fetus is. You can go into self denial if you don’t let the fetus scream in pain.
And yet again, you are making a distinction without argument or evidence that differentiates the value of the born and unborn. Are you advocating the mercy killing of born children?