I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll ask. You would be okay with abortions if the process only involved separating the fetus from the mother?
I’m conflicted a bit on the issue and it is going to depend someone on circumstance. In rape where there wasn’t consent, yes, even though I still don’t like it.
I emotionally feel like that’s acceptable even for a willing participant before pain can be felt by the fetus and the act will cause suffering. But that isn’t what science says about human life. And then it gets horribly complicated if you try to legally protect from the point of conception. I don’t have any sort of workable solution in policy for that position. And I cannot advocate for it without some workable policy.
If the fetus can feel pain and the woman consented to it’s creation, probably not.
But, like you, I very much differentiate between delivery of a non-viable fetus and the active killing of it intentionally. So, in any of these cases, you don’t get to dismember the fetus. You/the mother/the doctor have to deal with the reality of what’s being done. Which I think would naturally eliminate abortions past like 12-15 weeks anyway, because no one would want to deal with it.
And FTR, in the twins case there was no consent. So it would fall into the same category as rape.
2 Likes
We are closer than I thought.
I am glad that I think we both have thought about things and had a fairly polite conversation on it.
I do encourage you to look at that wiki I posted. The author (of the argument) has an example for the objection that the woman consented to sex. Might be worth taking a look at to see what you think.
1 Like
LOL. That’s actually an interesting take. I will point out that he naturally eliminates even induced abortion if you aren’t using birth control. On first take I think it misses the point that there aren’t sperm out there floating in the public air to accidentally land in a uterus. It would be more like if you opened your windows and then went outside and shot people seeds at your own screens. If you take the idea of lack of culpability to that level you’re going to be able to come up with “it’s not my fault” situations. I was just swinging my fist and walking with my eyes closed, it’s not my fault your nose got broken.
If you choose to drive a car (open the windows) you are legally responsible for the property damage caused by the car, even if it was a freak accident. Caused by something like black ice, and you were doing everything correctly. You assume the risk, not the bystander. It’s the way all our laws work as far as I know unless you have a counter example.
1 Like
Apparently you didn’t realize I have been doing the opposite.
Right, they exist, you just aren’t arrogant enough to think you could know them. lol. You’re just arrogant enough to use words you don’t know the meaning of.
1 Like
If we can’t kill a child after being born if he’s the product of rape, then why can we kill a fetus that’s the product of rape? If they are both human beings, that is?
I’m sure that made sense in your head.
This wasn’t a question about killing.
Of course not. I was attempting to summarize incoherent ramblings.
Abortion is killing.
Yay, you know a thing. Regretfully it isn’t pertinent to anything I said. I wasn’t asked about killing.
1 Like
Which by definition is not an abortion, so long as the life of the baby is preserved in a manner that allows it to naturally thrive as a living organism. Which, before 8 months is almost impossible to do. Note the ‘almost’ part.
Google “abortion definition”. Abortion in regards to the procedure we are talking about has to do with pregnancy, specifically aborting the pregnancy. Removal of the fetus accomplishes that.
Google, google, google! = “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!” I am always certain you can find support for the most asshat, deranged and pathologically untrue ideas on the face of the earth on google. Google cannot change reality and if you deal in the medium of reality, then google may not deliver. Information manipulation is the name of the game after all. It gets gullible people to believe it that which is not true.
Here’s what you cannot do. Find a single example of a successful abortion where the baby lived. Keep in mind, I did say successful, lest you ignore that tidbit and follow up with failed abortions. Abortion requires the life of the baby to be terminated. Removal of a living baby is called a live birth. These things are mutually exclusive and no internet guru can change that fact.
I’m not the one trying to change definitions. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy.
The definitions of words is devolving continuously, if enough people use the word abortion to mean an interruption of full term pregnancy that might also include the removal of a baby that lives, then the new dictionary definition of “abortion” will include a living baby removed prior to full term, when the mother asks for her pregnancy to end.
I remember when “irregardless” was not in the dictionary. And there are many more examples.
1 Like
Reading your posts, I agree.
You’re 100 years old?
