Keep telling yourself that. No need to ever face the reality of what it is that way.
Democrats BLOCK anti-infanticide bill
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Keep telling yourself that. No need to ever face the reality of what it is that way.
That's a spectacularly unnuanced way of considering it. Same fetus comes out prematurely but survives and it's a baby, yes?
Are you OK with considering it a fetus to the end of the 37th week in third trimester? Just the magic meat curtains keeping it in it's fetus status even though it could breath and cry at 28 weeks if it had to?
So all's fair until the Umbilical cord is detatched? Is that a correct understanding of your position?
It is a fetus until it is born. That is the definition. Not all things you could do to a fetus are fair, but I do contend that killing fetuses is preferable to killing babies.
Yes, and amazingly enough, having them didn't make me forget the definition of fetus.
There’s no difference to the American who is being deprived of life liberty etc. thankful I don’t hold any beliefs that require this kind of justification to decipher the line between procedure and murder.
If only I would think harder, it would be clear that identical viable lives are really two different species depending on the hormonal, financial and emotional balance of one of their parents (but not the other one) at any given moment - and that it's OK to kill one but not the other?
That's where I get if I think harder?
I'm not even talking about abortion per se'. I'm talking 3rd trimester, especially in the 28+ week zone, where a premie would survive (93% of the time). If that doesn't at least give you pause, I honestly hope you just aren't thinking hard enough.
What motivations are there for a woman to carry a baby to nearly full term, and then abort it? Is that how pessimistic we are about our society? That there are just a ton of women waiting to do this, if it weren't for the damn laws getting in their way?
Is there no possibility there could be a woman who would need to do this, and by it not being illegal it could save her from even more heartache? That's who I assume this law is intended for. Not to hold back the wave of aborted babies by mothers waiting for the last moment to get rid of their child.
And that there are doctors just waiting to perform these everywhere. It'll be like all the marijuana stores popping up in town, late-term abortion doctors on every corner finally free of the restraints of law.
Is there no possibility there could be a woman who would need to do this, and by it not being illegal it could save her from even more heartache? That's who I assume this law is intended for. Not to hold back the wave of aborted babies by mothers waiting for the last moment to get rid of their child.
And that there are doctors just waiting to perform these everywhere. It'll be like all the marijuana stores popping up in town, late-term abortion doctors on every corner finally free of the restraints of law.
Last edited:
Yep. Use your feelings - except you know, for protecting the most vulnerable human life imaginable. And then, Arbitrarily call it something other than a baby so you can look in the mirror at the smarmy reflection and nod to yourself for thinking harder.
The Communist Party USA supports the right of abortion and social services to provide access to it, arguing that unplanned pregnancy is prejudiced against poor women.
Where are these facts to which you refer? I missed them in your smarmy blather.
A plain, simple fact is that at some generalized date a fetus can survive on its own.
It takes a willful act to terminate that ability.
Pilt is hiding in language.
It takes a willful act to terminate that ability.
Pilt is hiding in language.
Not hiding, just responding to these very bad takes.
aixpert: Killing a fetus is morally equivalent to killing a baby
Mega: It is insane to think you can tell the difference between a fetus and a baby
Situationally, those are very good takes.
T minus 1 day to natural birth the fetus is more like a baby than a it is another fetus at T minus 3 months to birth.
The inherent makeup of the fetus and baby dictate that, not the presence of some warm meat curtain you cite.
Your logic is guided by a game of peekaboo.
From my point of view, once viable, killing a fetus IS morally equivalent to killing a baby. Nothing wrong with that take. Personally I think its your take that's "all is fair until birthing takes place" is a pretty reprehensible position.
Brad it is not my fault that the ground Mega chose was "there is no bright line between fetus and baby" when in fact there is (the meat curtain you refer to). You are welcome to engage me on the morality of abortion, but there is no defense for "fetus is not clearly defined."
I've yet to ever hear people ask an expectant mother "have you felt the fetus move?" Or say "have you named your fetus yet?"
I certainly can't speak for everyone...in fact some on this board may refer to a baby in the womb as a fetus to their friends, family, and spouse...but I doubt it.
The term fetus usually get's brought into play when the need to dehumanize is important...like in a debate where there is no way you are going to admit the other side is correct.
I certainly can't speak for everyone...in fact some on this board may refer to a baby in the womb as a fetus to their friends, family, and spouse...but I doubt it.
The term fetus usually get's brought into play when the need to dehumanize is important...like in a debate where there is no way you are going to admit the other side is correct.
Here is where the left and right are talking to each other but aren't hearing each other.
The left sees this as a legality issue.
The right sees this as a morality issue.
The question on the left is when does that baby legally have rights? Today, you don't have rights unless you are actually born. Once born, you are protected legally. Up until that point, the baby simply has little to no legal standing since the US doesn't recognize them as an independent identity.
So how technically would we as a country legally protect something that we don't recognize as a separate, independent legal entity?
I could be wrong.
The left sees this as a legality issue.
The right sees this as a morality issue.
The question on the left is when does that baby legally have rights? Today, you don't have rights unless you are actually born. Once born, you are protected legally. Up until that point, the baby simply has little to no legal standing since the US doesn't recognize them as an independent identity.
So how technically would we as a country legally protect something that we don't recognize as a separate, independent legal entity?
I could be wrong.
