Both pretty unimportant arguements. There are cases and times when an abortion shouldn't be allowed and then there are those when it should. Anyone who is standing firmly on either end of this debate, meaning wanting hunhinged abortions or wanting to see abortions banned alltogether, are people who are probably so stuck in a certain belief that they can't see reason.
Last edited by Noxx79; 2019-05-30 at 08:48 PM.
i'm going to have to side with you on this - the whole "when is it a baby?" debate is a pointless distraction from the issue, it's a tactic employed by the forced-birther movement that has been extremely effective because generally speaking liberals are weak willed and lack any spine to stand for their convictions.
i've never been comfortable with letting that become a focal point of a discussion on abortion, because i think the point should simply be conceded.
if you want it to be so badly, fine, it's a fully formed baby with chubby little arms and legs and a drooly little face that looks just like gramma from the moment that the guy's dick gets hard just thinking about being able to have sex.
it's still OK to murder the thing directly in the face, because we as a society have collectively agreed that there are many acceptable circumstances for killing a person, and an unwanted pregnancy (for any reason, or no reason) is one such circumstance.
Bodies can continue to grow after brain death. In fact, they can still do all kinds of things while clinically dead.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889814/Shewmon presented evidence for many expressions of apparently integrative functioning in ventilated BD bodies (Shewmon, 2007a). The impressive list, which he first published in 2001 in this journal, is worth repeating here (Shewmon, 2001, 470–2):
• respiration (BD bodies are apneic, so air must be mechanically supplied to the lungs);
• nutrition;
• homeostasis;
• elimination, detoxification, and recycling of cellular wastes throughout the body;
• energy balance, involving interactions among liver, endocrine systems, muscle, and fat;
• maintenance of body temperature and fluid and electrolyte balance;
• wound healing;
• fighting of infections and foreign bodies through interactions among the immune system, lymphatics, bone marrow, and microvasculature;
• development of febrile response to infection;
• cardiovascular and hormonal stress responses to unanesthetized incisions;
• successful gestation of a fetus in a BD woman;
• sexual maturation of a BD child;
• proportional growth of a BD child;
• resuscitability and stabilizability following cardiac arrest;
• ability to recover from episodes of hypotension, aspiration, and sepsis;
• overall ability to maintain physiological stability with little medical intervention (although with much basic nursing care) in a nursing facility or even at home, after discharge from an intensive care unit.
There used to be two sides to this issue now there are at least four. Use to just be those who are for aborting before life occurs and those who are against any abortion.
Now it's that plus those who believe abortion should be used even up to the delivery(and even beyond) and those who are just against the later abortions barring certain circumstances.
you wouldn't know and it wouldn't matter.
What a stupid question!
what in the absolute hell is that even supposed to mean?
i get that goal-post changing and non sequitur are your people's stock-in-trade, but even for someone like you, that was so absurdly random that it's baffling.
the argument from relative morality is useless here because the comparison point you're using is in a completely different league, morally speaking.
here's a simple analogy:
1. you're in your house. the door is unlocked. you have expensive items in your living room. someone walks into your house unannounced and uninvited.
it's generally agreed upon (most notably in the same places trying to outlaw abortion) that you can kill this person for violating your personal space and making you feel unsafe, even if you can't prove they were actually a danger to you - simply feeling threatened in your own property is sufficient cause to legally justify murdering an adult.
2. you're in your body. by a series of circumstances (the what and the why are irrelevant) someone winds up in your abdomen unannounced and uninvited.
i should think the same rules apply here - if you feel threatened or unsafe by the presence of this intruder, being able to defend yourself by killing them seems to fall into the same category of self defense, and whether they posed any real threat to you is irrelevant to whether or not you *feel* threatened.
we think it's OK to murder someone as long as you're in the military and were given an order to do it. it's OK to murder someone if a professional con-man convinces a dozen random schlubs that the person did something bad.
there are countless examples in western society, and the US especially, where it's been collectively agreed upon that certain circumstances forfeit an individual's right to life.
if you want to call a fertilized egg or a zygote a baby, fine - i'm comfortable letting you have your delusions if it makes it easier for your to maintain your erections.
but the trade-off for letting you live in your fantasy land is that the rules of our society dictate that baby killing is acceptable.
- - - Updated - - -
that isn't a "claim", that is irrefutable observable fact.
Have women not yet earned enough trust to make the decision themselves? FFS, what more do they have to do?
- P
This thread is stupid... if people honestly answered the OP, this thread would have 0 posts.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi