pro abortion fanatics inspired by satan.

[zsdersw]

In terms of growth and development, no. In terms of a person's dependency on another (since abortion is so often put in terms of the burden on the mother), it definitely is similar.

That burden the sick/dying impose on others is not a biological one, like it is with a pregnant woman; the sick/dying are not physically connected to those who care for them and supplying fluids/nutrients from their own bodies to the sick/dying.

 

[buckshot24]

That burden the sick/dying impose on others is not a biological one, like it is with a pregnant woman; the sick/dying are not physically connected to those who care for them and supplying fluids/nutrients from their own bodies to the sick/dying.

Sick and dying people are a drain on our economy. They should be eliminated.

 

[sandorski]

Very often I hear the argument that abortion is permissible when we deem the child to face a very tough life.

Given the choice, I think the child would prefer two years of life versus us killing him supposedly to save him.

How the hell would you know? It is possible that the kid knew only suffering with only the occasional glimpse of what life could be like. Even if he was loved. I won't condemn the parents, but neither would I condemn the woman who chose to Abort.

 

[nehalem256]

Very often I hear the argument that abortion is permissible when we deem the child to face a very tough life.

Given the choice, I think the child would prefer two years of life versus us killing him supposedly to save him.

Honestly I think most people would agree that there is some point where the quality of life drops below where it makes sense not to abort it. At the very least it is a fair point for discussion.

Of course this isn't really a pro-choice argument. Since it doesn't make sense to leave this determination up to teenagers and HS dropouts.

That burden the sick/dying impose on others is not a biological one, like it is with a pregnant woman; the sick/dying are not physically connected to those who care for them and supplying fluids/nutrients from their own bodies to the sick/dying.

What is your point exactly?

That slaving 10 hours a day in a coal mine is somehow less onerous than laying on a couch watching Maury while eating Cheetos?

 

[alkemyst]

Are you idiots thinking the "pro-abortion" crowd is looking for anyway to do a third or second trimester abortion.

 

[Paratus]

Are you idiots thinking the "pro-abortion" crowd is looking for anyway to do a third or second trimester abortion.

Well, technically pro-choice folks probably want to keep it as option for when the mothers life is in danger.

If you are referring to Nehalem, I've come to the conclusion he is very put out that he can't carry a child so don't expect a rational response on this subject from him.

 

[alkemyst]

Well, technically pro-choice folks probably want to keep it as option for when the mothers life is in danger.

If you are referring to Nehalem, I've come to the conclusion he is very put out that he can't carry a child so don't expect a rational response on this subject from him.

I wasn't focused on him...AT's stance on it would show most of these kids and adults should have been pushed out their mom's vagina.

There was never her legs up or hoping to keep that seed inside her. They just got lucky and hate it.

 

[Caravaggio]

The viability argument drives me nuts because it's arbitrary. Since when do we define a human being by his or her capacity to live independent of someone's help? .

I think we need a distinction here. 'Viability' in this context is not the age at which a child can live independently of adult care and support. It is the minimum age at which a premature baby can survive, given the best incubator in the best-staffed neonatal unit. So the figure is not arbitrary, but it does change from place to place according to the sophistication of the support available.

The age at which a child can survive without adult support is obviously far older. Anthropology tells us that the Ik tribe of Uganda sometimes abandon their children as young as age three to four (see work of Colin Turnbull). Amazingly some survive to reproductive age. But the abandoned children live together in distinct mutually protective cohorts. Age 3-8 and age 8-13 form separate units.
Not all anthropologists accept Turnbull's data. Tales of children surviving in the wild alone are popular in all cultures but they are not easy to validate.

Thus abortions carried out after the neonatal viability age (22-26 weeks in utero) bring with them a whole fuster cluck of additional moral dilemmas.
That is not to imply that very early abortions are automatically without an ethical dimension.

 

[nehalem256]

Well, technically pro-choice folks probably want to keep it as option for when the mothers life is in danger.

Technically pro-choice folks should want to keep it legal until 5 min before junior pops out. A woman's body doesn't stop being hers just because the parasite within her reaches a certain age.

Or maybe most pro-choicers are just massive hypocrites that have no real argument to support their ideology?

 

[zsdersw]

What is your point exactly?

The point is that "viability" is a biological distinction, not a sociological one.

 

[nehalem256]

The point is that "viability" is a biological distinction, not a sociological one.

"Viability" is nothing more than an invented excuse to let women do whatever they want without sounding like complete monsters.

If medical technology improved so that viability was something like 4 weeks I don't think feminists would be supporting making women care for the babies they didn't want the same way men are forced to.

 

[zsdersw]

"Viability" is nothing more than an invented excuse to let women do whatever they want without sounding like complete monsters.

... says you, but your opinion doesn't mean anything.

 

[nehalem256]

... says you, but your opinion doesn't mean anything.

So how many women were charged with crimes when they had those late-term abortions from the Pennsylvania abortion doctor?:hmm:

Or perhaps you can explain how a woman's body magically stops being her own at 24 weeks of gestation?

Or perhaps you could address the question I raised in the post you responded to?

 

[zsdersw]

So how many women were charged with crimes when they had those late-term abortions from the Pennsylvania abortion doctor?:hmm:

Surprise, surprise... our legal system is imperfect, film at eleven.

Or perhaps you can explain how a woman's body magically stops being her own at 24 weeks of gestation?

It doesn't.

Or perhaps you could address the question I raised in the post you responded to?

I did. You asked what point I was making, and that's the point I was making; that "viability" is a biological distinction that doesn't apply to the sick/dying as a reason they should/can be terminated.

 

[nehalem256]

Surprise, surprise... our legal system is imperfect, film at eleven.

Well no shit. I was asking you to think about why it was imperfect in the way it was? :hmm:

It doesn't.

Supreme Court(and most pro-"choicers") appears to disagree with you on that. It is perfectly fine to force women to be biological incubators after ~24 weeks.

I did. You asked what point I was making, and that's the point I was making; that "viability" is a biological distinction that doesn't apply to the sick/dying as a reason they should/can be terminated.

"viability" is actually more of a technological distinction. Also, I believe the point wasn't "viability" as ability to survive without others.

 

[Atreus21]

That burden the sick/dying impose on others is not a biological one, like it is with a pregnant woman; the sick/dying are not physically connected to those who care for them and supplying fluids/nutrients from their own bodies to the sick/dying.

No, not biological. Just financial and emotional. Why should financial and mental burdens be prioritized any differently?

If the rule is that a sufficiently inconvenient person can be killed off, then it stands to reason that people might become just as inconvenient outside of the womb as they do inside.

 

[Atreus21]

How the hell would you know? It is possible that the kid knew only suffering with only the occasional glimpse of what life could be like. Even if he was loved. I won't condemn the parents, but neither would I condemn the woman who chose to Abort.

How the hell would I know? One would think a child, or anyone in their right mind, prefers life to death, however short it may be.

To prejudge a child's quality of life, especially with the ulterior motive of wanting not to be inconvenienced by it, is barbaric.

 

[zsdersw]

Well no shit. I was asking you to think about why it was imperfect in the way it was? :hmm:

Don't know, don't care. Why is it relevant? Why does it make your opinion worth more than the zero worth that it has?

Supreme Court(and most pro-"choicers") appears to disagree with you on that. It is perfectly fine to force women to be biological incubators after ~24 weeks.

At that point it has been determined that there is another human being involved and his/her right to life comes into play. It doesn't make the woman's body less hers.

"viability" is actually more of a technological distinction. Also, I believe the point wasn't "viability" as ability to survive without others.

No, it's a biological distinction. It is the point at which the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb. This is a distinction made on the basis of what level of biological development has occurred. It may one day become a technological distinction, but not today.

 

[nehalem256]

Don't know, don't care. Why is it relevant? Why does it make your opinion worth more than the zero worth that it has?

Its relevant to determining whether society is willing to hold women accountable.

At that point it has been determined that there is another human being involved and his/her right to life comes into play. It doesn't make the woman's body less hers.

At that point the fetus looks cute and cuddly so it is bad PR to advocate for killing it. And a woman has had 24 weeks to get an abortion if she doesn't want to be a parent.

No, it's a biological distinction. It is the point that the fetus can survive without the mother. This is a distinction made on the basis of what level of biological development has occurred.

It can survive without the mother through massive technological intervention. It is a distinction made based on technology.

Perhaps you could address my point on whether pro-choice activists would support making women responsible for their children if viability was pushed back to say 4 weeks through technology? Realize this is exactly how liberals want treat men now.

 

[Atreus21]

I think we need a distinction here. 'Viability' in this context is not the age at which a child can live independently of adult care and support. It is the minimum age at which a premature baby can survive, given the best incubator in the best-staffed neonatal unit. So the figure is not arbitrary, but it does change from place to place according to the sophistication of the support available.

I still think it's arbitrary. When you say, "live independently of adult care and support", I suspect what you really mean is "be able to breathe outside of the womb." No child under the age of 4, and that's being generous, can survive without adult care and support. Is such a child therefore nonviable? Because we include some standards of independence (being able to breathe) while excluding others (being able to feed his or herself), its use as a deciding factor of whether or not to allow abortion is arbitrary.

The age at which a child can survive without adult support is obviously far older. Anthropology tells us that the Ik tribe of Uganda sometimes abandon their children as young as age three to four (see work of Colin Turnbull). Amazingly some survive to reproductive age. But the abandoned children live together in distinct mutually protective cohorts. Age 3-8 and age 8-13 form separate units.
Not all anthropologists accept Turnbull's data. Tales of children surviving in the wild alone are popular in all cultures but they are not easy to validate.

Probably should've read this before my first response. Surely you don't suggest we should expect all inconvenient children to conform to these standards of viability.

Thus abortions carried out after the neonatal viability age (22-26 weeks in utero) bring with them a whole fuster cluck of additional moral dilemmas.
That is not to imply that very early abortions are automatically without an ethical dimension.

Do you think there should be any limits on early abortions?

 

[zsdersw]

Its relevant to determining whether society is willing to hold women accountable.

Great, be sure to keep us informed on how that's going.

At that point the fetus looks cute and cuddly so it is bad PR to advocate for killing it. And a woman has had 24 weeks to get an abortion if she doesn't want to be a parent.

More worthless opinion.

It can survive without the mother through massive technological intervention. It is a distinction made based on technology.

It is still, biologically, unable to survive on its own. It is not a technological distinction.

Perhaps you could address my point on whether pro-choice activists would support making women responsible for their children if viability was pushed back to say 4 weeks through technology? Realize this is exactly how liberals want treat men now.

No, I'm not going to address your "point". I'm not interested in stepping into one of your ridiculous argument traps.

 

[zsdersw]

No child under the age of 4, and that's being generous, can survive without adult care and support.

How many living 1, 2, 3, and 4-year-olds do you know that don't have functional biological systems to maintain life?

Going to the supermarket and preparing food in the kitchen is quite different than having a sufficiently developed digestive system to be able to turn food into energy.

"Survive on its own" is about biological development, not parenting and social services.

 

[Atreus21]

How many living 1, 2, 3, and 4-year-olds do you know that don't have functional biological systems to maintain life?

Going to the supermarket and preparing food in the kitchen is quite different than having a sufficiently developed digestive system to be able to turn food into energy.

"Survive on its own" is about biological development, not parenting and social services.

...I would think "survive on its own" is about "surviving on its own."

How many 1, 2, 3, and 4 year old can "survive on their own" without an adult caring for them nearly around the clock?

 

[OrByte]

Who we arguing about? This guy?

This is a joke thread, right?

qft! 7 pages of fox news jokiness!

 

[zsdersw]

...I would think "survive on its own" is about "surviving on its own."

Yes, biologically able to live in its own.

How many 1, 2, 3, and 4 year old can "survive on their own" without an adult caring for them nearly around the clock?

Around-the-clock adult care won't work if their biological development is not sufficiently completed.