Abortion is in the constitution.

How do we define viability? If it is based upon the ability of medical science to keep the ZEF alive and developing, then by the time artificial womb technology becomes viable, the offspring is viable from conception. However, that still does not mean that the woman loses her right to end the pregnancy.

 

It's a difficult and arguably invalid distinction, but the product of rape was implanted non-consensually. Same with any non-consenting child or victim of incense. I can elaborate , and there actually was a St. Mary's Law Journal article years ago that did so fairly convincingly. Of course it is impossible, however, to be sure that one's personal feelings are not invading and contaminating and even invalidating his "legal arguments."

Are pro-choicers really pro-woman, or just anti-government? Or anti-religion? I think it's impossible for them to know one way or the other, much less for an outside observer to know.

 

This basically translates into "I really can't explain it so I will pretend that you should already know it." In other words, a cop out. If you can't explain it then say so. If you can then do so.

 

The only real difference is whether or not the woman had a choice in getting pregnant. In any other situation, including incest, the woman goes into the situation knowing that there is a possibility, regardless of how low the probability is, of getting pregnant. In rape, she is not making that choice to take that risk.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
explain why you approve of killing a ZEF because the woman was raped?



So you can't explain it.

You can't explain how an abortion due to rape is different or has a different outcome than an abortion due to consensual sex?


I ask Anti-Choicers this question whenever they make an exception for rape.

They claim a fetus is an "innocent precious life" that shouldn't be killed.

So I want to know why it isn't an "innocent precious life" that can be killed if it's the product of rape.

I point out that an abortion due to rape is the same procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex.


Their making it an exception shows that Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...

.
Uh, ya, no one is disputing that...(why bring it up?)

Yes, and this issue, and the Anti-Choicers inability to address it, shows clearly Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...

It doesn't matter why Pro-Choicers want women to retain the right to their own body, it's the right thing to do.

 

Because the principle applies whether it's on born or unborn. It's why I make the examples of the artificial wombs and the surrogate example. To show the consistency of the principle.

As part of that, let's see if you can actually walk through this thought experiment as bluesguy was unable to.

You wake up to find that I have, through some machinery and tubes, hooked myself up to you. Let's say as a living blood filter. You are at no risk of IMMINENT death or serious injury, but if ever you are disconnected from me, I will die. Are you allowed to disconnect me from you even though I will immediately die, or are you stuck with me because of my right to life?

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realize that personhood is limited to Americans.

Which still doesn't make an argument on whether personhood is bestowed or not.
Personally I agree that personhood does not come about until birth, viability at the absolute earliest. Ability to get a SSN is just a piss poor argument to support that assertion.

 

GOODGAWD,,, don't get your panties in a twist, it was only a lighthearted challenge to a poster who insists a Zygote is a PERSON...
It is NOT my base argument for women's right to their own body...

 

Look up fetal viability....it's about 23-24 weeks when, if the fetus is removed (born), it can live on it's own without artificial means.

Neither technology nor science can make a fetus grow faster.

 

Obviously, reality has nuance, I'm just talking in general basic terms.

 

Reaching new heights. Stop conflating.

 

Oh geeezzz not that again, having a social security card is not the definition of a individual human being, a person.

 

h

 

Yeah, that is a good question to ask anti-abortionists who make an exception for rape, because it will reveal an inconsistency in their logic.

 

I suppose it would, and that day may come.

But, do we want it to come? What about the effect on a fetus born from an incubator without any contact with mother during those critical months? What kind of emotionally challenged children are they going to be? Will they be prone to violence, evil? No one knows.

I"m not sure society should go there. There are some things society shouldn't do, that is one, and cloning humans is another ( how would you like to be someone's clone? and, no, twins are not clones ).

 

Results of what?

It's not about how you or I perceive the risk, but how it's processed by members of the public. The risk for many people--their age, health, or the age and health of people in their household--is impacting their behavior. You're not going to be correct in the future unless you find a way to influence their thinking.

How about thinking in terms of what they're most likely to do, not what you think they should do?

Again, we're looking at how people are going to react given their ideas. I didn't assume anti-vaxxers were suddenly going to start respecting the science.

You are labeling an important scientific advance as ineffective and inferior, Where's your evidence?

Huh! There are billions of unvaccinated people we can study.

 

It's implicit (you know, the penumbra thingy) In the claim that the interest of the fetus "pre-viability" is not worthy of the slightest consideration.

 

Right thing to do? Why is it "right"? God said so?

First you claim that no pro-lifer cannot address the question, then we address it, and because you don't like the answer, you say "See, you can't address it!"and declare victory.

Respectfully, it is your side that cannot address the question of why a woman has the right to kill her baby before a specific point in time, but no such right after that point in time. (Is it a millisecond after quickening? Or when? Exactly when can she or the abortionist murder the baby?)

You might take the positivist view like the OP does and declare that "she has the right because a bare majority of out of nine unelected lawyers wearing robes said so 50 years ago in an opinion based on perceived penumbrae in ANOTHER manmade document." But that's different from claiming "Because it's the right thing to do."

Thrash and flounder all you like, you're unlikely to convince any reasonable person of your point of view.

I didn't bring up rape. Someone above asked why make an exception for rape. So I explained why. You can't complain about someone addressing a point that YOU brought into the conversation. Well, it's a free country (for everyone except unborn babies, right?), so I suppose you can complain if you want to.

 

We've answered it over and over. The fetus created by a rapist is an unwanted parasitic invader, unlike the product of a consensual sexual coupling, and your and his response is "See, you won't answer it!" If I offer you a drink and you refuse to accept it, can you legitimately claim that I won't offer you a drink?

It is impossible to have a serious and honest conversation with people who reason like 7 year olds.

 

That is completely non-responsive. You said that "If the violation can be ended without termination of the violator then it should be done."

That "should" makes yours a normative statement -- it derives from some standard or norm. I am asking you what that standard is and who established it?
It has to be either "because a majority of the 9 lawyers in robes on a court said so 50 years ago," or "because god or some prevailing moral order in the universe said so."

Your attempt at analogy is flawed, so no wonder you think that Bluesguy was too dumb or something to walk through your experiment. It's not analogous because you hooked yourself up without my knowledge. The product of a consensual sexual encounter is not an invader.

Your analogy is also flawed because I won't accept that it is biologically normal or innocuous to "hook yourself" to me. You are gliding over the ugly part: to "hook yourself" to me means that you penetrated my flesh with a sharp metal object, causing unwanted pain and trauma to my skin, etc. And you appear to concede that using me as a blood filter is okay morally, even against my will, just so long as it doesn't cause imminent death or serious injury.

So it's okay to kill or injure me slowly, just not abruptly?

Thanks, I'll pass.

So back to the question, what is the moral reason for not killing the baby if you don't have to?

 

Or that the reader is either ignorant or a liar whose heart is filled with malice, feigning ignorance, and possessed by a loathing for the truth, such that it cannot escape ones lips because it has long since been banished.

 

that wasn't my response, you need to direct your answer to the guy who told you that.

 

What is the legal standard for viability? We have born people mature enough at 16 to take on all "adult" responsibilities, yet the legal standard for adulthood is 18. We also have plenty who are not mature enough even by 20. Currently there is a point where not even medical technology can sustain the ZEF if it comes out early. Also the 24 week point is where the odds of death after birth drop to under 50%. It's not until 34 weeks that the child has the same chances as one not born early. And all of those who are born prior to 34 weeks are given medical aid, so how artificial are those numbers, as opposed to being born and going straight home as would a on time baby be?

Actually it can be done to a point. It was done to my own grandson. He was due in November. He was born in August. His mother (my DIL) discovered that her water had broke and she was beginning contractions. At the hospital not only did they give her drugs to try to stop the contractions, they also gave her drugs which accelerated the growth of his lungs and other organs in case he came early. A good thing too, as she developed an infection in the uterus, and they induced labor so it didn't spread to him. Because of the accelerated growth, he came out pink, where most preemies are typically grey in color, and was only put on +5 oxygen, which is the lowest level, unusual for preemies as i was made to understand.

 

The irony of being on the opposite side of the debate and agreeing on a point.

 

So no quote from the constitution or bill of rights?

If it's in the Constitution show me.