That must be because you have no idea what "viability" means...it appears you are confused...and have never bothered to look up the word like you never looked up "right" and "protection" and still don't know they are two different words..
You seem to be putting up a wall to obscure yourself with words you've charged with ambiguous meanings. I'm not sure if this is intentional or if that's just how your personal thought process is laid out.
kazenatsu, there is no equivalency between a person out of the womb with a fetus in the womb. You cannot change logic to suit your thinking.
FoxHastings said: ↑ That must be because you have no idea what "viability" means...it appears you are confused...and have never bothered to look up the word like you never looked up "right" and "protection" and still don't know they are two different words.. No, words have meanings and too bad you think the difference between "rights" and "protections" is "obscure"....it isn't.
Foxhastings, what were you saying? Let's go back: You said the difference between a person in an iron lung and a fetus was that the fetus is sustained by a human body. I pointed out that that's true at 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks... it really has nothing to do with viability. So (correct me if I'm wrong), what I'm getting from you is that you're saying the difference between a patient in an iron long and a fetus doesn't have to do with viability. In fact your argument for abortion doesn't have to do with fetal viability. So you should support abortion at 30 weeks just like you do at 18 weeks, right? Correct me where I'm wrong here.
kazenatsu, you were arguing that a Mother and iron lung were equivalent. An iron lung is not a mother. A fetus in a mother is not a human in an iron lung.
Let's go back to the original comment that started this line of discussion (maybe you forgot) Our discussion was about viability. Now, both you and Foxhastings have been beating around the bush and still haven't bothered to make any argument about how a fetus is different from a patient in an iron lung in terms of viability. Let me try to make this more clear to you both. I wasn't saying a fetus is just like a patient in an iron lung, I was saying that in terms of just looking at the property of viability, the difference between a viable fetus and a fetus which is not yet viable is not different than the difference between an ordinary adult person and a person who happens to be in an iron lung. Thus I was asking why you thought (if you do) a viable fetus should be protected, but not a fetus which is a few weeks away from reaching the viability point.
NO, I have NOT been beating around the bush. The difference between a fetus and a person in an iron lung is that the person in the iron lung is NOT using another's body to sustain it's life, they are using a machine. A fetuses viability is quite different from a PERSON'S viability without a machine. You just can't compare the two..
kazenatsu wrote, in part, that "Our discussion was about viability." Nope, you compared an iron lung to a mother. The argument was not about viability. If you are now writing about viability, a person in an iron lung vs a person not in an iron lung is still different than a fetus in a womb. Concerning a fetus just a short time from birth: if it threatens the mother's health and life, then the mother takes precedence.
You still aren't directly answering the question. Are you okay with forcing the fetus out at 24 weeks, even though there's a possibility the fetus may not survive, or might end up with a lifelong disability being taken out of the womb so soon? If the fetus doesn't survive, it was dependent on the mothers body, and according to your definition, non-viable, correct?
FoxHastings said: ↑ The difference between a fetus and a person in an iron lung is that the person in the iron lung is NOT using another's body to sustain it's life, they are using a machine. What question was that ? Under what bizarre circumstances would that happen besides in your mind? OHGOODGAWD! After having been told what "viable" means a hundred times at least you still don't know what it means. You HAVE to be doing that on purpose.... Come back when you have a point......that hasn't happened yet...
My point is that the difference between a "non-viable" fetus and a "viable" fetus is not different than the difference between a regular human being and a hospital patient relying on an iron lung to breathe. If you are against expelling viable fetuses prematurely from the womb, you should also be against terminating fetuses that may be a few weeks before the viability point.
If you can't tell the difference between a fetus inside a woman using her BODY to sustain it's life and a born person using a MACHINE to sustain their life then NO one will EVER be able to get you to understand...
It's seems Foxhastings, that you're claiming that a fetus pre-viability doesn't have rights because it's dependent on the mother, yet somehow the mother still has an obligation to keep gestating it once it can theoretically survive outside the womb. Who's the one being illogical here?
I have argued this before, but from fertilization to birth a fetus has increasing rights to survive. Our society has agreed that there are increased restrictions to abortion after viability. The pro-life people seem to think a fetus has a consistent right to life that outweighs the woman's wishes. To your initial question, when is it too late for an abortion? I think lateness doesn't come into it. It is an ethical choice of the woman. Does she have a sufficient reason to end the pregnancy.
I agree, but what logical reason is there to set it right at the viability point? I'm simply arguing viability shouldn't be the criteria for the cutoff point that's used.
kazenatsu said: ↑ You still aren't directly answering the question. Are you okay with forcing the fetus out at 24 weeks,"""""""" FoxHastings: ""WHY, WHEN, HOW would anyone do that ??? YOU aren't answering the question. Question an Anti-Choicers CANNOT answer: ""WHY, WHEN, HOW would anyone do that ??? That would be you.... The fetus doesn't have rights because it hasn't been born NOT because it's dependent on the woman it is in.....you've been told that several dozen times....if you can't understand or comprehend those words it is YOU a who is illogical.. ..and why didn't you quote me so I 'd get an alert? Trying to sneak in replies??? Afraid of something???
DUH, it isn't..... a fetus has NO rights until birth.....you can't prove they do. You have never proven they do. They don't and YOU can't change that
