Ronstar said: ↑ I support abortion rights up to the 12th week. after that, if bringing the child to term will kill the mother or seriously harm her physical health, abortion should be allowed.""""" No, that makes him Pro-Choice until the 12 week....
No, fetuses don't grow any faster than they did 10 years, 100, or 1,000 years ago.... The rate of growth is the same , a fetus at 20 weeks cannot survive on it's own...and by that I mean it needs special care that a fully developed fetus doesn't need.... WHY would you want the time frame cut back? To make it a little harder for women? Most abortions are done before that....why would you want to move it back to 20 weeks?
How and why? Why do you want to make it 12 weeks? Is a fetus viable to you then? HOW do you make fetuses grow faster ?....please be honest and answer that question....
I am 26 weeks unless it's a risk to the potential mothers health, most (over 99%) abortions occur way before then - but that is my choice, I would not make it for others http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/ "a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."
We probably can, it's just a matter of effort and a lot of money. The primary reason those fetuses at 20 weeks don't survive is because their lungs aren't developed and strong enough to respirate on their own.
No we cannot, medical science has pushed the viability envelope to it's maximum already and many of those "Preemies" do not survive or have life long disabilities. It would seem you wish for great suffering to prevent abortion....probably not something Jesus would do.
EXACTLY !........ that means it isn't viable. At 20 weeks the woman it's in is doing it's "breathing"", they are CONNECTED...it cannot survive on it's own. I see posts refuting you haven't been answered, does that mean you learned somethin, anything??? BTW, whose money are you referring to here? """ just a matter of effort and a lot of money.""" Yours?
Suppose we try to apply this same logic to other people in similar situations (not being able to breathe on their own). A child with polio in an iron lung machine. Hmm, looks like no we're back to just the connected argument... I suppose you don't think Siamese twins are people.
A child in an iron lung or any person attached to a machine is NOT using another person's BODY to sustain their life, they are using a MACHINE.. So you're back in your corner. I see that ,as usual, you ignore those inconvenient questions : """""""BTW, whose money are you referring to here? YOU: """ just a matter of effort and a lot of money.""" Yours?""""""
What would you call a baby sucking breast milk? You know, I can think of quite a few cases where conjoined twins shared the same vital organs. In some cases separation is impossible. I suppose you could say they are more "connected" than a fetus in the womb is, because at least a fetus will separate at some point.
I can see it's a matter of money for you. BTW, you might learn to use the quote feature more effectively, it can be confusing for everyone else trying to read your posts.
FoxHastings said: ↑ BTW, whose money are you referring to here? Yours? YOU mentioned money first..and NOW can't answer a simple question. I use the quote function quite well, sorry it's a problem for you AND need back up by claiming you speak for others.... You don't have to be Unconfused to answer the questions you're constantly avoiding
A baby sucking breast milk. A baby not physically attached to anyone as a fetus is in the womb. And NO one is required to use their body to sustain the life of another so if a baby is sucking milk it will be with the woman's CONSENT. No, you can't connect con-joined twins ( no educated person calls them "Siamese Twins anymore) to ""at some point the fetus will separate."" There is no correlation...fun to watch your flailing...
So in the old days (before they had formula) you would have been ok with a woman leaving her baby to die... Explain the difference between conjoined twin girls with polio in an iron lung machine and a fetus, if you can. Seems both can't survive on their own, both are connected to someone else and can't be separated.
Whether I was or wasn't has nothing to do with what we're discussing...WTF! What you just posted has nothing to do with a fetus connected or not connected... A nursing baby is NOT physically dependent on the person it is nursing....ANYONE can feed or nurse a baby. How about conjoined twins, ones a red-headed girl and ones a gay guy, one is happy , one is sad, one hates playing poker m, the other doesn't.. and they live on a planet near Uranus and ride conjoined unicorns to work...Gee, now let's see... They are twins, not pregnant women, and are using a MACINE to live....see, a MACHINE is NOT a human...OK, got that? They are NOT using another person to sustain their life.... a MACHINE is not a PERSON...did you think they were the same thing??!! Again you have been cornered and owned and are now slip sliding into outer space...
Explain the difference between what an Elephant thinks when seeing an Eagle eat a squirrel and how an alternator is replaced in a 1967 VW beetle.
