On abortion

[ERCougar]

I wonder what exactly it reveals about me that I assume a man starving on the streets doesn't have much by way of assets. I stand duly rebuked; from now on, I will assume that people starve on the streets only because of legal restrictions on withdrawing from their Roth IRAs.



But a parent owes no more responsibility to their child in utero than to the starving man on the street (who, for all I know, is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who misplaced his debit card).

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

[All-American]

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

There's an interesting thought. Forget trimesters: babies have a right to live as soon as they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

So you think a mother has no more responsibility to a fetus in her womb than she does to a starving man on the street. What else can I say? I just don't agree with that.

[ERCougar]

There's an interesting thought. Forget trimesters: babies have a right to live as soon as they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

So you think a mother has no more responsibility to a fetus in her womb than she does to a starving man on the street. What else can I say? I just don't agree with that.

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

[beefytee]

If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.

As I understand it, you can be convicted of a double homicide if you kill a woman carrying an unborn child multi-cell organism. So it wouldn't be a stretch.

[All-American]

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

I might have been more sympathetic to that argument before seeing my daughter's ultrasounds.

[All-American]

Same gender marriage brings people happiness just as opposite gender marriage does. If you oppose or help prevent people from marrying who they love, you're in direct violation of the most important Christian commandment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

[Pelado]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's...manservant

[imanihonjin]

For what it's worth, I've seen my fair share of third trimester deaths come my way by autopsy. Some of them due to infections, and some of them with no identifiable cause. But some of them could conceivably be chalked up to maternal neglect; i.e. smoking and drugs. If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.

Some states and federal government have already held that it is murder if a baby in utero is killed by another in the commission of a number of specified crimes. So what is the difference?

[imanihonjin]

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

Yeah because a 1 week old baby loves to do all of those things. Are you implying that your standard of whether someone should be afforded rights is based on whether or not they like to play games, watch TV, or understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. If that isn't what you were implying then what exactly were you saying?

[ERCougar]

Yeah because a 1 week old baby loves to do all of those things. Are you implying that your standard of whether someone should be afforded rights is based on whether or not they like to play games, watch TV, or understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. If that isn't what you were implying then what exactly were you saying?

No. I'm just pointing out (again) that a fetus is not a child. Dumb example, but I don't know how many different ways I can explain it before AA will stop being (intentionally) sloppy with his language.

[imanihonjin]

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

Why is there no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero"? The only reasons you have given are that a born baby is able to live independently, yet you aren't willing to include a baby at 40 weeks in utero even though in the vast majority of cases the baby will live and the complications from performing a birth are less than those of performing an abortion. The other reason you gave is that a baby in utero isn't able to laugh at Phineas and Ferb.

I am still waiting for a meaningful distinction for denying basic rights to a baby at 40 weeks in utero vs a baby that is just born. I get it if you just feel differently but don't act like you have anything more than a gut feeling that you appear to hold disdain for when others have a differing opinion based on opinion.

[imanihonjin]

No. I'm just pointing out (again) that a fetus is not a child. Dumb example, but I don't know how many different ways I can explain it before AA will stop being (intentionally) sloppy with his language.

Uhhhh, your reason that the fetus is not a child because it can't understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb is about as sloppy as it comes. It's fine that you don't want to call the fetus a child, I get it, you have to do it that way in order for your logic to be sound. Why are you so upset if someone chooses to recognize them as a child/person?

[Northwestcoug]

Imanihonjin must be disappointed. Here he is today, on two threads discussing some of the major moral issues of the day, offering solid critiques of those who disagree with him, yet no one will tell him just when a baby is a baby! Come on people, just give him the truth from on high and he'll be satisfied!

I'll leave it up to JL on the other thread to answer his well-reasoned objections to man-made climate change. But so far, no one has satisfied him...

[ERCougar]

Why is there no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero"? The only reasons you have given are that a born baby is able to live independently, yet you aren't willing to include a baby at 40 weeks in utero even though in the vast majority of cases the baby will live and the complications from performing a birth are less than those of performing an abortion. The other reason you gave is that a baby in utero isn't able to laugh at Phineas and Ferb.

I am still waiting for a meaningful distinction for denying basic rights to a baby at 40 weeks in utero vs a baby that is just born. I get it if you just feel differently but don't act like you have anything more than a gut feeling that you appear to hold disdain for when others have a differing opinion based on opinion.

Forget the P&F example! It's absurd to call a fetus a "child". That's all I was pointing out.
I've given you plenty of meaningful distinctions between a fetus and a baby, namely the most important and significant physiologic that occurs during the entire process, save perhaps fertilization. I'm still waiting for you to provide me some useful alternative cutoff that constitutes an appropriate beginning of rights that would outweigh mother's right to abort a pregnancy, in what cases you would grant an exception and why. It's extraordinarily messy to do that (notice the people who actually work in this arena tend to be pro-choice, as they have witnessed just how complicated these situations often get--far more commonly than the 40 week abortion you keep wanting to legislate around).

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

[Moliere]

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

Legal in any case or would you put some restrictions around its use?