Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it doesn't. This is exactly what I figured you would try to use to justify and why you uses a fetus one day from delivery. The distinction lies in the development of the fetus and its viability. Your comparing something at the same level of development, this is the situation. The majority of abortions occur at 12 weeks at which point it cant survive outside of the womb. No one is advocating abortion of a healthy fetus at 36 weeks.
There is an ethical argument there when you are discussing late term abortion with regards to killing a born baby with identical fatal medical conditions, that is all.
Please explain how it doesn't do the above. You are just repeating yourself. What you just said is irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to that, other members of the forum and I have already explained multiple times how viability is completely unrelated to the discussion of ethics.
I think pregnant woman should be forced to remain pregnant because she is responsible for that dependency that she created and she has the responsibility to sustain that life. Organ and blood donation can never be used as argument because no situation is comparable to pregnancy. In pregnancy a body is doing what it was made for. It's doing it's healthy function. Organ donation and blood donation is an unnatural situation.
A "healthy function" that can irreversibly damage a woman's health.....or kill her.
A woman gets to decide what risks she is willing to take with her health, her very life......hence, HER body, HER choice.
A "healthy function" that can irreversibly damage a woman's health.....or kill her.
A woman gets to decide what risks she is willing to take with her health, her very life......hence, HER body, HER choice.
So, using your logic, she should be able to abort the day before she is due because of fear of childbirth complications (without any evidence that she is likely to have complications)?
So, using your logic, she should be able to abort the day before she is due because of fear of childbirth complications (without any evidence that she is likely to have complications)?
Are there women seeking abortion on demand one day before their due date? Is this a problem?
As far as complications, many of them are unpredictable and give NO warning......BANG....you throw a blood clot, have a stroke, etc., and you are DEAD.
Once the fetus is viable, abortion on demand is off the table, as it should be, unless there is a threat to the mother's life or the fetus is found to have a severe deformity, again, the woman's choice.
Are there women seeking abortion on demand one day before their due date? Is this a problem?
As far as complications, many of them are unpredictable and give NO warning......BANG....you throw a blood clot, have a stroke, etc., and you are DEAD.
Once the fetus is viable, abortion on demand is off the table, as it should be, unless there is a threat to the mother's life or the fetus is found to have a severe deformity, again, the woman's choice.
Please explain how it doesn't do the above. You are just repeating yourself. What you just said is irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to that, other members of the forum and I have already explained multiple times how viability is completely unrelated to the discussion of ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy
So, using your logic, she should be able to abort the day before she is due because of fear of childbirth complications (without any evidence that she is likely to have complications)?
"irrelevant" is subjective. how you judge the relevancy isn't a measure of the worth.
wrongly assumed questions based on a false narrative are hypothetical at best. women are not going to ask for an abortion the day before she delivers because she now fears the entire process.
Please explain how it doesn't do the above. You are just repeating yourself. What you just said is irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to that, other members of the forum and I have already explained multiple times how viability is completely unrelated to the discussion of ethics.
You and the other poster declared, one other poster, that this discussion of whether abortion should be legal is based on ethics and that ethics is dependent on anything other than viability.
Viability is very relevant to the discussion because many people base their ethical standard of life on viability. Not only where abortion is concerned but in cases of those on life support, pain, suffering and imminent death. Actually it is probably the consensus and that is why legal abortions are based on viability. You or the other poster choose to use consciousness, others religious teachings, even others on fault.
Ethics are relevant to circumstances, individuals and cultural norms so stop telling me or attempting to mansplain that viability is completely unrelated to the discussion of ethics.
You and the other poster declared, one other poster, that this discussion of whether abortion should be legal is based on ethics and that ethics is dependent on anything other than viability.
Viability is very relevant to the discussion because many people base their ethical standard of life on viability. Not only where abortion is concerned but in cases of those on life support, pain, suffering and imminent death. Actually it is probably the consensus and that is why legal abortions are based on viability. You or the other poster choose to use consciousness, others religious teachings, even others on fault.
Ethics are relevant to circumstances, individuals and cultural norms so stop telling me or attempting to mansplain that viability is completely unrelated to the discussion of ethics.
It is clear that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what other posters and myself have said. Viability is directly correlated to technology, at some point, probably not too far ahead in the future, a fetus will be able to develop completely outside of the mother. If viability is what is important for you, then at this point, you would be against all abortion. Is this the case?
Using words like mansplain only further the notion that you aren't up to a rational discussion.
It is clear that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what other posters and myself have said. Viability is directly correlated to technology, at some point, probably not too far ahead in the future a fetus will be able to develope completely outside the mother. If viability is what is important for you, then at this point, you would be against all abortion. Is this the case? Using words like mansplain only further the notion that you aren't up to a rational discussion.
"probably not to far ahead in the future" doubtful even 100 years from now. even if it were a possibility it's doubtful you would get women to have their unwanted pregnancy harvested and transplanted. so abortion would still be preferable than the fake uterus
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
women are not going to ask for an abortion the day before she delivers because she now fears the entire process.
