When you prevent an abortion...

[F1fan]

Surely.
But the secular State cannot prevent a woman from exercising a constitutional right.

It can dissuade her, saying that it will take care of that child.

Unless the state becomes controlled by unethical Christian extremists. This has happened with Republicans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An unborn baby lives most of the time.

If you mean zygote, embryo, fetus, the answer is no. And your terminology is terrible. It is not an "unborn baby". That is an attempt to poison the well. It is not a proper debating technique. It is usually used by those that think that their position is weak.

 

[F1fan]

I want KW to explain what rights the Constitution of the USA guarantees fertilized eggs. Where is that in the Constitution, exactly?

 

[sayak83]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

Yes I disagree.
A human being becomes a human being when he/she has gained the cognitive ability to host consciousness. Without that he/she is not a human being and does not have intrinsic rights. That is why it is possible to withdraw life support from severely brain damaged patients.

Based on what I understand of fetal development, a fetus does not have the brain structures to actualize consciousness till about 20 weeks. So till that time it cannot have intrinsic rights.

 

[F1fan]

Let's note that about 75% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, and are flushed from a woman naturally, just as God intended.

 

[danieldemol]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

Suppose you are only saving a few insentient cells in a petri dish from being wiped out and as a result a human baby will die a slow agonising death of starvation and malnutrition later, where your actions truly altruistic?

Why does it change just because those insentient cells are stuck in a womb?

In my opinion.

 

[blü 2]

You save a human life.
Does anyone disagree?

The abortion of the foetus in the first trimester does not kill any sentient thing. SCOTUS got the balance right in Doe v Wade. If the present court now undoes that, it's a step back into the dark ages, an active poverty trap for many. The idea that women will have to travel interstate to get what is presently lawful is deeply political, deeply one-sided, deeply stupid.

The actual argument is, who's in charge of a woman's fertility? The woman or the state?

If the state, then human females are in the same position as breeding stock.

As a son, husband, father of a daughter and grandfather of a granddaughter, I strongly oppose any attempt by the state to control human female fertility.

It's the woman's choice.

 

[F1fan]

Suppose you are only saving a few insentient cells in a petri dish from being wiped out and as a result a human baby will die a slow agonising death of starvation and malnutrition later, where your actions truly altruistic?

Why does it change just because those insentient cells are stuck in a womb?

In my opinion.

Good opinion.

To my mind are these anti-abortion Christians really all that moral? I ask because if they were truly pro-life as they claim wouldn't they be fighting as hard to demand healthcare for all lives? Wouldn't they demand paid leave for parents when they have a child of at least 14 weeks, if not more? Wouldn't these people be working towards cleaner air and food? How about expanded mental health services? How about free prenatal care for poor women? How about decent housing, and public safety, like vaccinations and social cooperation during public health emergencies?

I don't see them doing this, so are they really pro-life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want KW to explain what rights the Constitution of the USA guarantees fertilized eggs. Where is that in the Constitution, exactly?

Here?

 

[F1fan]

The abortion of the foetus in the first trimester does not kill any sentient thing. SCOTUS got the balance right in Doe v Wade. If the present court now undoes that, it's a step back into the dark ages, an active poverty trap for many. The idea that women will have to travel interstate to get what is presently lawful is deeply political, deeply one-sided, deeply stupid.

The actual argument is, who's in charge of a woman's fertility? The woman or the state?

If the state, then human females are in the same position as breeding stock.

As a son, husband, father of a daughter and grandfather of a granddaughter, I strongly oppose any attempt by the state to control human female fertility.

It's the woman's choice.

And one republican's response to women in abortion ban states is to criminalize any women who travels to another state for a procedure if she resides in the ban state. So these women would not even have the freedom anywhere in the USA from the long arm of the state they live in.

 

[KW]

Misleading statements. This is a faulty and emotional approach that isn't accurate.

Try again to argue against abortion by being objective, and use facts. Be sure to explain the full depth of the consequences on the lives your views will affect, don't just ignore them as if they mean nothing to you.

How is it misleading?

If you kill the baby it won't live.

If you prevent the killing of the baby it lives.

You save a life.

 

[KW]

Surely.
But the secular State cannot prevent a woman from exercising a constitutional right.

It can dissuade her, saying that it will take care of that child.

Abortion is not a constitutional right. It is not even mentioned.

 

[KW]

The abortion of the foetus in the first trimester does not kill any sentient thing. SCOTUS got the balance right in Doe v Wade. If the present court now undoes that, it's a step back into the dark ages, an active poverty trap for many. The idea that women will have to travel interstate to get what is presently lawful is deeply political, deeply one-sided, deeply stupid.

The actual argument is, who's in charge of a woman's fertility? The woman or the state?

If the state, then human females are in the same position as breeding stock.

As a son, husband, father of a daughter and grandfather of a granddaughter, I strongly oppose any attempt by the state to control human female fertility.

It's the woman's choice.

If you don't kill the fetus it can live a full life.

If you preven the killing, you save the life.

 

[danieldemol]

How is it misleading?

If you kill the baby it won't live.

If you prevent the killing of the baby it lives.

You save a life.

Your mum must have had a unique biology if you were a baby from the moment of conception.
You'd arguably be a greater miracle than the alleged virgin birth of Jesus.

In my opinion.

 

[KW]

Suppose you are only saving a few insentient cells in a petri dish from being wiped out and as a result a human baby will die a slow agonising death of starvation and malnutrition later, where your actions truly altruistic?

Why does it change just because those insentient cells are stuck in a womb?

In my opinion.

Do you advocating kiling everyone in the world who might have a bad life?

Isn't that playing God?

 

[KW]

Yes I disagree.
A human being becomes a human being when he/she has gained the cognitive ability to host consciousness. Without that he/she is not a human being and does not have intrinsic rights. That is why it is possible to withdraw life support from severely brain damaged patients.

Based on what I understand of fetal development, a fetus does not have the brain structures to actualize consciousness till about 20 weeks. So till that time it cannot have intrinsic rights.

If you kill the unborn baby before has gained the cognitive ability to be a human in your opinion, then it will never reach that stage.

If you let it live then you have saved a human life.

Right?

 

[KW]

Your mum must have had a unique biology if you were a baby from the moment of conception.
You'd arguably be a greater miracle than the alleged virgin birth of Jesus.

In my opinion.

You are avoiding the question.

If you don't abort the fetus and it becomes a fully functioning human, then you have saved a life by preventing the abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortion is not a constitutional right. It is not even mentioned.

Not all constitutional rights are mentioned. They do not need to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are avoiding the question.

If you don't abort the fetus and it becomes a fully functioning human, then you have saved a life by preventing the abortion.

Not really since it was not your life to "save".

 

[KW]

Not all constitutional rights are mentioned. They do not need to be.

The life belongs to the unborn human being.