No one can support abortion after watching this video

So, you are not happy with SC decision in letting States decide. You want the opposite of what they ruled. Buyers remorse?

 

You're trying to change the issue. I have never expressed anything to suggest that.

 

What does? The BORN baby in your OP ?...yup, if it's BORN it's a baby and no one has ever said otherwise.

Science is not your enemy....if it's BORN it's a baby....if it's still inside the woman it's a fetus...NOT a baby , NOT a teenager, NOT a senior.....it's a fetus..

 

Ya, in post 25 you did.

 

Isn't that what your complaint is about? You don't like how some States decide the issue. The whole idea behind the SC ruling was to allow States to decide for themselves.

 

The baby in the opening post is the same type of baby as a baby in the womb. The only difference is one is outside of the woman (where you can see it) and the other is inside of the woman.

It seems like you're just playing word games. Human being outside the womb = baby ; human being inside the womb = fetus ; Okay to abort fetus but not baby.

Pretty much all that is equivalent to saying is that you think it's okay to kill it if it's inside the womb.

There's no other real difference in its nature whether it's inside or outside of the womb.

 

OK, try letting a fetus grow itself outside the womb LOLOLOL

Once AGAIN you display the fact that you have no idea what pregnancy entails nor what happens at birth.

Your denial of science hinders you

 

You're trying to misrepresent my position. I believe what you are doing is a little bit of something called an equivocation fallacy, and is implying an assumption.
Yes, I may not like how some states decide the issue but that does not necessarily mean I want the federal level of government to be the instrument to change things.
Just like I might advocate for lower taxes but that doesn't mean I think it would be great for one country to force another country to change its policies and lower its tax rate.

See, what you might have trouble understanding is something called principles. Traditional conservatives don't believe any means are justified to get what you want; that means don't always justify the ends. There is a certain framework within which one has to try to achieve the desired outcome. You can look up the difference between ontological (anything goes, means justifies the ends) and deontological (duties, rights) ethics.

 

This "fetus" is growing outside the womb. It's hooked up to a bunch of tubes.

Maybe you need to watch that video again.

Is that what you think, this issue is all about whether a fetus can survive outside of the womb?
Because right now there are several states that allow termination even after it has a chance of surviving outside.

 

WHO said it was?

And WHY would it have to be hooked to tubes if it doesn't need the woman it's in to nourish it?

NO, that would be YOU claiming the fetus is not part of the woman it's in nor does it need her to survive.

Irrelevant...and nothing to do with what we're discussing.

UNCHERRY-PICKED POST:

OK, try letting a fetus grow itself outside the womb LOLOLOL

Once AGAIN you display the fact that you have no idea what pregnancy entails nor what happens at birth.

Your denial of science hinders you

 

What are you saying, that it's okay to abort it outside the womb because it's hooked up to tubes and can't truly survive all on its own?

 

Hmm, if a fetus is "part of" a woman then couldn't it also likewise be said that she is part of it?
We've talked about this before.

What does happen at birth, FoxHastings? Does the fairy in the birth canal wave her magical wand and suddenly turns the fetus into a baby?

 

I KNEW that was what you thought about what happens at birth ...no need for silly things like facts and science for Anti-Choicers...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, that would be YOU claiming the fetus is not part of the woman it's in nor does it need her to survive....that it just floats inside her for 9 months for no reason at alll....you are the one who thinks magic wands exist...

 

As you pointed out the baby did not survive.

To be considered a human being (one with rights) it needs to be able to survive outside of the womb. Currently the point of viability (50% chance of surviving outside of the womb) is about 24 weeks. At that point I have no problem with some regulation on abortion.

If a woman has carried a fetus for 6 months (24 weeks) she has already made her decision to carry it to term and the only reason she would have an abortion is if testing showed severe fetal abnormalities or if the pregnancy was putting her life in danger.

 

I can post videos showing why placing more power in the hands of government is a bad idea for those with a genuine concern for human life. I don't need videos to make my arguments for me. Throughout history, the vast majority of murder is committed by government.

 

So you're acknowledging that most fetuses can't survive outside the womb at 24 weeks. That's progress at least.

 

You underestimate the evil in this world.

 

They can’t survive outside the womb at full term without another person!

 

Because they are incapable of providing for themselves.
In the case of a fetus at 16 weeks it’s not a question of being provided for, they physically can’t survive.

 

Why should that be so? Why make that the definition? Why make that the threshold?

I can see arguments for self awareness, consciousness, or ability to feel pain being thresholds. But why this?

 

It is dependency. It is all dependency. Cannot justify a homicide based on that!

 

It is not “dependency”.

A 16 week old fetus will not survive outside of the womb no matter what medical care it is given. It is not a separate, independent being at that point.

 

Nwolfe35 said: ↑
To be considered a human being (one with rights) it needs to be able to survive outside of the womb.

Because before this it is dependent on the woman it's living off of....it is part of her body so it can't be another "person".

Once it's born it is seperate from the woman and so can be considered a seperate person.

 

Does that also apply to cojoined twins?