That was a deliberate dishonest "misreading" of what is involved in this horrible disease. But I note that once a kid is born YOU do not care how it suffers. But that is so typical of all "Pro-Lifers" , they ONLY care about the life of the fetus, NOT the child it will become.
You may consider it weak, but it's the law The people you mention are all born, all persons, the fetus isn't....whether you agree or not...
No, it was a clear reading of the intent of the abortionist. Abortion is not about the quality of life of the baby, that's just a mask used by abortionists in an attempt at moral justification of their dogma. Abortion is all about convenience. Look at all the excuses abortionists use to kill the baby - the baby negatively impacts the mothers career, its a bad time, the mother isn't in the right relationship with the father, the baby will cost too much, the baby will interfere with the mothers schooling, the mother is too young and her parents will be mad. Those "reasons" account for 95% or more of all abortions in the USA. And regarding babies with a birth defect, abortionists do not care about the baby suffering or the baby's quality of life, abortionists real concern is that taking care of that baby is too much work, its too big a burden, its too much of an impact on their lifestyle, so they want to abort it and avoid all that responsibility and work. In the end, it absolutely is all about a baby being "irritable" and causing the "mother" inconvenience.
Steven Hawking is completely viable. You do not understand the term. Viability is the point SCOTUS decided on.....and it works pretty well - - - Updated - - - Abortion for convenience is perfectly legal, acceptable and moral.
How do you know what I do? You do not. You just assume everyone is as heartless as an abortionist. Some of us meet the challenges of life, we don't abort them.
Roe defined viability as capable of "prolonged life outside the womb". It also stated that a baby being sustained by a respirator (and only a respirator) is still viable - and you see that before the opinion was even fully written and delivered that compromises were being made. In fact, in Bob Woodwards book "The Brethren", Woodward discusses how Blackmun did not want to use viability, that he though it weak and troublesome, but it was forced into the opinion by Justice Powell. Stephen Hawking does not meet the Roe viability threshold. He has not met that threshold for over a decade. He cannot feed himself, perform any sanitary functions, cannot move much more than his hands. Left alone even with oxygen, he would quickly die. There are many, many people who would very quickly die if their care was removed, they do not meet the Roe threshold for viability. Viability is a ridiculous basis for granting life. You are just parroting the old abortionists line, you don't know what you are arguing.
Again you do not understand the term viability as shown by this statement you made: "He cannot feed himself, perform any sanitary functions, cannot move much more than his hands. Left alone even with oxygen, he would quickly die." This would also apply to a new born baby. Now don't you think the justices wanted to classify a new born baby as viable. So many anti choicers just keep getting the terminology so completely wrong.
Obviously you don't know what viable means when it comes to a fetus. People who are sick or injured don't need to be physically attached to another human being in order to survive. Anyone can provide them with the care they need to survive. The same applies to a post viable fetus. Anyone can care for it and feed it. But a pre-viable fetus will die once it is outside the uterus because no one can provide what it needed while it was physically attached to the uterus inside the woman's body. So the only weakness here is your comprehension failure of the term viable.
Why? He cannot walk or talk or communicate with the outside would without mechanical assistance. He is physically unable to survive on his own. How is this so different from all the peculiar traits of a fetus abortion supporters keep telling us about?
Hawking is a born person with rights, a fetus is not. Again, your problem with not knowing what UNborn and born mean.
Ok I will try but you won't get it. Fetal viability or foetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus. It is not about needing special equipment or needing someone to take care of it. Can it survive outside the uterus? The standard is over 50% of the time. That is currently about 24 weeks.
Now you are getting into the problems of viability. Blackmun had the same concern you just listed. A full term fully developed new born is not actually viable, left alone it will quickly die. Just like many, many other people of all ages. That's why he resisted including viability but was forced into it by Powell. Viability is a disaster in terms of an objective criteria. That's partly the reason viability is no longer used by abortionists, instead they focus on "womens rights" and try to completely ignore the baby.
The definition of viability is Roe is "capable of prolonged life outside the womb", with a respirator if required. That's all. How many people are not capable of "prolonged life outside the womb"? How about the person who requires dialysis several days a week? Or the person who has severe brain damage due to war injury or car accident? All are outside the womb, none can survive for more than days without extensive care. You want viability to work because that's all abortionists have. Unfortunately for you, viability does not work and it was dropped a long time ago. Abortionists focus on "womens rights", they don't want to mention the baby at all because that is a losing argument for them. - - - Updated - - - Irrelevant to the issue of viability. Already you show that viability is a lost cause for abortionists.
Hey, talk to the guy who brought up Hawking and it wasn't me......try to keep up.... viability is not a lost cause, it determines when the legal cut off is... Although it would be better to be like Canada and have NO abortions laws....
<MOD EDIT - Removed flamebait> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf Women overwhelmingly have abortions for convenience, not for "life of the mother", rape, or incest.
Thank you for tacitly admitting that you still don't have a clue what fetal viability actually means even after it has been explained to you. Have a nice day.
LOL, I give you the definition from Roe, and you just cannot admit you are wrong. Typical abortionist, run away from facts.
