View original post
You can question whether it is "alive". But a fetus is unquestionably not a baby, or else the word "birth" has no meaning, and I doubt even the most Pro-life of pro-lifers will ignore the physiological differences between a fetus and a baby.
You can question whether it is "alive". But a fetus is unquestionably not a baby, or else the word "birth" has no meaning, and I doubt even the most Pro-life of pro-lifers will ignore the physiological differences between a fetus and a baby.
Birth doesn't make it a person. It's not an either-or meaning. To the extent that "birth" has been used to indicate the beginning of life, it is a result of ignorance and an inability to ascertain life. In any event, birth is seldom used to connote "creation". More often, it's the start of a new stage.
For myself, I would rather not see third trimester abortions except in the case where it can impact maternal life. But such nuances are meaningless when the other side argues that a fertilized egg is the same as a fetus at 24 weeks.
Are we supposed to be impressed that there are SOME infants you would approve of killing for convenience?
And it is especially meaningless when access to contraceptives and early abortions is vociferously objected to. Those are the ways to prevent later abortions, or any abortions. What's more we have decades of data to show that abortion rates fall with easy access to contraception.
In the first place, those are two different things. Contraception has nothing to do with what happens after life begins. The perceived immorality of one, has nothing to do with the objective immorality of the other. Extramarital sex has nothing to do with the issue of contraception, even if the two activities are often linked in practice.
Also, if you are going to link contraception and abortion, you'll have to find some evidence that the opposition to either supports casual sex. Those who support promiscuity and oppose abortion are generally contraception enthusiasts.
And no. You don't get to demand the public fund practices they find immoral (as all but the most socially-conservative are not trying to outlaw contraception, the issue is almost always the public funding or subsidizing of contraceptives) by suggesting it might lead to fewer homicides. The onus is not on decent human beings to appease murderers, it is on the murderers to refrain, in order to avoid the harshest punishment.
And another thing I don't get at all is the argument that the government will protect the fetus and prevent any woman from ending its gestation. But once it is born, any government intervention to save its life is wrong.
Because you don't have a logically consistent bone in your body, and you have a habit of refusing to believe people's positions are what they say they are. The position of the mentally-functional opposition to infanticide is that a human being is entitled to the full legal protections of all human beings, regardless of its stage of life, and that a fetus is a human being, no less and no more. No one opposes government intervention to save lives. Most of the pro-life crowd was demanding President and/or Governor Bush intervene to save Terri Schiavo and their failure to do so probably contributed heavily to their loss of Congress in '06 and the GOP nomination in '16.
What gives? How is that not the worst hypocrisy? How isn't that morally repugnant? I've never received a serious, satisfactory answer for that from anyone who is pro-life.
Because you would not find any answer satisfactory, I suspect, given your multiple attempts in this very post to link unaffiliated issues or phenomena.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Abortion.
- 10/01/2020 08:26:06 PM
627 Views
But it isn't a baby
- 11/01/2020 05:58:07 AM
385 Views
Re: But it isn't a baby
- 11/01/2020 11:42:19 PM
257 Views
Alive
- 14/01/2020 03:41:56 PM
242 Views
Ony if you think babies cannot ethically be killed. A strict utilitarian could take issue with that. *NM*
- 08/02/2020 10:49:53 PM
89 Views