Surely you understand that using absolutes in such context would simply not be possible?
Why abortion is unnecessary.
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
And yet the anti-lady brigade are very quick to draw absolute conclusions from it. So what gives?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Still pretty true. Not to say none are frivolous, I don't know that, but most are not.
The OP discussed the abortion of potentially viable fetuses. It doesn't speak to early-term abortions.
People that call themselves pro-lifers. They can object to the distribution of contraception (and related measures) that would decrease the abortion rate. Whyever the hell they want to do that, they're prioritizing that over preventing those potential abortions. Or they can object to abortion and support things that actually decrease their frequency. Can't have it both ways. They contradict each other and one has to take precedence over the other.
The people that call themselves pro-life and object to measures that prevent abortions are demonstrating that either 1) they can't wrap their minds around multi-dimensional issues, or 2) their interest in abortion is less concerned with "protecting life" and more concerned with using babies to punish people that have sex they don't approve of. The latter is so morally reprehensible that I have to assume that these people just haven't figured out my last paragraph.
Neither do I and neither did Arwon, as far as I could tell...
A kidney-bean-sized lump of tissue has no interests or rights as far as I am concerned and therefore I couldn't care less how many or for what reasons are aborted.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Aha, you're right. I wasn't reading your post in the context of Arwon's and wrongly assumed you meant generally.
I've hever heard of that argument. (Probably because it isn't one.)
I'd suggest the higher absolute number belongs to the country with the higher population. Also, the years to which the collected data belong are missing.
That's selfcontradictory: all foetuses are 'potentially viable'.
That's putting it rather crudely.. as well as besides the point.
Abortion is about a woman's rights. (A foetus can, for obvious reasons, have no legal rights. Terming abortion 'murder' is therefore also incorrect.) That said, abortion is also a medical procedure. Forbidding certain medical procedures such as abortion will necessarily lead to illegal abortions, endangering women's lives. This is the situation prior to the legalization of abortion. It is the responsibility of any state to protect it's citizens, and that, obviously, also includes women. It is not the responsibility of any state to impose moral behaviour upon its citizens. (Even if one disagrees with this view, it would in practice be quite impossible to impose such moral behaviour, if only because there is no consensus on what exactly constitutes morally appropriate behaviour; citizens tend to have different opinions on such matters.)
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
So in some cases a pregnancy was terminated and the fetus could survive, therefore abortion is never necessary? Nice try.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
What if we all went gay?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Not with context.
It is my understanding that the word "fetus" is used to describe the unborn baby from the embryo stage right up the the moment of birth.
I can´t agree that birth should be the defining moment when somebody "gets" rights. Nor the very moment of conception, of course.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Yeah, me too.
There are in did people who are a mixture of pro-life and pro-birth. It just still is fun to tease pro-lifers way more than teasing pro-birthers.
edit: I believe I mixed up the terms. Oh well...
With context not all foetuses are potentially viable?That's incorrect. What is problematic is the exact moment when a phoetus actually becomes a baby. (The opposite of your reasoning is the stance that abortion kills babies. That, however, is only true if the abortion is performed illegally or by someone not authorized to perform such a medical procedure.)
They're not potentially viable in that they cannot be surgically removed and expected to survive.
Which is true up to a certain point in pregnancy. (Yet this doesn't refute that all foetuses are potentially viable; by medical procedure upon the foetus, this potentiality is artificially removed. Potentially viable, by the way, doesn't mean that the resulting baby will be healthy or receive proper care when born.)
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Or there's no way the pregnancy can successfully finish with or without medical intervention.
Okay. Then I've been misled by a dictionary.
Yeah. I would, however, rather err in the favor of the baby here.
Yes, their potential viability changes over time. The potential (I had originally thought, LucyDuky has clarified) was whether medical intervention allowed them to be viable at the time.
I would say their actual viability changes over time. (Potential viability includes the possibility that a baby doesn't survive childbirth.)
With or without?
In what way?
With or without?In what way?
