@spartans9312 we’re out here killing full term babies. Do you believe the election was stolen. I mean are you fcking kidding me
We can all agree no woman gets pregnant with the express intention of getting an abortion. That’s actually where conservatives enter the picture. If Republicans didn’t make right to life a political hot point but instead focused political debate on minimizing unwanted pregnancies their sincerity would be unquestioned and progress might be possible.
As it is, a third of our populace is going insane.
Can you kick a soccer ball through a barn door?
What moderately accomplished athlete couldn't?
@spartans9312 we’re out here killing full term babies. Do you believe the election was stolen. I mean are you fcking kidding me
I simply like to know if I'm talking to a moron or not. It's an infallible test question.
I'm not sure 100% where @bradstevens was going with this, but I think the far more interesting questions on this topic are moral, not legal. I mean, the legal are interesting, too, but I think the moral are much more fascinating.
Functionally, what is the difference between aborting a full-term fetus and killing a newborn infant? Well, they have passed through the birth canal (or through an incision in the belly). They have been physically separated from their mother with the severing of the umbilical cord (not necessarily, but if that matters, we can come back to it). They are getting their oxygen from outside the womb. Their nutrients must be administered by some external interaction. Likewise, disposition of waste. Okay, so those things are different. But do any of them matter morally? I find it hard to accept that they do. I find it difficult to draw a distinction between a full-term fetus and a newly born child.
That said, humans have been making that distinction for millennia. Ancient Jewish law assigned greater value to the mother than the childe up until childbirth, and a fetus could be destroyed even in the process of birth to save the mother, until it had begun to emerge from the birth canal, at which point it became a human in its own right, with equal moral rights to the mother.
That said, the same thinking that makes me uncomfortable with very late-term abortion is why I can't justify a full ban on abortion (although, as I've said before, I do think that's where we're headed, anyway). I consider a miscarriage a terrible, sad, tragedy. I don't consider it a moral crime. Sometimes, it might even be a blessing. An early-term abortion is morally, to me, more like a miscarriage than a murder.
Problem with the way I look at it is this: there is no obvious place to draw a bright line. It's just sort of a gradual gray area. It's like Theseus' Ship, but with death.
@hhlurker there is no explanation nor justification for the mass law. None.
the reality is Dems are for
letting criminals in the country
letting criminals out of prison
trnsfwring private ownership
and killing full term babies
@goat no there is a viable place. 22 weeks. After the test that rules out downs structural problems etc. the prior law. and there’s an absolute distinction. Pain. Viability. On and on. Your post is vapid goat. You’re better than that post. Full term is simply murdering a viable human that is susceptible to pain bc you’re a POS human who found a pos quack
The picture/video of the Massachusetts governor signing the bill was saddening. The look of joy on the faces of many of the women was just barbaric, especially the shot of the young blonde woman over the governor’s right shoulder, clutching her hands together under her chin while smiling ecstatically.
Sickening and pathetic.
Can anyone here play this game?
I'm not sure 100% where @bradstevens was going with this, but I think the far more interesting questions on this topic are moral, not legal. I mean, the legal are interesting, too, but I think the moral are much more fascinating.
Functionally, what is the difference between aborting a full-term fetus and killing a newborn infant? Well, they have passed through the birth canal (or through an incision in the belly). They have been physically separated from their mother with the severing of the umbilical cord (not necessarily, but if that matters, we can come back to it). They are getting their oxygen from outside the womb. Their nutrients must be administered by some external interaction. Likewise, disposition of waste. Okay, so those things are different. But do any of them matter morally? I find it hard to accept that they do. I find it difficult to draw a distinction between a full-term fetus and a newly born child.
That said, humans have been making that distinction for millennia. Ancient Jewish law assigned greater value to the mother than the childe up until childbirth, and a fetus could be destroyed even in the process of birth to save the mother, until it had begun to emerge from the birth canal, at which point it became a human in its own right, with equal moral rights to the mother.
That said, the same thinking that makes me uncomfortable with very late-term abortion is why I can't justify a full ban on abortion (although, as I've said before, I do think that's where we're headed, anyway). I consider a miscarriage a terrible, sad, tragedy. I don't consider it a moral crime. Sometimes, it might even be a blessing. An early-term abortion is morally, to me, more like a miscarriage than a murder.
Problem with the way I look at it is this: there is no obvious place to draw a bright line. It's just sort of a gradual gray area. It's like Theseus' Ship, but with death.
Reasonable thoughts.
My wife had two miscarriages, and unfortunately, I was at sea both times. Those are the reason we have an only child. The D&Cs caused some physical issues so my wife was told she couldn't safely have another baby.
After the test that rules out downs structural problems etc.
Why should that matter, morally?
Pain.
If we had a solid way to test pain in a fetus, that could be a good line.
Viability
Viability is dependent upon medical capabilities, and therefore cannot constitute a moral bright line.
Your post is vapid goat. You’re better than that post
???? I don't understand why you think so. Did you misread it?
The picture/video of the Massachusetts governor signing the bill was saddening. The look of joy on the faces of many of the women was just barbaric, especially the shot of the young blonde woman over the governor’s right shoulder, clutching her hands together under her chin while smiling ecstatically.
Sickening and pathetic.
The "pro-choice" crowd always looks like that when they broaden abortion. It's not a good look at all. It should be considered tragic, not joyful.
After the test that rules out downs structural problems etc.
Why should that matter, morally?
Pain.
If we had a solid way to test pain in a fetus, that could be a good line.
Viability
Viability is dependent upon medical capabilities, and therefore cannot constitute a moral bright line.
Your post is vapid goat. You’re better than that post
???? I don't understand why you think so. Did you misread it?
How would you vote on the bill?