Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 3:23pm

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

Life just isn't that black and white especially when discussing this topic.

Out of interest, when does a fetus become a baby in your opinion ?

Is it when the baby is born, just before it's born or some other time during the pregnancy ?

Genuine question..

when it is capable of sentience. which doesn't occur by 12 weeks and not by 16 weeks either so i'm very comfortable with the laws that were enacted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-06-2019 3:31pm

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

That makes it sound like all opinions are somehow equal. But they are not. After all if one person says a fetus is not a child, another person says the fetus is a child, and another person says a pineapple is a child..... they are all just opinions sure..... but that does not grant them ANY level of equality.

Words have meanings, definitions, etymology, history, applications, context. To shout "that is all just an opinion" at disagreements there is to simply paper over and ignore..... well everything. And ignore the fact that is the person saying a fetus is not a child, and a person claiming the pineapple is a child, express their opinions..... one is clearly going to be able to substantiate and argue his position, grounding it in a shared reality, then the other.

We need to go beyond opinion and say "Why do you hold that position exactly, what do you mean with these words, what is the transition between them" and then evaluate all these "opinions" in relation to each other to ascertain which ones are most couched in argument, evidence, data and reasons and which ones are..... nothing more than..... mere opinion asserted for effect or agenda.

volchitsa · 19-06-2019 4:00pm

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Of course not.

You're equating a fetus with a toddler or teenager which is plainly nonsense.

That's a tactic normally applied by the no side.

That's exactly my point. A toddler isn't the same as a teenager in lots of ways, but in terms of how we view killing one, they are exactly the same, and so are all the ages in between.

Killing a child of any age is completely unacceptable to us.

So I don't believe that people who voted to allow abortion actually think that it is killing a child. Obviously they must think that it's something else - something they may disapprove of, perhaps very strongly - but they clearly don't think they voted to give people the choice to kill a child.

Igotadose · 19-06-2019 4:05pm

....... wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree.

The prolifers pushed the agenda that a Yes vote was a yes to murdering children.

I dont think most people in the country voted to murder children. At all.

I think *most* people who voted can see the difference between a fetus and a child.

Most people voted to repeal the awful eighth amendment and let the Dail legislate.

Igotadose · 19-06-2019 4:08pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

when it is capable of sentience. which doesn't occur by 12 weeks and not by 16 weeks either so i'm very comfortable with the laws that were enacted.

This was in response to someone "asking" when a fetus became a 'baby.' There's no legal definition nor likely a scientific one afaik for "baby." Child, yes. Baby is a 'Hallmark greeting card' term (popular, for sure.)

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:10pm

Igotadose wrote: »

This was in response to someone "asking" when a fetus became a 'baby.' There's no legal definition nor likely a scientific one afaik for "baby." Child, yes. Baby is a 'Hallmark greeting card' term (popular, for sure.)

all babies are children. not all children are babies. I really dont get what you are trying to say.

SexBobomb · 19-06-2019 4:15pm

....... wrote: »

I have no idea and I dont think its relevant when a fetus becomes a baby tbh.

What is relevant is when we are dealing with an entity that is equal in moral terms to the woman that is carrying it. So when it possesses brain chemistry, consciousness etc...

I dont know exactly when a fetus possesses those characteristics either but I know that they definitely are NOT present at 12 weeks.

This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:17pm

SexBobomb wrote: »

This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.

It isn't vague at all. what is vague is the anti-choice side trying to prove that fetus is somehow equivalent to a child. They have never actually advanced any arguments.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:19pm

SexBobomb wrote: »

This is a all pretty vague tbh and thats what the debate is around as I see it. I really don't expect anyone to have these answers on boards by the way so don't take it as an attack.

Which bit do you find vague?

We (as in we, the medical and scientific community) dont know exactly when consciousness and sentience arise in fetuses.

But we know that it is NOT there at 12 weeks. Or at 16 weeks.

What part of that do you find vague?

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:25pm

....... wrote: »

Which bit do you find vague?

We (as in we, the medical and scientific community) dont know exactly when consciousness and sentience arise in fetuses.

But we know that it is NOT there at 12 weeks. Or at 16 weeks.

What part of that do you find vague?

The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:28pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

being unconscious and never having consciousness are not the same.

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 4:30pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination. I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness. I don't agree they are fair game for murdering. Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

Comatose people are living citizens who are afforded a full range of human rights, and killing them is against the law and illegal.

Potential people should not be afforded the same human rights as actual people. Especially not at the expense of the human rights of actual people.
Its really that simple.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being unconscious and never having consciousness are not the same.

That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 4:31pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

Who has the moral authority to decide that they are? Especially on behalf of other people who may disagree with their perception of when consciousness occurs? In regards to potential people, I mean.

sabat · 19-06-2019 4:32pm

What don't you god-bothering pro-lifer brigade anti-choicers get here? It was a baby when they went for the test, then it was a fetus when they had it aborted, and then when the final test result came back it was a baby again. Simple.

Igotadose · 19-06-2019 4:32pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all babies are children. not all children are babies. I really dont get what you are trying to say.

When you're asked 'When does it become a baby', that's looking for an emotional response. It becomes a child, when it's born, under the law. The rest is opinion. When it can be aborted without legal consequence is up to 12 weeks in Ireland without restriction, and later with concurrence of medical authorities.

No baby was aborted at the hospital in the case that this thread's about. It was a fetus.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:33pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again?

Nothing vague about it at all. One has never had consciousness. the other has but temporarily does not.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

as a nation we have decided that we have that authority.

Igotadose · 19-06-2019 4:33pm

sabat wrote: »

What don't you god-bothering pro-lifer brigade anti-choicers get here? It was a baby when they went for the test, then it was a fetus when they had it aborted, and then when the final test result came back it was a baby again. Simple.

It was never a baby. It was always a fetus, there's no legal definition of baby, it's just a description of a born child.

Like infant, toddler, teenager...

....... · 19-06-2019 4:33pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The vague part is your opinion that if a human life does not hold the property of consciousness, then that life is fair game for termination.

Whats vague about that? Its pretty clear cut. If it hasnt attained consciousness/sentience, then its quite clearly NOT the same level of entity as a living conscious woman is - so if she wishes to abort it at that point - thats fine by me.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness.

Not necessarily. The human body rejects an alarming number of pregnancies. Do you feel we should mourn every miscarriage? Perhaps we should criminally investigate every women who miscarries for murder? No? Why not?

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

I don't agree they are fair game for murdering.

Oh dear. Very difficult to take you seriously when you make silly statements like the above.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

Of course. A comatose person has consciousness. Like a sleeping person. They have already attained "personhood" for want of a better term. In fact, above consciousness, they have personality, families, a place in the world where they have people who love them. Loads of reasons why they are important. A fetus has none of this. And may never attain any of it.

If you genuinely cannot see why a fetus (below say 16 weeks) is not remotely analagous to a comatose person then Im not sure how to explain it to you tbh.

Try some of Nozz's posts - he has more patience for this kind of blinkered, religiously informed thinking than I do.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:34pm

Igotadose wrote: »

When you're asked 'When does it become a baby', that's looking for an emotional response. It becomes a child, when it's born, under the law. The rest is opinion. When it can be aborted without legal consequence is up to 12 weeks in Ireland without restriction, and later with concurrence of medical authorities.

No baby was aborted at the hospital in the case that this thread's about. It was a fetus.

I'm not sure what point of mine you are arguing against

Igotadose · 19-06-2019 4:34pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure what point of mine you are arguing against

None whatsoever! Sorry for not making that clearer!

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:35pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Who has the moral authority to decide that they are? Especially on behalf of other people who may disagree with their perception of when consciousness occurs? In regards to potential people, I mean.

My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:35pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

That's a very vague statement - you need to expand on it by clarifying why they are not the same if they will both ultimately become conscious again? And who has the moral authority to decide they are not the same?

Nothing vague about it and we as a nation do indeed have the moral authority to decide it and we have done.

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 4:36pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.

That's great, I respect that belief and your right to apply that morality to your own uterus. I don't think you should get to decide for me or for anyone else though.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:36pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

My opinion is if they will both ultimately become conscious beings (whether for the first time or regaining consciousness), then it's immoral to kill.

Why?

What makes a fetus worthy of being protected?

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:38pm

....... wrote: »

They have already attained "personhood" for want of a better term. In fact, above consciousness, they have personality, families, a place in the world where they have people who love them. Loads of reasons why they are important. A fetus has none of this. And may never attain any of it.

So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:

Consciousness
Personality
Family
People who love them
Other reasons they are important

So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, nobody who loves them, and no reason they are important in the world - they are OK to murder?

Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:39pm

....... wrote: »

Why?

What makes a fetus worthy of being protected?

What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:40pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:

Consciousness
Personality
Family
People who love them

So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, and nobody who loves them - they are OK to murder?

Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:

that has already been answered for you.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:40pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.

that has already been answered for you.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:41pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that has already been answered for you.

Great rebuttal :rolleyes: Show me where it's been answered.

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 4:42pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:

Consciousness
Personality
Family
People who love them

So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, and nobody who loves them - they are OK to murder?

Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:

Do you really think you are the first person to make the above suggestions as if they are some sort of trump card against abortion on Boards, or in fact, even on this thread? Bless your naivety.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:42pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

So your list of criteria for human life that's fair game for murder is those who don't possess the following properties/qualities:

Consciousness
Personality
Family
People who love them

So if an unconscious homeless person, with no personality due to mental health issues/disorders, no family, and nobody who loves them - they are OK to murder?

Keep your posts coming I can pick your argument apart all day :pac:

You havent picked anything apart unfortunately. I do look forward to the day when a prolifer comes up with an actual argument!

You clearly did not understand my post if the above is what you took from it.

Your homeless unconscious person example is just terrible and completely misrepresents the point being made.

Ill say it again for clarity but I do believe you are being willfully obtuse.

A fetus was never conscious. An unconscious person was. They have attained sentience, consciousness and upon being born, citizenship, as they go through life, personality, family, people who love them etc...

A fetus has none of these things. But the most important, the most fundamental, the thing that gives a biological entity moral consideration - is consciousness.

Now do explain why you think we need to protect non conscious non sentient fetuses. Because you havent. Yet.

I am agog.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:43pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.

I have already gone over this for you.

Im not interested in deliberately obtuse trolling. If you have an argument to make, please state it.

Why is a fetus deserving of protection in your opinion?

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:43pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Great rebuttal :rolleyes: Show me where it's been answered.

I've already answered it for you. If you cannot understand then i am not going to repeat myself.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:45pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you really think you are the first person to make the above suggestions as if they are some sort of trump card against abortion on Boards, or in fact, even on this thread? Bless your naivety.

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

....... · 19-06-2019 4:47pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

Christ.

I was simply pointing out that born people have a lot of other things that fetuses dont have. And why do they have them? Because they are conscious beings who have lived in the world.

Its getting VERY tedious joining the most minor of dots for you.

Now make your argument as you have been asked to do several times.

Jaster Rogue · 19-06-2019 4:48pm

....... wrote: »

citizenship, as they go through life, personality, family, people who love them etc...

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 4:52pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

No you wont.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:52pm

I quite literally answered it in the post above!

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What relevance have these properties and qualities to abortion? If you can answer me that without resorting to "that's been answered already, you're not the first, I'm not repeating myself, if you can't see it there's no point arguing, etc, etc" then I will gracefully concede the debate.

The only relevance is that only a conscious born person could have attained these qualities. It wasnt the main point. It was me expanding on *other* reasons why unconscious people are not the same as fetuses. Youre like a dog with a bone on something that isnt even that relevant! Unconscious people have lots going for them. Fetuses after a certain point ONLY have consciousness. But before a certain point they dont even have that.

....... wrote: »

Christ.

I was simply pointing out that born people have a lot of other things that fetuses dont have. And why do they have them? Because they are conscious beings who have lived in the world.

Its getting VERY tedious joining the most minor of dots for you.

Now make your argument as you have been asked to do several times.

Now make your argument please.

....... · 19-06-2019 4:53pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

...then I will gracefully concede the debate.

Fair enough - I take it you have now conceded?

SusieBlue · 19-06-2019 4:53pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Why did the poster I quoted list them as qualities of "personhood" as he calls it then? What relevance has it to the abortion argument? None. I don't believe possessing or lacking any of those properties or qualities listed makes anyone fair game for murder. And you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to posts like above "you're not the first, that has been answered, bla bla bla" = "I've lost the argument".

The woman carrying the baby is a living citizen with full human rights. She has a family, friends, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. She is a person just like you or me.

A fetus has none of these things. I mean yes, some day it might. But before 12 weeks it has absolutely no common attributes with an actual person bar dna.

Why should a pre 12 week gestated fetus be given an EQUAL right to life as this woman? Why should this fetus be given any rights at all at the expense of this woman's bodily autonomy?
Because you say so? Because you believe its the right thing to do? You'll have to do better than that.

cj maxx · 19-06-2019 4:57pm

54&56 wrote: »

Really very sad for the parents.

I have direct experience of a baby being born with Triosomy 13 over 20 years ago. It was badly deformed and lived for less than a month. Today, if I was faced with the choice facing these parents I'd make exactly the same decision they did.

Giving birth to a such a deformed and/or non viable baby is a nightmare I wouldn't wish any parent or newborn child to have to endure.

The problem here is protocol abs process which need to be improved to minimise a repeat happening again but regardless of how good the process or protocol human error in medicine/healthcare will always occur whether it is an early stage foetus or an 80 year old pensioner.

I’m sorry for your loss

pinkyeye · 19-06-2019 7:56pm

So this has turned into another abortion debate. It's over lads, why are we still debating it.

Harvey Weinstein · 20-06-2019 10:39pm

If this kind of thing becomes normalised there might be a lot more healthy babies aborted at 15 weeks. Horrible logic but logical nonetheless.

Freedom to choose indeed...

20-06-2019 10:54pm

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

If this kind of thing becomes normalised there might be a lot more healthy babies aborted at 15 weeks. Horrible logic but logical nonetheless.

Freedom to choose indeed...

Simple solution to this and the other poor working conditions mentioned in the newspaper articles about the committee investigation into bogus self employment, stronger labour laws favoring workers and union recognition.
Unfortunately a lot of pro lifers tend to be very anti worker and pro business, so don't expect to see them campaign for these anytime soon.

The Rapture · 21-06-2019 7:54pm

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 9:03pm

The Rapture wrote: »

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

You're clearly male, and almost certainly childless - a pregnancy, even only 15 weeks, is already a huge mental and physical investment on the part of the woman. 'Sure they can just have another one" is the traditional view of women as mere breeders, who will gestate as often as the men around her have decided, as though the effort is takes from her were unimportant.

And that's assuming that you are correct that the couple are young enough and fertile enough to have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

Of course they could have gone to the Uk before the referendum, and we would almost certainly never have heard if something had gone wrong, I mean, who would they have complained to, since the British health service in the Liverpool Women's Hospital or wherever was providing them with a service they weren't entitled to as non UK taxpayers?

But IMO it's not about "sorrow" for the fetus, which is aware of nothing, it's about the couple and their plans for a family being thwarted, as I said above.
Just as I might feel sorry for a couple who never managed to get pregnant in the first place - there never was a fetus, but that's irrelevant, because that's not the issue.

And yes of course prolifers are dying to exploit this sad incident for their own agenda. Doesn't make any possible negligence on the part of the hospital any more acceptable though.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-06-2019 2:19pm

....... wrote: »

Try some of Nozz's posts - he has more patience for this kind of blinkered, religiously informed thinking than I do.

Awwww shucks

Ok allow me....

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

I disagree with that opinion on a moral basis, as given the chance to develop in utero that human life will slowly gain consciousness. Just as an unconscious person in a comatose state will slowly regain consciousness.

Bad comparison there. In the former the faculty itself is entirely absent. In the latter the faculty exists but is compromised. The difference between entirely absent, and malfunctioning, is not a small difference. You do not have more rights awake than asleep for example. That would be ludicrous.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Or does your argument only apply to life that has not previously been conscious, and if so why?

Set Theory maybe? If it has never attained that faculty ever, then it is in the same set as everything else that has never attained that faculty ever. Such as a rock for example.

The "if so why?" you ask therefore gets instantly reversed. Why do you feel POTENTIAL consciousness should hold any moral or ethical concern for us. If I create a fully sentient General Artificial Intelligence that will be every bit as conscious and sentient as you are.... but then just before I turn it on I dismantle it and make toasters...... why might we have to consider that a moral or ethical issue?

How does the arithmetic of potentials even work? After all we can nearly all potentially have children whenever we want. Many of us choose not to. Why no concern for the millions of potentials that have not been realised through such choices or through contraception etc etc?

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

What makes an unconscious person worthy of being protected? You started the consciousness argument.

The error is alas yours but it is an easily fixed linguistic one. You are mistaking.... or rather conflating.... the state of BEING conscious in a given moment with the faculty OF consciousness in and of itself.

It is not that a fetus or a coma patient or someone asleep is conscious or not conscious. It is that 2 of them have, and one of them ENTIRELY lacks, the very faculty of consciousness itself.

It is like we are comparing a radio tower that is built with one that has not yet been built..... while you are comparing two that have been built.... one of which is switched on and the other switched off. And as such we are alas talking past each other.

theological · 24-06-2019 6:57pm

The Rapture wrote: »

This whole thing is a complete non-story. The couple can still have more children.

Pre-repeal they may have chosen to go to the UK anyway. I take they were made aware of the small risk of false positives.
Why would you cry for this feotus any more than 5,000+ who will be aborted this year ?
Pro-lifers are only using this case to refight the referendum.

I think you're missing the point. I think there's right to be concern over mistakes like these if they end in the death of a human life.

Pro-life views won't go away because of the referendum and people have every right to continue questioning the ethics of abortion in a free society.

People still have the liberty to raise questions over the destruction of human life. The word foetus in Latin is young one it basically just means an unborn child. A referendum doesn't nullify the truth. I'd appreciate the pro-choice side more if they were honest and argued that killing an unborn child is justifiable in certain circumstances rather than trying to dehumanise the unborn.

It is similar to how people question the death penalty in the US in respect to mistakes that are made in court.

If you don't find it concerning that's entirely up to you.

Outlaw Pete · 24-06-2019 7:56pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Awwww shucks Ok allow me..

/Cringe

It is like we are comparing a radio tower....

Your argument has been rebutted multiple times at this stage. It's senseless.

Is it that prochoicers keep backslapping your posts (or PMing you - as you posted elsewhere) that has resulted in you incorrectly thinking it has merit, is that it? Is it a numbers thing? It must be, as it is absurd that we as a society should look on killing developing first trimester babies in the womb with no more regard for them than had we just broken a rock.

Boards just has a very very high percentage of liberals and they want something to hang their hat on when it comes to justifying their endorsement of the killing of developing human beings. Evidenced by (as you've just seen) a poster delegating replies to you. I guess they think your ability to keep posting longwinded needlessly convoluted irrelevant walls of text is somehow a coherent argument. I assure you, it's not. Well, not to anyone with any regard for commonsense at least.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why should a pre 12 week gestated fetus be given an EQUAL right to life as this woman?

Because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have. Simple as that.

Why should this fetus be given any rights at all at the expense of this woman's bodily autonomy?

If the 'expense' you're alluding to is a risk to life, well then they shouldn't, which is why most people who would identify as prolife have no issue with abortions carried out under those particular circumstances and a few other ones also.

Because you say so? Because you believe its the right thing to do?

No, because it's the only life they have and are ever likely to have.

Again, here is ultrasound footage of a developing human being who is very much alive and to suggest what is seen below is just autonomic movement from a 'blob of biological human shaped matter' (or a 'zygote' at ten weeks - in the case of your good self) is about a ridiculous a view as it is for someone to say that we live on a flat Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments