:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sometimes we do, if the mother's life is at stake but she's in a state that doesn't allow that as an exception.

Let's clarify the difference between a "person" and a "human". NO ONE is saying a fetus isn't "human" which means it is homo sapien. A "person" is a legal term: "a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes. Typically, a legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts."(Cornell Law School)

A fetus cannot sue or be sued, own property or enter into contracts.

But, I mean, they can be given rights, now, and the inference of moral agency. One of the consequences of overturning Roe, it seems to me, is that the line of what is or is not a person has been blurred significantly.

I agree. The idea of a fetus becoming a 'person' upon reaching viability had some sense behind it. This personhood "at conception" is just ludicrous. THIS is NOT a "person":


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1c1237f86a.jpg

What's it look like at 8 1/2 months, as is legal in some states?

:rolleyes:

Because it suits certain politicians and their sponsors.

In the UK, the State Pension age is, I think 66. That isn't because 65 year olds aren't human. Similarly, if child support starts at birth and ends at 16 or 18, that doesn't mean that those either end of that is a line at which humanity starts. Reading any of these things as demarking lines of where humanity starts and stops may be rhetorically useful, but it isn't what these systems do. If we wanted to, we could say that nobody below the age of 12 was human. Somebody would still have to feed and cloth these non-humans though and disputes would arise about who should do that.

Do you truly not understand the term "viability"? Here, let me help you:"ability to survive or live successfully."

Or is your intent to yet again trot out the old lie that "women will get abortions on a whim/because it's not convenient/can't afford it" at 8 1/2 months and doctors will do it?

OT, there was one on our roof earlier.

No, the intent is to illustrate that the constant use of extreme examples is not valuable. Like if I show a picture of an 8-month-old as an abortion example, and you show a picture of the instant of conception....nobody is getting anywhere.

Give us an example in which a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant gets an abortion for a reason other than medical necessity, and we can provide you that information.

But nobody can tell me why it should be legal in a case of non-medical emergency, at all. This is what I am talking about with ludicrous demands. How can anyone compromise with a mindset that believes such things should be legal?

Yes, I am fully aware that the fact that 73 year old grandpa not being eligible for child support is not related to him not being human and I was not suggesting otherwise.

Never mind. I was just curious, as it's pretty clear that in most states pregnancy is not seen as such an obstacle to divorce (and to your point, it does not reflect on different considerations about personhood in different states). Sorry I brought it up.

Personhood at conception is a mainstream Republican belief, not an extreme example.

"EXTREME" examples? You do understand that at least eight states have banned abortions from the moment of conception?

Tell me again how 'extreme' my example is.

Nobody needs to tell you that, because it's not a thing that's happening. You're manufacturing outrage over a phenomenon that is not occurring.

Because a fetus is not a biologically independent being.

I believe it an extreme example intended to minimize the humanity of the fetus. Similar to referring to a fetus as a parasite, which we have seen plenty of here, by numerous members.

That's a pretty solid dodge though, isn't it? If you believe it is acceptable law, for abortion anytime prior to labor, just say so. I know some people here have expressed that they feel the law is acceptable.

Why the reluctance to condemn the law? I'll tell you why: because there can be no compromise. And that is why we are where we are today. The same sort of mindsets.

Because "abortions" are NOT performed at that late stage of pregnancy: they are either induced births or caesarian sections. It's not really that difficult to understand...at least for those who want to understand.

We live in a world where people decide to get Brazilian Butt Lifts in basements from people they met on the Internet with websites that look like they should be selling horoscopes. It is a world where children are neglected, abused and sometimes even killed by their parents. There is no great shortage of people wanting unethical things from doctors and doctors willing to profit from it. The question is about how often it happens, not whether it happens.

So then, condemn the law that would allow for it to occur. It's very easy. And this is real law, on the books, not imagined.

I believe your expressed opinion on abortion has been no compromise, no limits whatsoever, correct?

Oh, give it a rest! Something is not an extreme example when states are already banning abortion from fertilization which is the photo I posted.

On the other hand, you are giving an example of something that does not happen!

As for the 'parasite' bit that you think is some kind of moral 'gotcha', it is scientifically correct. Anyone who calls women "split tails" and then claims women "like" to be called that is certainly no one to be talking about 'minimizing the humanity' of anyone.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1ca21278be.jpg

How does repeating the Republican belief that personhood begins at conception minimize the humanity of the fetus? It's literally a belief that grants the fetus humanity.

I think you are clear on what I meant: Liberals are typically going to trot out a pic of some ooze and say, "see, this isn't a person"...Republicans are going to show pics of a largely formed fetus, typically. Both ends are going to extremes to draw emotional support for their ideologies. Stacy mentioned a number of states with bans; I believe there are also 7 states with no limits on the term of pregnancy for legal abortion. Both are more extreme examples than where the ideal is, imo.

JHC! There doesn't need to be law against something that does not happen!

Why not have a law against men giving birth? A law against women donating sperm?
Give me an example...a real example...of a woman getting an 'abortion' at
8 1/2 months when it wasn't medically necessary. And do not mention Kermit Gosnell because what he did was already illegal. Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

There's nothing to condemn because, again, you've manufactured a fictional scenario. If you want to pretend to be upset about things only occurring in your imagination, I can't help you with that, but I certainly don't need to participate.

And FYI: The feigned moral outrage isn't the least bit believable. The numerous sociopathic opinions you've posted let us know your true thoughts on the value of human life.

Great, let us know when you have that information.

We are not responsible to come up with solution to problems that are lies made up by people with admitted ulterior motives.

Clearly you aren't willing to condemn the law that allows for such murder. So what else is there to say?

Ohhh ohh I know this one.

1. Something that isn't a lie.
2. Something that actually has a point.
3. Something that is one topic.

...
..
.

Oh you weren't talking about what else there is for you to say, well then carry on.

That's probably a couple of bad examples to use when it comes to liberal thinking and how far it can go.

Abortion law that has no restrictions on term/reason is equally extreme to the wildest examples you could present.

All a conservative has to do is softly whisper "compromise" into an empty room and Democrats come running down the block.

If it helps you make peace with the fictional scenario of woman 8 1/2 months pregnant getting an abortion for no good reason, pretend it's a Black guy being murdered by the police or a poor person dying from lack of access to healthcare.

Not only will it put your mind at ease, but it will probably put a smile on your face, too.

It sure doesn't seem that way.

It doesn't? Well then, let me spend the next five pages conducting a back-and-forth Socratic dialog in an earnest attempt to convince you that you're being disingenuous.

That doesn't sound very interesting or on-topic when it comes to abortion law. We are discussing current law, distortions of truth, and a general mindset that prohibits compromise between two political parties. Those are really the core issues at hand, aren't they?