|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 07 2022 07:27 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 19:13 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 00:22 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Ah, i get it now.
I used "lesser of two evils" as a figure of speech, i did not literally mean that abortions are evil. I meant that you have a choice between two things which are not good. In this case, having an abortion or dealing with a child you are not ready for and ruining your life. Both are not good, but you choose the one which is less not good. I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comAbout 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point. Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points. You said that the stigma was there because it was preventable and often frivolous. I think we both know that's not why there's a stigma attached to abortions. If Christians believed that the soul resided in the appendix and removing it was literal soul murder, then we could end up attaching stigma to appendectomies. My point is that the abortion issue is manufactured. Abortions are a medical operation that lead to a positive outcome, so viewing them as a negative thing is not right in my opinion.
What else is a manufactured issue? Perhaps slavery? We could always label a certain group of people as non-human. ;-)
|
On August 07 2022 07:01 JimmiC wrote:
Pick a state, and Id rather it be someone who supported bans ansering but they all run away when you ask direct questions about the consequences, and what do you think the reduction will be?
Edit: like if you are arguing the ban will reduce the total current aboryions by 5% vs me thinkign they will increase 10% that is not really much of an argument since the outcome is losing 5% of abortions but making 95% of the current abortions unsafe. Id disagree but really we would come to the same conclusion about bans being completely ineffective. Now if you thought they would reduce by 95% i would really disagree and wonder how you came to that number. You might then thinks bans were effective at stopping abortions but still disagree with them for numerous other pro choice reasons.
I expect reductions would be on the lower end but I don't want to pull numbers out of my ass. I don't think my inability to predict the abortion rate in Arkansas next year is relevant to the claim that banning abortion, by itself, does not increase abortion rates. I also don't follow any state closely enough to know the likelihood of what other relevant legislation they might pass.
|
Christ watching Trumps cpac texas speech via Pakman, and he sounds so dead, as does the audience 90% of the time
|
On August 07 2022 08:09 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 07:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 19:13 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2022 06:44 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
I mean, that's just calling them evil by another name "not good". There is nothing inherently evil or "not good" about a medical operation which improves your standard of living if you have it. I simply think that the framing of abortions as a negative thing, rather than a life-improving operation is part of the problem. I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all. That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comAbout 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point. Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points. You said that the stigma was there because it was preventable and often frivolous. I think we both know that's not why there's a stigma attached to abortions. If Christians believed that the soul resided in the appendix and removing it was literal soul murder, then we could end up attaching stigma to appendectomies. My point is that the abortion issue is manufactured. Abortions are a medical operation that lead to a positive outcome, so viewing them as a negative thing is not right in my opinion. What else is a manufactured issue? Perhaps slavery? We could always label a certain group of people as non-human. ;-)
I'm confused by this post. Abortion is an issue because some people have convinced themselves that a small cluster of cells is a literal baby.
Slavery is, you know, slavery. It's not a made up issue.
|
On August 06 2022 23:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2022 21:52 Slydie wrote:
No, it isn't celebrated, abortions are strictly taboo and a very private matter.
There tens of thousands of women who can credit major positive changes to their lives to abortions, though: education, careers, businesses, getting a healthy child after aborting a sick one, becoming a mother later with a more stable partner etc. etc. Unfortunately, not many of them will ever tell about it in public, so the true magnitude of the negative consequences of the abortion bans will never be known.
On the flip side, there will be plenty of people who exist because their mother refused to have an abortion too, and in the end, almost all parents end up loving their children. Can you source this? From what ive been reading this is a myth. For example both narrcacists and emotionally immature people will not. They will say it, but they are incapable, and use their "love" as manipulation. This leads to lots of damage to the child and often the same condition as their parent. Even with counciling it is hard for people who are taught by society that their parent loves them and is dojng thei best by them that this is in fact untrue.
No, I can't source that, and how could I? "Love" is not something you can easily quantify in a study, you can even mistreat a child but still love them.
We are hard-wired to take care of our offspring once it is there, and I am old enough and have talked to enough people to know this is generally true, even for very challenged parents.
But, as I said first, this does not mean I am against abortions, that choice should be with the mother (some times the father should weigh in IMO).
|
On August 07 2022 15:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 08:09 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 07:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 19:13 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to do away with many abortions. All of the ones that could have been prevented with contraceptives or education are worse than never being pregnant. There is risk with any procedure and while abortions are safer than pregnancy there is still risk to both future reproduction and worse. There are also emotional and hormonal things that go on with a mother that are best avoided. Less stigma would remove many of the emotional, it would not all.
That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it. This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comAbout 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point. Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points. You said that the stigma was there because it was preventable and often frivolous. I think we both know that's not why there's a stigma attached to abortions. If Christians believed that the soul resided in the appendix and removing it was literal soul murder, then we could end up attaching stigma to appendectomies. My point is that the abortion issue is manufactured. Abortions are a medical operation that lead to a positive outcome, so viewing them as a negative thing is not right in my opinion. What else is a manufactured issue? Perhaps slavery? We could always label a certain group of people as non-human. ;-) I'm confused by this post. Abortion is an issue because some people have convinced themselves that a small cluster of cells is a literal baby. Slavery is, you know, slavery. It's not a made up issue.
I'm confused by this post. Slavery is an issue because some people have convinced themselves that a Black man is a literal human being.
You don't win discussions by misrepresenting the other side/ignoring their arguments and declaring a victory.
|
On August 07 2022 17:21 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 15:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 08:09 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 07:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 19:13 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 18:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:46 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 06 2022 17:26 justanothertownie wrote:On August 06 2022 16:23 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
That's true for all medical operations. Of course no one likes to have one, you'd rather not get sick in the first place and prevention is better than having one. All of these things are true. Yet, no one calls having the appendix removed when it ruptures evil or 'not good', that sort of language tends to be reserved for abortions and I think that's because of the stigma attached to it.
This is a very bad analogy. What are you supposed to do to prevent ruptures or sickness? While you can easily prevent pregnancies in most cases. You definitely have tools under your disposal to minimise the chance of becoming so seriously ill that you require a medical operation, i.e. healthy lifestyle, regular checkups, preventive medicine (vaccines, etc.). The point isn't that appendicitis is like getting pregnant, that would be absurd. The point is that we don't refer to an appendectomy as something 'evil', 'bad' or 'not good'. It's a life-saving operation. We only treat abortions differently because of the stigma attached to it. Yeah, but the stigma is there because often it is not a life saving operation or necessary, it is much easier to prevent than your examples and you end the development of an organism on top of it. Are you really saying those are comparable things? I am pro choice but your arguments make 0 sense to me. You can make a similar argument regarding the bolded part about appendectomies: www.webmd.comAbout 20 to 30 percent of patients with appendicitis have a perforated appendix that needs to be removed, but 70 to 80 percent of patients may only need antibiotics, Salminen added. They're frivolous, i.e. not necessary, 70% of the time, yet you didn't challenge me on that point. Well, then the next question is if the person who is operated knows that. Not comparable to abortion at all. And you conveniently ignored the other points. You said that the stigma was there because it was preventable and often frivolous. I think we both know that's not why there's a stigma attached to abortions. If Christians believed that the soul resided in the appendix and removing it was literal soul murder, then we could end up attaching stigma to appendectomies. My point is that the abortion issue is manufactured. Abortions are a medical operation that lead to a positive outcome, so viewing them as a negative thing is not right in my opinion. What else is a manufactured issue? Perhaps slavery? We could always label a certain group of people as non-human. ;-) I'm confused by this post. Abortion is an issue because some people have convinced themselves that a small cluster of cells is a literal baby. Slavery is, you know, slavery. It's not a made up issue. I'm confused by this post. Slavery is an issue because some people have convinced themselves that a Black man is a literal human being. You don't win discussions by misrepresenting the other side/ignoring their arguments and declaring a victory.
I mean, you could make a case that a pregnant woman is a slave to their foetus, but they're quite separate issues.
|
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development.
|
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous.
|
On August 07 2022 17:54 Silvanel wrote:
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development.
Exactly.
The whole comparison to appendices is such a stupid take. Obviously there is 0 chance that a person develops from the appendix if it is remaining in the body instead of being removed. So if someone has a problem (or thinks it is evil) with removing the cluster of cells that likely WILL become a person and not with the removal of appendices that is a perfectly understandable position and I have no idea how you can be surprised that one leads to social stigma and one does not. There is also no need to be religious to have this opinion.
|
On August 07 2022 17:54 Silvanel wrote:
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development.
Right, the most obvious flaw with this line of reasoning is that almost everywhere has restrictions on abortions at different timelines. Some countries are 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks, etc. Not sure who gets to decide the timeline on when it's a frivolous made-up issue and when it becomes a universal truth that it's no longer acceptable.
|
On August 07 2022 17:54 Silvanel wrote:
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development.
We can play this game if you like.
Make up a definition of personhood and regardless of the criteria chosen, a black man would fullfil that definition.
Make up a definition for baby and I severely doubt that you could demonstrate that a bundle of cells fulfills it.
|
On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder.
Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder.
There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly.
|
On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes...
|
On August 07 2022 19:02 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 17:54 Silvanel wrote:
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development. We can play this game if you like. Make up a definition of personhood and regardless of the criteria chosen, a black man would fullfil that definition. Make up a definition for baby and I severely doubt that you could demonstrate that a bundle of cells fulfills it.
ok. my fictitious and absolutely atrocious definition of personhood is, among other things, having a skin tone lighter than 6 in the Munsell color scheme.
|
On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly.
Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life.
Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body.
|
On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes...
Your point being...?
|
On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body.
You can disagree all you like, but sperm and egg cells are living tissue according to any definition you like. So is skin, a recently chopped off toe, and.. mosquitoes, or for that matter, tuberculosis bacteria.
|
On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...?
Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person.
|
On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body.
I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons.
But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
