Texas towns make it illegal to use roads to travel out of state for an abortion.

Ultimately you are personifying zygotes embryos and early fetuses who have none of the distinct aspects of human life, other than sharing human dna and technically being alive, just as bacteria are alive. They don’t have any cognition, any feeling, any substantial brain activity, no consciousness, no circulatory system and are the size of a peanut or less.

The emotion that you are inserting here in terms of terminating this “life” is yours and your only. There is no suffering for the early fetus. Your asssertion ending that life as “evil” is something made up out of your belief system, presumably motivated by your desire to enforce your religious beliefs into others, similar to the Taliban and other extremist religions.

 

No, it's not silly. It simply leads you to an inconvenient conclusion, a moral dilemma you don't want to be confronted with because it takes you to some ugly places under your own logic.

If you want to make some kind of exception, sure, say that. But you don't get to be dismissive just because you feel uncomfortable with the presented dilemma.

But we do force people to care for others. Child neglect is a crime.

 

You don't think ending innocent human life out of sheer convenience is evil?

I'm assuming you draw the line somewhere, perhaps a place like "viability," whatever that means... and as though that's a static place that doesn't change with advances in medicine. Sounds awfully rude of you to impose your arbitrary beliefs on others.

 

I feel completely comfortable with my position. Humans are sociable animals. We would die in isolation. And throughout history, there have always been other humans willing and able to take care of abandoned humans who need help. The possibility of your hypothetical occurring is zero. Therefore, I find it a useless, silly, and stupid thought exercise. If you want to argue what humanity might look like if we all became lone wolves who only came together to mate, go for it. Just don't expect me to have anything to add to the conversation. Humans are social animals who form tribes. Making the discussion pointless.

 

What does that mean “innocent” human life? I guess you are right, a life that has no functioning brain or cognition is technically innocent.

My preference is viability although you can make a logical case for as early as 15 weeks, assuming there a robust exceptions. Just because drawing a line is difficult, that doesn’t mean punt and get rid of the line completely. But I’m not imposing my belief on others. I’m not forcing mothers to abort. I’m giving them the choice. Big difference.

 

So, it is evil?

You are imposing your belief on anyone who wants to get an abortion or kill their child post viability.

The only difference between you and me is where we draw the line. And apparently anyone who believes in stricter abortion standards than 15 weeks is Christian Taliban, anyone who believes in abortion access being cut off at some point between 15 weeks and viability is reasonable, and anyone who believes in abortion on demand is an unborn child killer.

I must say you have a lot of confidence in a standard that seems pretty arbitrary to me. To be sneering at anyone who disagrees.

 

^^This is what passes for logic with the anti-choice crowd. Comical and pathetic at the same time.^^

One thing you people obviously need to be reminded of periodically:

This is NOT a chicken:

 

No

Well yeah, I guess, but viability has been recognized as a logical cutoff for many years, and beyond that it was for the states to decide. Ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere and it is clear as you get later in development is becoming much more like a child and also has markers of human life, such as pain and brain activity.

For one you aren’t drawing a line. You start at point zero.

Your characterization of my views is not accurate. It’s a spectrum. Anything 6 weeks or less is basically a total ban. Getting to around 13 weeks is perhaps at least workable. Many European countries are around 13 weeks, but afterwards their exceptions are pretty liberal, and would accommodate for cases like the lady from TX.

I sneer at the most extreme among us who view our rights so cavalierly as secondary to their personal and religious beliefs.

 

Translation of the argument of the last couple pages:

Women are nothing more than penis receptacles, baby incubators, cooks and maids by the enforcement of the state. They should have no agency of their own. Their medical decisions should be left to mostly really old white men. They serve no purpose to exist other than to create workers for the corporate sweat shops of rich men.

 

“What about me ?”
—anonymous fetus—

 

Okay, at what point does it become a human life exactly and why?

You can call it pathetic all you want. That seems to be your MO over actually arguing an issue, but that doesn’t in any way make it correct.

 

If you don’t think killing innocent human life over sheer convenience is evil, what is?

But your cutoff is imposing your personal beliefs on others. You just have the arrogance to think yours is reasonable while everyone who disagrees with you isn’t.


And considering you just said killing innocent human life out of sheer convenience isn’t evil, that doesn’t exactly sound reasonable.

And I do believe some abortions are morally justified, particularly when the life of the mother is threatened. And I believe that birth control which may prevent both fertilization and implantation are not abortion. So yes, turns out me and most people draw lines.

 

The products of conception not human, then becoming human, at some arbitrary point during pregnancy.

Seems like a religious conviction. Convenient too.

 

But that comes from politicians and social elites telling us that it’s true, so it’s completely different from religion.

Just trust me.

The truth is that it’s worse than religion. It’s the arrogance of social elites deeming themselves as the greatest arbiters of morality, then a bunch of useful idiots hitching themselves to that wagon.

 

A tiny clump of cells isn't a human.

 

Says a larger clump of cells.

 

With our son, my wife didn’t know she was pregnant until 11 weeks. A few home tests came back negative and when one finally came back positive she thought she was about 7 weeks along. Doc told us otherwise.

 

It seems to me that a lot of folks don't care all that much about human life when it's inconvenient. Hell, look at all the women and children dying in Gaza right now. That's, of course, assuming that one accepts your framing (and pro-choice people don't).

 

If a person has zero brain activity and is completely dependent upon machinery to continue to breath, nobody would have any issue with pulling the plug. That person would be considered all but dead already.

Before 15 weeks, a fetus has no brain activity and is completely dependent upon the woman for life. In fact, somewhere around 20 weeks, the fetus isn't viable outside utero. Brain activity and viability are generally the two markers most European countries use to determine abortion limits.

I'm fine with either, as long as we remove the Hyde Amendment. 93% of all abortions are 1st trimester already. And the #1 reason why women wait is lack of funds. Allow for government funds for abortion, and even with a 15 week ban, about 98% of all abortions would still occur. The remaining 2%? That's where most of the complications exist, where the life of the fetus and/or mother come into play.

If you want to call something with zero brain activity and inability to live without assistance a human life, then to be consistent, then pulling a plug should also be considered murder. And while you can claim the fetus has the potential to become human, the argument is a person on life support has the potential for a medical miracle that could cure them in the future. But we have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?

 

I condemn both. Will you submit to a consistency test ?