The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[RileyG]

No, that's very different.
For the economy to thrive, we can't have people going around robbing banks. That would destroy the economy.

So it’s ok to destroy lives then?

 

[Yttrium]

Except the couple chose to have sex and someone else was conceived. It’s not about the mother.

What the couple chose to do doesn't make a difference as far as the argument about people not being required to donate is concerned. And saying that it's not about the mother makes no sense.

 

[RileyG]

What the couple chose to do doesn't make a difference as far as the argument about people not being required to donate is concerned. And saying that it's not about the mother makes no sense.

Mother AND child. To be fair.

Regarding donation, that’s a cop out.

 

[Yttrium]

Regarding donation, that’s a cop out.

I don't see how.

 

[RileyG]

I don't see how.

Abortion is essentially murder and no one has the right to murder someone else (from the pro life perspective)

Someone not getting a organ donation isn’t being actively murdered.

Besides, the mother already agreed to have her body used if she agrees to have unprotected consensual sex.

Shocker

 

[stevil]

So it’s ok to destroy lives then?

This is where we differ.

You want government to force YOUR moral standards onto everyone in society.
whereas I want government to make sure society is safe, stable and thriving for its citizens and visitors.

 

[RileyG]

This is where we differ.

You want government to force YOUR moral standards onto everyone in society.
whereas I want government to make sure society is safe, stable and thriving for its citizens and visitors.

This isn’t about MY moral standard. Good grief.

This is about protecting ALL lives.

 

[stevil]

This isn’t about MY moral standard. Good grief.

This is about protecting ALL lives.

I don't care about the lives of fertilised eggs.
I don't consider that protecting fertilised eggs is part of the purpose of government.

 

[RileyG]

I don't care about the lives of fertilised eggs.
I don't consider that protecting fertilised eggs is part of the purpose of government.

That’s where we differ.

I don’t see it just as a fertilized egg.

It’s a human in the earliest part of development.

So you admit….it IS a life? Or not?

 

[Yttrium]

Abortion is essentially murder and no one has the right to murder someone else (from the pro life perspective)

Murder is a legal term and depends on our legal definition. We don't legally define abortion as murder. We could, but we don't. You'd be better off saying that abortion is the killing of a human being, and that human being doesn't deserve to be killed. Which is a fine argument.

If the mother chooses not to donate to the fetus/embryo, and the fetus/embryo is removed from the womb before viability, that fetus/embryo is going to die. But it's an inevitable result of the mother cutting off donations to the fetus/embryo.

Besides, the mother already agreed to have her body used if she agrees to have unprotected consensual sex.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't prevent the mother from changing her mind and withdrawing consent later.

Now, I fully understand your points, and I sympathize. I don't oppose certain restrictions to abortion, but the donation argument is making it hard for me to oppose abortion.

 

[RileyG]

Murder is a legal term and depends on our legal definition. We don't legally define abortion as murder. We could, but we don't. You'd be better off saying that abortion is the killing of a human being, and that human being doesn't deserve to be killed. Which is a fine argument.

If the mother chooses not to donate to the fetus/embryo, and the fetus/embryo is removed from the womb before viability, that fetus/embryo is going to die. But it's an inevitable result of the mother cutting off donations to the fetus/embryo.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't prevent the mother from changing her mind and withdrawing consent later.

Now, I fully understand your points, and I sympathize. I don't oppose certain restrictions to abortion, but the donation argument is making it hard for me to oppose abortion.

Ok.

Have a fine evening.

 

[Bradskii]

So you admit….it IS a life? Or not?

Let's say we have a loving couple. They want a child. She thinks she's pregnant. She sees her doctor and he says that yes, she was for a week or so, but there was something wrong and it didn't continue. He gives her some advice, says it's entirely normal, lots of pregnancies end before the woman even realise she is pregnant so carry on as before.

She is disappointed. A little depressed. But the doc said it wasn't a problem with her so they'll keep on trying.

She's pregnant again. And this time everything goes great. Until a couple weeks before the birth. Some medical emergency occurs and she's rushed to hospital but...they can't save the baby.

She is distraught. Inconsolable. She needs medication to sleep.

Now what she was carrying was life. Both a potential child. Both would have been loved and cared for. But you'll note the difference in her attitude. She considers what she was carrying at two weeks a lot different to what she was carrying at 8 months. You need to understand that.

 

[RileyG]

Let's say we have a loving couple. They want a child. She thinks she's pregnant. She sees her doctor and he says that yes, she was for a week or so, but there was something wrong and it didn't continue. He gives her some advice, says it's entirely normal, lots of pregnancies end before the woman even realise she is pregnant so carry on as before.

She is disappointed. A little depressed. But the doc said it wasn't a problem with her so they'll keep on trying.

She's pregnant again. And this time everything goes great. Until a couple weeks before the birth. Some medical emergency occurs and she's rushed to hospital but...they can't save the baby.

She is distraught. Inconsolable. She needs medication to sleep.

Now what she was carrying was life. Both a potential child. Both would have been loved and cared for. But you'll note the difference in her attitude. She considers what she was carrying at two weeks a lot different to what she was carrying at 8 months. You need to understand that.

I’m aware.

It’s still life.

 

[stevil]

That’s where we differ.

I don’t see it just as a fertilized egg.

It’s a human in the earliest part of development.

So you admit….it IS a life? Or not?

Yes, its alive, yes it's human.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m aware.

It’s still life.

Yes. But if a loving mother can treat them so differently then you should be able to accept that they are so different.

 

[RileyG]

Yes. But if a loving mother can treat them so differently then you should be able to accept that they are so different.

Ok.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, its alive, yes it's human.

I have nothing further to say.

You have a wonderful evening

 

[stevil]

I have nothing further to say.

You have a wonderful evening

you too.

 

[A2SG]

Evidence that the child is not viable at 23.9 weeks?

Time isn't the determinative factor here, development is.

Fetal viability depends on many complex factors, of which gestational age is only one. While gestational age may be helpful in predicting the possible chance that the fetus would survive at time of delivery, many other factors also influence viability, such as sex, genetics, weight, circumstances around delivery, and availability of a neonatal intensivist health care professional. Even with all available factors considered, it still isn’t possible to definitively predict survival. While some fetuses delivered during the periviable period can survive, they may also experience significant morbidity and impairment. ​

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

And, "Roughly"? A human life is at stake. "Roughly" as a criterion seems far too vague to justify the taking of an innocent human life.

The time estimate is rough, since time isn't what determines fetal viability. See above, and the linked website for more detailed information.

Please refrain from lurching to the strawman fallacy.

No strawmen here. I'm simply providing information about fetal viability. How that relates to your argument isn't for me to say.

-- A2SG, how you use that information is for you to decide...

 

[A2SG]

Equal. The mother won’t be executed either without due process.

But the pregnant woman loses the right to make her own medical decisions in the process. So her rights are diminished, and the embryo gets rights no other person has, under any circumstances.

Not equal.

-- A2SG, still haven't shown me how anyone has the right to use your body or its resources without your permission or consent....