My own personal line is viability. This is the reason that I fully support a ban on late term abortions. There is kind of a HUGE difference between celebrating a court decision allowing women to make their own choices regarding procreation and "celebrating abortion." Find me a specific instance where someone "celebrated" a specific abortion and your point might have validity, as it is, your "point" is nothing but a trollish flame. When it is not utterly dependent on the woman's biological processes for survival. Until then, it exists solely at the discretion of the woman.
The problem with this is that it changes over time. That's bad logic. And, what if there is a 10% chance of a baby surviving? You're willing to kill that baby without trying to keep it alive?
Because even with a beating heart, it is a tiny clump of cells, utterly dependent on another organism's biological processes. As long as it is so, I support the other organism's right to decide whether to allow the clump to develop further.
No, that's the way things work. Our society has changed over time, our laws have changed over time, medical science has changed DRAMATICALLY over time. I'm sorry you don't like reality, but it is, after all, real. If there is a 10% chance of a fetus surviving AND there is a person willing to take on the entirety of the expense of extracting, incubating, then raising it once it can survive outside a hospital, that person would still have to convince the woman that it is in her best interest to give the fetus up because it is HER CHOICE, NOT YOURS.
Given that you haven't provided a shred of logic in this entire thread, I'll take your comment with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick. I won't reconsider my position because a woman has the right to choose what her body is used for, what grows within it, and what doesn't. It is her choice, not yours.
Choice is a red herring that you use to rationalize your position. If you were "pro choice", you'd be in favor of giving the baby a choice too.
If it were a "baby," the calculus would be entirely different. The dictionary is your friend... ba·by /ˈbābē/ Noun A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born. "Born" is a necessary part of that definition.
But you just said that even if the baby had a chance of surviving, you'd only give the choice to the mother.
For a 10% chance that the fetus survives, I would let a wealthy benefactor try to talk her into extraction and incubation, but a 10% chance is hardly "viable." As far as your refusal to use the word "baby" correctly... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So now it's about money for you? Only if a wealthy benefactor is around? Your logic is in a freefall.
You're the one who chose to bring an idiotic hypothetical into the mix. The idiocy was introduced by you, I apologize for following you into it. Your logic is nonexistent.
You do realize the central holding and the premise of Roe v. Wade is based on the idea that women have a right to privacy in making the most intimate decisions over their own bodies, right? This is still the issue at contention today. That's not an emotional appeal. This is written into the laws of the United States because it is a guiding legal principle.
It changes over time because of scientific advances helped along by people who have a very good understanding of science. If nothing else, if you are pro-life and arguing that fetuses are children (???), you should take the time to learn a little bit more about the science that makes such miracles possible. With that said, the vast majority of abortions (about 90%) happen during or before the first trimester where viability is somewhere along the lines of hmm---zero percent.
so, your belief is that scientific advances are making it increasingly possible for younger and younger babies to survive. So I guess if science keeps improving to where after 1 week of pregnancy a baby could survive, that would be your new standard?
What is the difference between the first abortion, the 98,654th abortion and the 2, 876,697th abortion? The only thing about any of those that matters is if they never happen... Is it less harsh on the first than the one millionth casualty? Every human gets one unique life.
---you do know a ban won't result in zero abortions right? Don't be quick to resort to the same incrementalist logic you're decrying here though!
sigh. Yeah, that pile of cells without a central nervous system and a heart will survive really well outside. This is what I'm talking about. Inform yourself about the scientific and legal aspects before you run in with "think of the children". or put another way--- "The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps."
