This argument will, most likely, never find any sort of closure, because it comes down to perception of what makes a person. I cannot, in good conscience, believe that a 7.5 month old fetus in the womb is not a person but a infant gestated for 7 months and was born and alive is. There is no logic in that to me. And that is all I can say about it, and will be willing to read arguments against what I just said, but honestly, I cannot fathom a way for anyone to convince me otherwise. That said, I believe a VAST majority of abortions are done prior to the first trimester being finished, and a lot of this is arguing for arguing sake.
Doesn't seem that way to me. The consequence of sex is another life forming, one that is completely individual from any other living being. Sure it's dependent on mom. But, so?
what makes the life of a rape baby worth less than any other baby it didnt do anything wrong or choose to be in that situation
i agree with 100% of this. we aren't that far off for medical technology to be such where a fetus can live during the period of time abortion is legal. my kids were born 5 weeks early and very well could have been born 10 weeks early.
So, the woman's body is to be held hostage for 9 months against her will? She has a right to control her own body. To me, the point of viability has typically been the dividing line, once the fetus can survive outside the womb. Now, I can see some advocating of second trimester considerations, but I've always found any push for the first trimester as lacking. There is a significant difference between a baby in the womb at 7 months and a fetus the size of a walnut, wieghing half an ounce, at 2 months.
Because it's a balance of choice and life. The women in rape cases didn't have consensual sex. In what I alluded to before, women chose to have sex.
it won't be very long before they will be able to survive in the first trimester. hell they might be able to survive without a womb at all in our lifetime.
That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense holding a woman accountable for a choice she didn't make.
the choice is whether to abort or not IMO. i can see how that choice is more acceptable given those circumstances, but if one is murder so is the other. and to be clear i have very mixed feelings about abortion. i think anywhere from the mid second trimester to birth is murder and don't really know when it isn't except maybe for the first couple of months. at some point it's a collection of cells, at some point a baby, i'm not smart enough to know when that happens.
I see it like this: you can completely build a computer and it have a preloaded BIOS, but you still need to actually turn it on and install an operating system or give inputs for it to become a functioning computer. This is all a long walk to repeat the obvious: the unborn haven't been born. From my honestly materialist perspective, a person is a consciousness. While it takes years for a child to fully develop its consciousness, it hasn't even taken the smallest nudge forward until it is delivered. Relevant article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
This is becoming an awkward situation where Cotton, droski and I agree that this doesn't seem consistent.
but the delivery date is very arbitrary and not necessarily due to when the fetus is ready to be a baby.
So ya, you see this as enforcing a consequence of choosing to have sex-- not that a fetus is a person who is being murdered. What difference does it make from the perspective of the fetus?
That seems like a you problem. I am against abortion in damn near every case. The zygote/fetus/whatever you want to call it is the way for life to continue and should be sacred. Trying to define life is pretty damn stupid in this scenario. That's a human to be and enough said. That needs to be protected. Flip side, subjecting a human being to bear the consequences of a choice she did not make is also wrong. I can't be pegged into one side of this argument.
