The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

If a 23 year old woman has a hysterectomy, for any reason, we must call it horrifying. Because we are taking away the foundation for life.

The foundation has been laid, all it needs is the proper sequence of events and signals, much like our fetus.

 

How is it different? I'm still on the subject.

You say I don't own the fetus that's growing inside a random woman. I also don't own other people, so why should I care about their lives and anything happening to them?

 

So you're talking about in cases where a fetus is never made, kind of straying far from the subject of human development.

How did this happen?

 

We're talking about foundations, as if they are important.

Do you think foundations are important? When the foundation to a fetus is laid, in your opinion I assume, it is important.

So why isn't the foundation, upon which the foundation is laid, important?

And if we remove the foundation when it is a fetus, that's bad. But when we remove the foundation upon which the fetus foundation is built, it isn't bad.

Which means a foundation doesn't mean a damn thing on its own.

 

Thank you for admittng you don't own it. Now admit you don't get to decide what she does with it because you don't own it and this exercise will be over.

 

Do I think a growing fetus is important? Yes. Yes I do.

Seems like apples and oranges. A house foundation by itself isn't as important as a house foundation when there is a house on it.

 

So how do you suggest your interest are met without telling her what to do with her body?

 

Something must act upon the initial foundation (the woman) in order for the second foundation (the fetus, or baby, as some prefer) to come into existence. What has to act on the fetus/baby in order for the final result to come into existence?

They are different.

 

A house foundation on its own represents the potential to have a house built upon it. It is as important as if there is a house on it for any number of reasons, but let's try a scenario.

Think of a newly poured foundation in the richest area you can think of, and now go crack it. Now, think of the poorest, most run down and abandoned house in the poorest area you can think of, and burn it down.

Which foundation was more important?

 

I don't get to decide what she does nor should a judge get to rule on a case because somebody murdered someone else. Right?

 

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the fetus/baby inside her has rights or not. If somehow we decide that it does, she can still decide to terminate it, just not without legal consequences.

 

As far as I can tell, currently the father has zero rights to the fetus/unborn baby. So it is irrelevant even if he was the father.

I have a hard time giving the go-code for human life as late as IP (23+ weeks). After seeing ultrasounds of my 10+ week old fetus/baby, and it being pretty much a little human, just had to grow, I cannot fathom having an abortion performed at that time.

If you think you are pregnant, and at 3-4 weeks (I would hope you would figure it out by then, though some people continue to menstruate) you want to have an abortion, I think I would be OK with that. But not much longer after that, I it becomes infanticide.

Consciousness is not a good measuring stick, because I argue a four week old baby is not conscious. Not in any self-aware sense. They are nothing but a bundle of reflexes. But I don't think many would argue it is OK to kill a four week old baby.

 

On the fetus? The proper cellular signals, and sequence of events within the mother's biological signaling pathway. Which doesn't always go correctly.

The mother has to eat, drink, breathe. There are a whole host of biologically important processes that must occur.

The same is true for the empty foundation.

In both cases, the proper sequence of events much occur. They are different events, but both necessary.

 

it isn't her body, is it? It could have half my genetic code. Probably not mine, but somebody else's, anyway.

 

You are missing the ownership aspect.

You don't own the random guy that was murdered. The murder, however, is owned by the state when he stands in front of the Judge.

 

So, essentially, the mother has to continue to live. How is that the same as an outside source being required to enter the scenario and act on the initial foundation? They may be slightly similar in that each is necessary in order to reach the next stage, but their similarities end there.

 

A 73 year old brain dead patient is by all accounts a fully grown human being.

Is removing life support horrifying?

 

We are getting far away from the central point. I'm not the compass for all good and bad or for what people get to do. Most of the time, I could not care less as to what other people do.

How is ending a growing life at 0-27(?) weeks any different from a life ending at 27 years? How do you get to decide that?

 

How do they have the authority to bring him in, though? They didn't own the murderer or the victim.

 

The mother continuing to live is not nearly enough.

Let's say she does the exact bare minimum to stay alive for 9+ months, and then delivers. What are the odds she delivers at full term, and a healthy baby? What would you think the odds would be of a premature, malnurished, underweight baby with several birth defects would be?