It's not much different than what a woman's body does right now - rejecting the ones that have major genetic defects and keeping those that are viable. Modern genetic screenings are more accurate, though.
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That puts you at odds with the majority of national laws. Abortion is illegal in many countries, but (AFAIK) in each case it is classified as a separate type of crime, and is not prosecuted as murder.
In the USA, for example, the issue of killing a fetus that is close enough to birth to survive outside the uterus is quite nuanced. If you cut open a pregnant woman's uterus and remove the fetus, prosecution depends on whether the fetus was killed within the uterus (for example by slashing the woman's abdomen and deliberately or accidentally causing mortal damage while still in utero) or was killed after you (or a nearby doctor) have pulled the fetus out of the uterus and it still had a heartbeat. In the latter case you have committed murder, but in the former case not.
I don't know what benighted country you live in, but here in the USA the issue was settled decades ago: abortion is legal. The political power of American women has been growing for decades, meaning that reversing the laws on abortion is as unlikely as reestablishing segregation of Afro-Americans.
The Religious Redneck Retards keep looking for ways to make abortions more difficult to obtain--currently by redefining clinics which only perform abortions (which today is an outpatient procedure) as hospitals, which then require heavy investments in equipment and staff that are simply not needed. They're getting away with it in some parts of their own territory (the former Confederacy, and I'll never understand why we bothered to take them back), but in the real United States it's a losing battle.
So I'll give you the same advice I give to everyone: If you don't believe in abortion, then DON'T HAVE ONE. But you and your Bible have no right to tell anyone else that she CAN'T HAVE ONE.
Why is it we have people demanding for pregnant women to have less bodily autonomy than corpses?
do demand a pregnant women have less control over her body than a corpse because guess what if you do than you do
Don't understand what your saying here. Explain.
if your saying their shouldn't be abortions than you are demanding they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse therefore viewing them as less than a corpse.
I don't recall where you are on this issue, SG, but with sufficient neurological development in utero, I don't think it would be fair to say it wasn't human. There are medical mitigations to that, of course, usually at the behest of the mother and which one could not in fairness oppose.
And this stop telling women what to do with their bodies thing. I don't think the act of pregnancy is sufficiently special so as to invoke special litigation. Anyone can be told what to do with their body to some degree. It's a difference of degree rather than kind - and the issue of kind is being invoked by Nye here, otherwise why mention the issue of sex at all? The 'other side' of the issue invokes the idea that embryos - and calling it an embryo past about 28 weeks is a sketchy proposition - are also people. Who's right? Tiassa argues for a kind of eminent domain, which is just a touch reptilian.
And this stop telling women what to do with their bodies thing. I don't think the act of pregnancy is sufficiently special so as to invoke special litigation. Anyone can be told what to do with their body to some degree. It's a difference of degree rather than kind - and the issue of kind is being invoked by Nye here, otherwise why mention the issue of sex at all? The 'other side' of the issue invokes the idea that embryos - and calling it an embryo past about 28 weeks is a sketchy proposition - are also people. Who's right? Tiassa argues for a kind of eminent domain, which is just a touch reptilian.
A fetus is lump of pre-human flesh that can be removed with a woman's consent with no more moral concern than a mole or wart.
Does a mole or a wart have the potential to grow up and post on sciforums? Really, if it were so simple, nobody would care. Anyway, I was going to let this thread die peacefully, seeing that it's just a circular argument with no end.
There is no fetus separate from the woman, it has no potential separate from the woman, so we aren't talking about children, we are talking about women and their own flesh, and it's no one's business but their own.
A fetus, yes. When does it stop being a fetus? The reprehensible 'dry-foot' point?
When it can breathe.
Breathing is just the mechanical act of moving your lungs and the takeup of oxygen by those organs. Surely life is more than that? If you're backing dry-foot, SG, I can't agree with you on it. And there it rests, I guess.
It has to do with autonomy. As long as it's part of a woman, and there is no alternative to remove it and keep it alive, then it's all up to her.
That's bullshit, as anyone who has seen a premature baby delivered knows.