So perhaps women pregnant with a "perfect" child shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion? I know that sounds a little bit like eugenics, but if there's an adoptive family waiting out there... I don't know why these (particular) women think they're doing the world any favors by getting an abortion.
Game theory can be run to the point where YOU would be seen as a detriment to the survivability of humans as well. Better be careful with that one.
Why did you say those were not moral issues if you were not implying abortion was just a moral issue? Maybe go back and reread things. You seem to imply things all the time and then subsequently deny it. If that's not what you were implying then your statement does not make any sense.
No, through you cherry picking and fictional wishes you twist things that weren't said. I NEVER said , or thought, abortion is just a "moral" issue unlike all those other issues? HERE is how it went: kazenatsu said: ↑ We only legislate our morals when we believe it affects someone else. Isn't that true? Pro-choicers moan and groan about "legislating morals" but I don't hear very many of them supporting the legalization of drugs or getting rid of weapons possession laws."""" FoxHastings answered: Simple, they are not "moral" issues.... "" OBVIOUSLY referring to legalization of drugs and weapons possession laws....
You don't need a medical degree to know when there's a human sucking its thumb there's someone in there.
Ok, I can sort of see how we might have been misinterpreting each other's posts. I mistakenly thought you had been referring to abortion bans as legislating morals, but now that I have gone back and can see you actually only used it in a sarcastic sense. Your first post that started this line of discussion:
You're still wrong....I explained but, as USUAL, you cherry picked the post with the explanation which didn't help your confusion. I'll try the simplest English I know. Legislating against gun or drugs is NOT a moral issue. SOME people, NOT I, think abortion is immoral and that's why they legislate against it....but legislation should NOT be based on morals. I have made that very clear on any thread about abortion....if you are confused that is all on you but stop "misrepresenting" what I post.....it really makes you look like you have no good argument.
I have to selectively pick out the important parts because otherwise it's too long and complicated, and difficult to emphasize the parts of your long posts I am responding to. That's what I meant. You took my statement far too literally and semantically (I can see how that was not your fault here, neither of us is at fault). When I said that you thought abortion was just a "moral" issue, I meant that you thought it was only being opposed because other people thought it was a moral issue. (i.e. that you thought it was just a moral issue coming from the pro-life side) It appears we were reading the same words but interpreting their meaning differently.
. To believe that life begins at conception is true the same way and acorn will become an oak tree. Both of them need to be planted and to develop and if they are not planted they won’t develop. This 1/10 of 1 ounce fetus doesn’t even have neural connections
I noticed how you had to switch to 1/10 ounce because we had just discussed a 1/2 ounce sometimes sucking its thumb. Anyway, I think weight is a little bit irrelative. Mathematically there's a volume to length correlation. We know that a geometric object that's twice as big measured with a straight ruler will have eight times the volume. A fetus that's 4 inches long will have eight times more mass than a fetus that's 2 inches long. (or to phrase it another way, a fetus that weighs half as much as another fetus would only be about 20% less long in length)
Even after 22 weeks it is moot. There have been cases of brain dead women who were pregnant and usually the outcome for the foetus is catastrophic
I've said it many times on here over the years. 20 weeks is a good cutoff point. It leaves enough time to discover the pregnancy and consider your options, while limiting abortion(except in cases of medical necessity, and in my opinion the discovery of serious birth defects as well) beyond a timeframe in which a fetus might be viable without artificial life support.
I don't see how setting it at viability is sensible. (Although of course it's all the more worse if it's after that)