When you use word like “get out of it” or “punishment” it really feels like you think a child should be forced on the woman as some type of penalty. I don’t think that is the best reason to bring children into the world and it definitely isn’t going to result in the best outcome for the child. There always seems to be some ulterior motive that isn’t the child itself.
I absolutely DO exclude fetuses from being persons under our law. That doesn't change anything other than that if you want to say something about a fetus, you have to justify that in terms of the fact that it is a fetus. That is the ONLY logical possibility. A fetus is not a perosn and absolutely and unequivocally does NOT hae the rights of a person. As I pointed out, even a childe under the age of 18 does not have full rights of personhood - even when it comes to life saving procedures. I'm using long established legal and medical definitions. He is fabricating a whole new lexicon. He wants to ignore the fact that a fetus and a person are VERY diffrent under our laws - including laws that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with abortion. He wants to invent his own terminolog that NOBODY shares for the SOLE purpose of ignore that FACT.
Why are religious people so interested in being able to judge people? Focus on yourself, your own actions and your own values instead.
Okay, let's talk about those specific words. For one thing, I'm pretty sure "baby" isn't an actual medical terminology.
I'm sorry, legal definitions in current laws have nothing to do with the definitions of those words in other contexts. If you're trying to say that it's okay because it's not killing a baby because that's what the law says, then you've entered into using circular logic. (since you're implicitly claiming that the law should not be changed because it's okay, to fully state out all of the obvious)
You STILL did NOT answer the question: cd8ed said: ↑ What crime did the woman commit that it is acceptable for the state to force her to carry a fetus to term?
I can't believe you're trying to use that argument. If anything, I think that would weaken your position, not strengthen it.
Newborn and neonate refer to the first 28 days. Preemies, those born prematurely - before 37 weeks. In this discussion, using the term "baby" to refer to fetuses and newborns alike is a bad idea as this topic really focuses on the differences - even if you refuse to admit the differences that absolutely exist.
But there are no real differences between a newborn baby and a baby in the womb at 8 months. Only some pro-choicers seem to think that. And probably not even most of them.
Then state why. The point I made is that the mother has power of life and death even after birth. Her religious views, her assessment of factors of risk and health, etc., still apply. You are arguing that the mother's assessment of health and religion should NOT apply even for a fetus.
I knew it was going to come down to that. Many people think pro-lifers are grossly exaggerating or making ridiculously absurd claims when they tell people about this.
I have not objected to the viability argument, at least when the woman's health isn't in the balance. As I pointed out, right wing religious zealots passed law saying that the government had decided that a woman's life is irrelevant. That had to go to the Supreme Court to have the religious zealots overridden.. So, be careful about who it is that you think values life.
Do you object to the viability argument when the woman has a more than 95% chance of living or the health issues are probably not super-serious?
What I stated is a FACT. Parents and guardians have the right to withhold life saving treatment from children under the age of 18. This gets used by those who have religious objection to transfusions and transplants. This also gets used in cases where the newborn fasces serious deficits.
