Abortion -The poll is not based upon Religious belief - It is based ethics
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
He never said an ear was a human being either. When I asked if you could read and comprehend what you were reading you said yes but this is an on going issue with you. You are perpetually claiming people said things when they didn't or you you completely don't understand what you read and go off that everyone else is wrong without ever re-reading what you misunderstood.
Why are you explaining this? He's a fu cking idiot. Good only for comic relief. Let's keep it that way.
Lol, yeah, he said it wasn't.
I reiterated that for you.
How can you possibly not understand this?
Is that the definition of not being a part of the mother?
Would the fact that it is physically attached and unable to live if separated count for something?
Depending on what point they are separated sometimes they do survive. Actually a full term baby naturally born can not survive without some outside help and likely couldn't until they are two or three years old.
It is attached to but not part of.
A silly scenario to compare the "part of" claim.
Do I owe taxes on my sprinkler? It's attached to the house by hose therefore I must owe the city the extra sq ft.?
No, it doesn't. Why, do you ask? Simple, 50 years ago fetal viability was well past the 32nd week of gestation. It is now down to 22 weeks. How long before science is able to move that even closer.
For that very reason this entire discussion is more or less moot. The reason being that we can only afford to keep a very finite number of 22 week old babies alive before we run right out of money. I've heard (unofficially) that it can cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000 just to keep a preemie alive until it reaches 6 or 7 lbs.
There is a big difference between needing the help of someone and directly drawing all oxygen and sustenance from only one specific source.
The point where they might be able to survive without their mom is pretty much where abortions are no longer permitted, so we are not talking about aborting fetuses that could make it as babies.
Again, why is DNA the definition of "part of" or not?
The sprinkler example really doesn't make much sense. A fetus is not some external attachment.
What newborn can survive on it's own? If they could, tits wouldn't be part of the female anatomy.
I don't know, but that is an interesting question. Maybe one day they can grow babies entirely outside of a womb.
We are where we are today though.
Nobody claimed they could. Anyone can provide them with the care they need though.
A fetus can only survive if it is part of the woman up until a certain point in the pregnancy.
Just because I don't agree with changing laws based on future hypotheticals doesn't mean your suggestion went over my head.
We only have a finite amount of resources. If we pour all of our resources into one thing, others suffer.
Triage is rough, but it is a necessary part of any healthcare system.
Once it leaves the womb and enters the world, it is a baby, no?