If babies could develop outside a woman's body...should abortion still be an option?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

---

Killing a cancer patient who will die in a couple of days from the cancer is still murder.

Many of us would die relatively quickly without help from others. A viable fetus falls into that category and thus qualifies as a human capable of being murdered.

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

What law are you talking about, which references viability?

---

Roe set up the framework. Alt the state laws that restrict abortion at some time after about the 20-week mark are working off that framework.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

54 million abortions in the US in a short period of time and all of them are health related circumstances?!

And I'm the ignorant one?

Wow. Booray. Don't be dishonest with yourself.

Deep down inside I know you realize most abortions are done because the mother doesn't want to raise the child.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm so sad to see so many who still want to kill babies. Science had proven that we are talking about babies, not "a clump of cells" or "pre-human tissue". The old lies are dead. So now it is about the burden of the mother? My kids are a daily burden on me... can I go rip apart their bodies and throw them in the trash or do I need to pay someone to do it in a clinic?
And it's not about a "womans body". It's about the baby's body. There are 2 heartbeats, and only one is stopped by the abortion do..., I mean baby killer. Are you saying that the mother has 2 hearts, 4 arms, 2 brains, 4 legs...?

---

No, but the way society is constructed, you can pretty much walk away from that burden. Women can't.

That you do no to do so is to your credit, but it does not solve the overall issue.

---

We see kids all the time whose mothers have walked away from that burden. Not sure what you mean by "can't."

---

I mean that when the child is born it is placed in the mother's arms. the dad chooses to be in the delivery room; the woman has to be.

The woman's body is changed for at least a year, the man's body is not.

Society expects moms to be caregivers, we give dads a pass.

The fact that some moms are failures in no way rebuts the argument that the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting falls disproportionately on women-by a huge degree. I appreciate the arguments for an abortion ban. But what I hate are pro-lifers who want the ban, but want to limit access to contraception and want to reinforce societal structures that disadvantage the women who then have the babies. If you are pro-life, you need to be pro-conception; pro realistic sex ed; pro extended paid maternity leave, pro subsidized child care, etc.

Very few of those birds exist.

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

---

Killing a cancer patient who will die in a couple of days from the cancer is still murder.

Many of us would die relatively quickly without help from others. A viable fetus falls into that category and thus qualifies as a human capable of being murdered.

---

Science is gradually making the ex-utero argument of viability irrelevant. And if you're willing to acknowledge many of us would die without the help of others, why not a fetus/baby?

RE: the Alabama law, it's destined to fail at the court level given its broad restrictions, but I like that the conscience of our culture is being challenged.

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm so sad to see so many who still want to kill babies. Science had proven that we are talking about babies, not "a clump of cells" or "pre-human tissue". The old lies are dead. So now it is about the burden of the mother? My kids are a daily burden on me... can I go rip apart their bodies and throw them in the trash or do I need to pay someone to do it in a clinic?
And it's not about a "womans body". It's about the baby's body. There are 2 heartbeats, and only one is stopped by the abortion do..., I mean baby killer. Are you saying that the mother has 2 hearts, 4 arms, 2 brains, 4 legs...?

---

No, but the way society is constructed, you can pretty much walk away from that burden. Women can't.

That you do no to do so is to your credit, but it does not solve the overall issue.

---

We see kids all the time whose mothers have walked away from that burden. Not sure what you mean by "can't."

---

I mean that when the child is born it is placed in the mother's arms. the dad chooses to be in the delivery room; the woman has to be.

The woman's body is changed for at least a year, the man's body is not.

Society expects moms to be caregivers, we give dads a pass.

The fact that some moms are failures in no way rebuts the argument that the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting falls disproportionately on women-by a huge degree. I appreciate the arguments for an abortion ban. But what I hate are pro-lifers who want the ban, but want to limit access to contraception and want to reinforce societal structures that disadvantage the women who then have the babies. If you are pro-life, you need to be pro-conception; pro realistic sex ed; pro extended paid maternity leave, pro subsidized child care, etc.

Very few of those birds exist.

---

I disagree. I don't think that because I'm against abortion, I have to take up all causes. I am pro-birth control. I say give it away free. Also, because women DO bear much more hardship with pregnancy, they have to exercise MORE caution when having sex.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

54 million abortions in the US in a short period of time and all of them are health related circumstances?!

And I'm the ignorant one?

Wow. Booray. Don't be dishonest with yourself.

Deep down inside I know you realize most abortions are done because the mother doesn't want to raise the child.

---

Yes, you are the ignorant one. A walking non sequitur incapable of responding to basic logic.

1. At no point have I stated, implied or argued that all. most, some or a few abortions are health-related. What I said is that the law allows for health-related abortions after a certain point, generally based on viability. So most post-viability abortions are health related; most pre-viability abortions are not. I never said anything different.

2. Your last sentence deserves some qualification: the majority of abortions occur because neither parent wants to raise a child.

Your mistake is significant. It helps prove what I have been saying all along: pro-lifers are in the business of burdening women. Men, not so much.

If SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that life begins at conception and it is now incumbent on the father of the child to begin paying child support at conception if he is not already supporting the mother, how many of you would back away from the "the man doesn't bear the same burden as the woman" argument?

Just curious for an honest answer here...

People need to stop using the word fetus and call them appropriately as an unborn baby or small child. Don't fall for or tolerate the propaganda trap.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

1. We have posters on here who advocate for no restrictions on timing or reasons for abortion. Are they "No one?"

2. What is your evidence for that? Not paying for abortions would also seem to be an effective way to reduce abortions. In addition, making abortion less available is probably more effective than "making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood," although I am 100 percent in support of that as well.

3. I am pro choice in that I would argue that abortion should be legally permitted in cases where it is medically necessary. I would also carve out an exception for rape cases because the mother did not choose to take on the normal risks associated with pregnancy, which are not insignificant. In the 90 percent plus of the other cases, sorry, you made that choice when you decided to engage in activity that could reasonably be expected to result in pregnancy. At that point, the rights of the unborn offspring comes in to play.

4. The argument that an unborn human offspring, even before "viability," is actually not human is a fairly weak one.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

---

Killing a cancer patient who will die in a couple of days from the cancer is still murder.

Many of us would die relatively quickly without help from others. A viable fetus falls into that category and thus qualifies as a human capable of being murdered.

---

Science is gradually making the ex-utero argument of viability irrelevant. And if you're willing to acknowledge many of us would die without the help of others, why not a fetus/baby?

RE: the Alabama law, it's destined to fail at the court level given its broad restrictions, but I like that the conscience of our culture is being challenged.

---

You are right about science. I am ok with that, because science is also going to improve pregnancy detection and prevention.

As to viability as a condition of murder, I am basing that on medically accepted practices. Doctors keep people alive because they will continue to live for some appreciable period. Doctors don't keep certain fetus/babies alive after birth because further life for an appreciable period is impossible. You can murder the first group, you can't murder the second.

As for conscience challenging, that is a two-way street. As mentioned in another post, if a near total abortion ban is the goal, I see other ethical ramifications to that goal.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

54 million abortions in the US in a short period of time and all of them are health related circumstances?!

And I'm the ignorant one?

Wow. Booray. Don't be dishonest with yourself.

Deep down inside I know you realize most abortions are done because the mother doesn't want to raise the child.

---

Yes, you are the ignorant one. A walking non sequitur incapable of responding to basic logic.

1. At no point have I stated, implied or argued that all. most, some or a few abortions are health-related. What I said is that the law allows for health-related abortions after a certain point, generally based on viability. So most post-viability abortions are health related; most pre-viability abortions are not. I never said anything different.

2. Your last sentence deserves some qualification: the majority of abortions occur because neither parent wants to raise a child.

Your mistake is significant. It helps prove what I have been saying all along: pro-lifers are in the business of burdening women. Men, not so much.

---

There's law and it's intentions and then there's reality and results that stem from unintended consequences of the law.

I am telling you it is a fact that Roe V Wade has led to 54 million abortions that have mostly been done because people don't want to raise children because they don't want to accept the personal responsibly.

OK. Those are the results And you're perpetuating those results by being pro Roe Vs. Wade.

I don't agree with your opinion on viability. All life is viable IMO.

That is all I am declaring here.

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

My problem is that a plain reading of the Constitution is pretty clear, that when our founders set up a federal government, they meant for it to have some very clear but limited powers.

Since then the power and reach of the 'federal' government has gone well beyond anything the founders wanted or supported. Roe v Wade, whatever your opinion on Abortion, was a bad ruling because the court made up the right that simply did not exist in the Constitution, and in doing so expanded national government power at the expense of the states, in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as written.

But how do you undo that kind of abuse? Getting the SCOTUS to admit the federal/state relationship is way out of balance won't happen anymore than congressmen will vote for term limits on themselves or limit their pay. It's not in the personal advantage of federal judges, let alone SCOTUS justices, to step down from power, and so I do not expect bad laws like Roe, Kelo, Wickard v Filburn, or Chevron (1984) to be undone in my lifetime, if at all.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

54 million abortions in the US in a short period of time and all of them are health related circumstances?!

And I'm the ignorant one?

Wow. Booray. Don't be dishonest with yourself.

Deep down inside I know you realize most abortions are done because the mother doesn't want to raise the child.

---

Yes, you are the ignorant one. A walking non sequitur incapable of responding to basic logic.

1. At no point have I stated, implied or argued that all. most, some or a few abortions are health-related. What I said is that the law allows for health-related abortions after a certain point, generally based on viability. So most post-viability abortions are health related; most pre-viability abortions are not. I never said anything different.

2. Your last sentence deserves some qualification: the majority of abortions occur because neither parent wants to raise a child.

Your mistake is significant. It helps prove what I have been saying all along: pro-lifers are in the business of burdening women. Men, not so much.

---

There's law and it's intentions and then there's reality and results that stem from unintended consequences of the law.

I am telling you it is a fact that Roe V Wade has led to 54 million abortions that have mostly been done because people don't want to raise children because they don't want to accept the personal responsibly.

OK. Those are the results And you're perpetuating those results by being pro Roe Vs. Wade.

I don't agree with your opinion on viability. All life is viable IMO.

That is all I am declaring here.

---

No where did I argue with anything you just said, although I would caveat that some portion of those 54 million abortions would have occurred regardless of Roe.

What I did to is answer your question of why those abortions are not considered murder.

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

A pre viable fetus gains that ability over time. Does it not?
Again, there's law and there's reality.
Just because law says something or there's a consensus...that doesn't change reality of the situation.
Also laws change.

Would you support an abortion law that is extreme in it's vetting of responsible abortion? Meaning you can't get one just because it requires personal responsibility? If so, abortions would drop 90%.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My problem is that a plain reading of the Constitution is pretty clear, that when our founders set up a federal government, they meant for it to have some very clear but limited powers.

Since then the power and reach of the 'federal' government has gone well beyond anything the founders wanted or supported. Roe v Wade, whatever your opinion on Abortion, was a bad ruling because the court made up the right that simply did not exist in the Constitution, and in doing so expanded national government power at the expense of the states, in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as written.

But how do you undo that kind of abuse? Getting the SCOTUS to admit the federal/state relationship is way out of balance won't happen anymore than congressmen will vote for term limits on themselves or limit their pay. It's not in the personal advantage of federal judges, let alone SCOTUS justices, to step down from power, and so I do not expect bad laws like Roe, Kelo, Wickard v Filburn, or Chevron (1984) to be undone in my lifetime, if at all.

---

That is the best criticism of Roe. Interestingly, one person who voiced that criticism while a practicing lawyer was Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The flip side of the argument is that most of the founders, Madison included, felt like there were individual liberties so self-evident that they did not need to be defined. Most viewed the Bill of Rights as a redundancy necessary to assure passage of the Constitution itself. A "right to privacy" or freedom form government intrusion might well have qualified.

But Roe did not make that argument; it is essentially judicial fiat. The tough question is what to you do with a decision that has so shaped life for 47 years even if it was reached in a less than clear-eyed manner? That was what this week's squabble between Thomas and Breyer was all about.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

A pre viable fetus gains that ability over time. Does it not?
Again, there's law and there's reality.
Just because law says something or there's a consensus...that doesn't change reality of the situation.
Also laws change.

Would you support an abortion law that is extreme in it's vetting of responsible abortion? Meaning you can't get one just because it requires personal responsibility? If so, abortions would drop 90%.

---

It does. And when a "certain time" is reached, the ability to legally abort changes.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

A pre viable fetus gains that ability over time. Does it not?
Again, there's law and there's reality.
Just because law says something or there's a consensus...that doesn't change reality of the situation.
Also laws change.

Would you support an abortion law that is extreme in it's vetting of responsible abortion? Meaning you can't get one just because it requires personal responsibility? If so, abortions would drop 90%.

---

It does. And when a "certain time" is reached, the ability to legally abort changes.

---

My argument is that a certain time will be reached and abortion prevents that from happening.

Again, all that matters are results.

My argument would have led to millions living lives, contributing to society, loving, etc. Your view leads to the opposite.

You need to ask yourself what results you want.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My problem is that a plain reading of the Constitution is pretty clear, that when our founders set up a federal government, they meant for it to have some very clear but limited powers.

Since then the power and reach of the 'federal' government has gone well beyond anything the founders wanted or supported. Roe v Wade, whatever your opinion on Abortion, was a bad ruling because the court made up the right that simply did not exist in the Constitution, and in doing so expanded national government power at the expense of the states, in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as written.

But how do you undo that kind of abuse? Getting the SCOTUS to admit the federal/state relationship is way out of balance won't happen anymore than congressmen will vote for term limits on themselves or limit their pay. It's not in the personal advantage of federal judges, let alone SCOTUS justices, to step down from power, and so I do not expect bad laws like Roe, Kelo, Wickard v Filburn, or Chevron (1984) to be undone in my lifetime, if at all.

---

That is the best criticism of Roe. Interestingly, one person who voiced that criticism while a practicing lawyer was Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The flip side of the argument is that most of the founders, Madison included, felt like there were individual liberties so self-evident that they did not need to be defined. Most viewed the Bill of Rights as a redundancy necessary to assure passage of the Constitution itself. A "right to privacy" or freedom form government intrusion might well have qualified.

But Roe did not make that argument; it is essentially judicial fiat. The tough question is what to you do with a decision that has so shaped life for 47 years even if it was reached in a less than clear-eyed manner? That was what this week's squabble between Thomas and Breyer was all about.

---

Plessey shaped life for 58 years.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

A pre viable fetus gains that ability over time. Does it not?
Again, there's law and there's reality.
Just because law says something or there's a consensus...that doesn't change reality of the situation.
Also laws change.

Would you support an abortion law that is extreme in it's vetting of responsible abortion? Meaning you can't get one just because it requires personal responsibility? If so, abortions would drop 90%.

---

It does. And when a "certain time" is reached, the ability to legally abort changes.

---

My argument is that a certain time will be reached and abortion prevents that from happening.

Again, all that matters are results.

My argument would have led to millions living lives, contributing to society, loving, etc. Your view leads to the opposite.

You need to ask yourself what results you want.

---

Abortion, contraception, abstinence and ugliness all led to less lives. Are you going to outlaw the other three?

You act like I am "pro-abortion." I am not. I just recognize that it is a difficult question with lots of issues attached. At the very least, I think we need to do as much as possible to reduce abortions.

But until I see a world where we actually support the women who we take the choice away from, I am going to be receptive to their arguments.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My problem is that a plain reading of the Constitution is pretty clear, that when our founders set up a federal government, they meant for it to have some very clear but limited powers.

Since then the power and reach of the 'federal' government has gone well beyond anything the founders wanted or supported. Roe v Wade, whatever your opinion on Abortion, was a bad ruling because the court made up the right that simply did not exist in the Constitution, and in doing so expanded national government power at the expense of the states, in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as written.

But how do you undo that kind of abuse? Getting the SCOTUS to admit the federal/state relationship is way out of balance won't happen anymore than congressmen will vote for term limits on themselves or limit their pay. It's not in the personal advantage of federal judges, let alone SCOTUS justices, to step down from power, and so I do not expect bad laws like Roe, Kelo, Wickard v Filburn, or Chevron (1984) to be undone in my lifetime, if at all.

---

That is the best criticism of Roe. Interestingly, one person who voiced that criticism while a practicing lawyer was Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The flip side of the argument is that most of the founders, Madison included, felt like there were individual liberties so self-evident that they did not need to be defined. Most viewed the Bill of Rights as a redundancy necessary to assure passage of the Constitution itself. A "right to privacy" or freedom form government intrusion might well have qualified.

But Roe did not make that argument; it is essentially judicial fiat. The tough question is what to you do with a decision that has so shaped life for 47 years even if it was reached in a less than clear-eyed manner? That was what this week's squabble between Thomas and Breyer was all about.

---

Plessey shaped life for 58 years.

---

And deserved to be overturned. This is a much closer call.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

---

Killing a cancer patient who will die in a couple of days from the cancer is still murder.

Many of us would die relatively quickly without help from others. A viable fetus falls into that category and thus qualifies as a human capable of being murdered.

---

Science is gradually making the ex-utero argument of viability irrelevant. And if you're willing to acknowledge many of us would die without the help of others, why not a fetus/baby?

RE: the Alabama law, it's destined to fail at the court level given its broad restrictions, but I like that the conscience of our culture is being challenged.

---

You are right about science. I am ok with that, because science is also going to improve pregnancy detection and prevention.

As to viability as a condition of murder, I am basing that on medically accepted practices. Doctors keep people alive because they will continue to live for some appreciable period. Doctors don't keep certain fetus/babies alive after birth because further life for an appreciable period is impossible. You can murder the first group, you can't murder the second.

As for conscience challenging, that is a two-way street. As mentioned in another post, if a near total abortion ban is the goal, I see other ethical ramifications to that goal.

---

You can murder the second when you choose to take away care that would give it life. Doctors aren't the ones choosing to take away care, the mother is. It's the equivalent of doctors pulling the plug on a healing child because a parent no longer wanted them or was too burdensome. It isn't that science can't keep even extremely premature babies/fetuses alive ex-utero for some period, it's that science hasn't figured out how to replicate the earliest developmental necessities that the womb/human body provides. That's the bioethical debate about prolonging the lives of what would be a terribly inhibited human. But left to develop inside the womb, it would otherwise be fine. That's the folly of the viability concept. Because what's really being said is, "Because you (baby/fetus) are reliant upon me and only me, I should have the right to say you can no longer be reliant upon me, and I can kill you." They're perfectly viable right where they are in the womb.

Booray said:

---

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

---

Of course it happens, and more.
Signed,
Kermit Gosnell

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

---

Of course it happens, and more.
Signed,
Kermit Gosnell

---

He was convicted. Which demonstrates that the law doesn't allow what is being claimed.

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

---

Of course it happens, and more.
Signed,
Kermit Gosnell

---

He was convicted. Which demonstrates that the law doesn't allow what is being claimed.

---

The law doesn't allow drunk driving, either.
You made the argument that it doesn't happen.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

At what point is the baby/fetus not capable of life?

---

Pre-viability. Life outside the womb.

Doc asked for a legal explanation. I gave it to him.

---

But a baby cannot survive alone outside the womb either...

---

Sure it can. Not forever, but for a pretty long time.

---

If by "a pretty long time" you mean a few hours or a couple of days, sure.

---

Killing a cancer patient who will die in a couple of days from the cancer is still murder.

Many of us would die relatively quickly without help from others. A viable fetus falls into that category and thus qualifies as a human capable of being murdered.

---

Science is gradually making the ex-utero argument of viability irrelevant. And if you're willing to acknowledge many of us would die without the help of others, why not a fetus/baby?

RE: the Alabama law, it's destined to fail at the court level given its broad restrictions, but I like that the conscience of our culture is being challenged.

---

You are right about science. I am ok with that, because science is also going to improve pregnancy detection and prevention.

As to viability as a condition of murder, I am basing that on medically accepted practices. Doctors keep people alive because they will continue to live for some appreciable period. Doctors don't keep certain fetus/babies alive after birth because further life for an appreciable period is impossible. You can murder the first group, you can't murder the second.

As for conscience challenging, that is a two-way street. As mentioned in another post, if a near total abortion ban is the goal, I see other ethical ramifications to that goal.

---

You can murder the second when you choose to take away care that would give it life. Doctors aren't the ones choosing to take away care, the mother is. It's the equivalent of doctors pulling the plug on a healing child because a parent no longer wanted them or was too burdensome. It isn't that science can't keep even extremely premature babies/fetuses alive ex-utero for some period, it's that science hasn't figured out how to replicate the earliest developmental necessities that the womb/human body provides. That's the bioethical debate about prolonging the lives of what would be a terribly inhibited human. But left to develop inside the womb, it would otherwise be fine. That's the folly of the viability concept. Because what's really being said is, "Because you (baby/fetus) are reliant upon me and only me, I should have the right to say you can no longer be reliant upon me, and I can kill you." They're perfectly viable right where they are in the womb.

---

If one is a human being at conception, you are 100% correct. If not, you have to have some sort of line-drawing exercise. I have explained why I don''t believe one is a human at conception and how I would draw the line. I appreciate your view point and don't claim my answer is the only way to look at it; there is room for doubt all around.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

---

Of course it happens, and more.
Signed,
Kermit Gosnell

---

He was convicted. Which demonstrates that the law doesn't allow what is being claimed.

---

The law doesn't allow drunk driving, either.
You made the argument that it doesn't happen.

---

I should have said the law does not allow it to happen.