Birth is a line, but it isn’t the line he’s looking for. Birth is when the fetus becomes a baby and is no longer inside the mother; not when it becomes a person (and his “it’s human” argument is besides the point; it’s personhood not humanity that matters). My personal belief is that a baby slowly becomes a person well after it’s born as its mind develops, with no neat person/non-person dividing line.
Do you see other lines that may be reasonably drawn, even if you wouldn’t agree that they be accepted as “the” line?
Not the line that he’s looking for, it doesn’t exist.
So is it OK with you to “abort a baby well after birth? That pair of subhuman animals who shot a baby in the face some months back, while trying to rob his mother—did they commit a murder, or was that just a very late-term abortion?
Yes, it does exist. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and denying the existence of something that is right in front of you does not diminish its existence in the least.
Is the fertilized egg a child before it attaches itself to the womb?
I already answered that, before you even asked it.
A miracle! You two actually agree!
Nope; because at that point, another alternative exists, namely adoption. No one in the pro-choice movement is arguing for infanticide. The question is childish.
No, we do not. I do not agree that one’s humanity is dependent on “viability”.
Should something be done about all the babies(fertilized eggs) that die because they fail to attach themselves to wombs?
No, because it’s not inside the woman anymore.
Nor does playing semantic games make a mindless lump of flesh anything but a lump; nor does refusing to acknowledge the suffering and degradation you want to inflect on women make them go away either.
And no, the line you want does not exist, and conception most certainly isn’t it.
I posted my sentiments in a different thread, and it applies here too:
Whether or not the fetus/baby/lump of cells is unimportant to my view on abortion, which is this: any person has the right to remove anything or anyone from inside their body if they want it out, for any reason at all, and at any time. And that’s it. It doesn’t matter if I think the 8 month old fetus is a person- it’s a person inside another’s body, and she has the right to evict if she so chooses.
And even if the thought of killing 8 month old babies bothers me (and it does!), I don’t worry to much about it because of this- most women are decent and thoughtful people, and I believe a miniscule number would make an unreasoned decision to end their pregnancy late-term. In addition, I believe that a woman determined to end her pregnancy will do so regardless of abortion laws.
Another way to look at it: If I go to bed after a night of debauchery (I’m a dude, by the way), and wake up and someone has shrunk Don Johnson (against his wishes!) and stuck him inside my body (and hooked him up to my bodiliy functions such that if removed he will die), I have the right to evict him- it doesn’t matter that he didn’t have a choice. It’s my body, and if something is inside that I want out, I can get it out. End of story.
Now, given this situation, I certainly wouldn’t eject poor Mr. Johnson at least until it was clear that there was no way to safely separate us- and I might even choose to live with him. But it would be my choice- and it would be within my rights to give him the boot for any reason. My body, my decision on who and what is allowed to be or stay inside.
You are saying that a ZEF is a child and deserves to live. It is not a child and personifying it, just adds an emotional image to a cute little toddler. What does the term abortion on demand mean? Do you get your blood checked on demand? Do men get vasectomies “on demand”? Another emotional trigger.
What do you think can be done about this?
Failing to prevent a natural death is not the same thing as intentionally causing an unnatural death.
Not what I said, but I will leave you to read what I did say if you wish.
Can’t help it if referring to an embryo as a child upsets your emotions. I think it is so, for the reasons I’ve already stated.
Your analogy between the death of an unborn human child and a blood test or a vasectomy–which obviously do not involve the death of anyone–doesn’t address the ethical question of whether unborn, even not fully developed, humans have a right to live. It is of course simpler to ignore that question, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
Requiring a visit to the doctor soon after sex to attempt to save the life of that “child”, of course. Flush the egg and freeze it for later implantation.
No one here has suggested that anyone is required to do any such thing (even if it were medically possible) and I don’t see how it would be a logical extension of the idea that undergoing a procedure with the express purpose of killing the unborn child is wrong.
We have one poster here who insists that a fertilized egg is a child at the instant of conception. Wouldn’t letting an innocent child die just because the mother couldn’t be bothered to take a little bit of time out of her life to go to the doctor and remove a fertilized egg and freeze it for later implantation be rather cruel if this were actual true?
And let’s charge every woman who miscarries with murder. After all, she might have thought of killing her child, which caused the miscarriage.
Negligent homicide at the very least.
I’m aware of that but that doesn’t change the fact that the hypothetical is absurd and inapposite. The equivalent would be saying that since parents aren’t morally required to keep their child in an ICU-style setting to prevent infection and ensure immediate medical attention should SIDS occur, it’s OK to kill that same child.
No one here is suggesting any requirement that the mother take extraordinary measures to protect the embryo or the fetus (or the fertilized egg for that matter) from all possible harm or from the failure to thrive.