How is my answer not an answer?

Let me draw out the question for you.

 

You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby?

Your answer doesn't answer this at all. Your just saying something unrelated to avoid the answer.

 

Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning?

Same thing.

 

Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware?

I'd like to see you try and explain how your "answer" answers this question.

Is a baby not conscious or does it simply lack the capacity for complex communication? How intertwined are communication and thought and is there anyone "there" when you interact with a baby?

In the same aspect they decided a fetus isn't conscious because it can't communicate, so that would apply to a baby.

Let me draw out the question for you.

 

You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby?

 

 

That's a non-sequitur, not a question, the rest is a continuation of similar bollox.

 

That's a non-sequitur, not a question, the rest is a continuation of similar bollox.

It is related because it ties right in to the ethics of abortion, so its not non-sequitur.

 

Answer the question, or I'll add another meme.

It is related because it ties right in to the ethics of abortion, so its not non-sequitur.

 

Answer the question, or I'll add another meme.

"You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware?"

LOL

Ok. Maybe it is.

I give up, you win...

I give up, you win...

Anyways.... back on topic.

[...] but a fetus that is inevitably going to wake up no matter what we do short of killing it is.

 

You seem to have set in your mind that once a fetus is formed it inevitably results in a human being. However, that is clearly not the case. Many pregnancies are likely not detected as after fertilization the zygote does not successfully settle. Roughly 40% (though some estimates are higher) of fertilized eggs miscarry. After that point the miscarriage rate is about 30% and decreasing with time. These risks increase with the age of the woman. If we rigorously consider potential, regardless how small it is, we would need to start collecting sperm and egg samples as they all represent potentials. If we only consider time frames where we are, say 90% certain that the infant survives we are looking past the second trimester.

 

And what has been excluded so far is the overall burden on the mother. Regardless whether birth is successful or not, it is a huge strain on the mother's body. And it really boggles my mind that there are passionate views on the potential of children that may never be, yet at the same time ignore the burden on the potential mothers who are most definitely there.

We do not even need to venture into the area of horrible crimes. Why, should the choice be taken away from the person who has to bear all the costs?

 

Or let me ask it differently: would you be alright if we ban abortion, but society has to pay for all costs associated with it. That includes medical bills, lost job opportunities for the mother, potential health issues as well as all child rearing costs? If the answer is no, I cannot see a ban on abortion as anything close to ethical.

 

You seem to have set in your mind that once a fetus is formed it inevitably results in a human being. However, that is clearly not the case. Many pregnancies are likely not detected as after fertilization the zygote does not successfully settle. Roughly 40% (though some estimates are higher) of fertilized eggs miscarry. After that point the miscarriage rate is about 30% and decreasing with time. These risks increase with the age of the woman. If we rigorously consider potential, regardless how small it is, we would need to start collecting sperm and egg samples as they all represent potentials. If we only consider time frames where we are, say 90% certain that the infant survives we are looking past the second trimester.

 

And what has been excluded so far is the overall burden on the mother. Regardless whether birth is successful or not, it is a huge strain on the mother's body. And it really boggles my mind that there are passionate views on the potential of children that may never be, yet at the same time ignore the burden on the potential mothers who are most definitely there.

We do not even need to venture into the area of horrible crimes. Why, should the choice be taken away from the person who has to bear all the costs?

 

Or let me ask it differently: would you be alright if we ban abortion, but society has to pay for all costs associated with it. That includes medical bills, lost job opportunities for the mother, potential health issues as well as all child rearing costs? If the answer is no, I cannot see a ban on abortion as anything close to ethical.

First off, all my other posts made it clear I meant miscarriage included. The one time I forget to mention that you jump on it.

And no, the burden on the mother has not been excluded, but rather weighed with if the burden is worth the life of another. You can give away a child legally if you do not wish to have that burden. As for rape, that's a different story. We are talking about the aborted babies because a parent decided they changed their mind, and/or had it on accident. Either way, if it was an accident you still hold responsibility for that child's life, and you still have the option to give it away.

If you had a child conceived, then inevitably you get the consequences of having a child. Rather then killing it you can give the child away, you seem to skip over that portion. The only burden would be a health burden, and we already covered that, so yes, I would be okay with it.

If we're working off of the premise that abortion is always the murder of a child, what is the justification for murdering a baby just because it was conceived during a rape?

 

You can't legally execute an innocent person because just because one of their parents committed a crime.

If we're working off of the premise that abortion is always the murder of a child, what is the justification for murdering a baby just because it was conceived during a rape?

 

You can't legally execute an innocent person because just because one of their parents committed a crime.

 

 

We aren't, a conscience child is very different to an unconscious fetus.

What is the justification for murdering a baby just because it was conceived during a rape?

 

You can't legally execute an innocent person because just because one of their parents committed a crime.

That would depend on many factors, including the risk of a miscarriage. Personally I wouldn't say there is a justification, and that said person should have the child and probably give it up. There are many cases of this, and quite commonly that is what happens. Other times they have an abortion.

 

 

We aren't, a conscience child is very different to an unconscious fetus.

That was in response to Raider's post.

 

 

We aren't, a conscience child is very different to an unconscious fetus.

Or an unconscious baby?

That was in response to Raider's post.

 

 

Apologies...

Or an unconscious baby?

 

 

Again with the non-sequitur's.

Again with the non-sequitur's.

No, its expanding the subject. Abortion is justified in your opinion because a fetus is unconscious, so please answer, why is an unconscious baby any different?

No, its expanding the subject. Abortion is justified in your opinion because a fetus is unconscious, so please answer, why is an unconscious baby any different?

 

 

Because it once was, presuming a normal birth; a fetus could never be within the legal definition.

That would depend on many factors, including the risk of a miscarriage. Personally I wouldn't say there is a justification, and that said person should have the child and probably give it up. There are many cases of this, and quite commonly that is what happens. Other times they have an abortion.

Do you believe that should be a choice they are allowed to make for themselves?

Do you believe that should be a choice they are allowed to make for themselves?

Yes.

Yes.

Ok, now is it still murder when they decide to get an abortion?

 

And for the record, I'm not trying to trap you. Just trying to work through your thought process. I'm adding this disclaimer because I think that question sounds a little inflammatory and I couldn't think of a better way of wording it.

Ok, now is it still murder when they decide to get an abortion?

 

And for the record, I'm not trying to trap you. Just trying to work through your thought process. I'm adding this disclaimer because I think that question sounds a little inflammatory and I couldn't think of a better way of wording it.

By my definition, yes it would be. But as some people ever so often love to proclaim, two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't honestly think I'm arguing the fact that babies can't vote do you? I'm arguing the ethical dilemma of killing them therefore preventing them from one day voting.

Given that you set up a vote on a complex issue with only a binary outcome (i.e. not "it depends" option") then you presumably deal in absolutes and either see nobody as being allowed to vote, or everybody- in which case, yes, I expect that, to be consistent, you would argue that babies should get a vote.

 

Did you not have that in mind?

Given that you set up a vote on a complex issue with only a binary outcome (i.e. not "it depends" option") then you presumably deal in absolutes and either see nobody as being allowed to vote, or everybody- in which case, yes, I expect that, to be consistent, you would argue that babies should get a vote.

 

Did you not have that in mind?

No, originally I had it binary. Then I added a third option and clicked finished. Thought that was done and exited out. Apparently it didn't add it so this time I added it. Sorry for the inconvenience.