APP - ILA vs Thing1: Abortion

[canceled.2021.3]

Thing

I would like to continue our abortion discussion 1:1 in the confines of APP. I have been trying to get you to clarify as to why you specifically oppose abortion. Here are your quotes from the thread in Current Events and there appear to be some inconsistencies. My position is that life begins at conception. Period. You seem to try to find some magical middle ground that I do not believe exists.

Don't be so dramatic. I'm against abortion. I think it should be discouraged & rare.

But forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is Draconian and borderline barbaric. I don't want to live in a society where the state has that kind of power.

Roe is a reasonable & good compromise. It's about viability. In the 1st trimester, there is no cognizance or viability. Deal with it.

It's not the black & white issue that extremists on both sides want anyone to accept.

I don't know why you consider yourself to be pro-life. You are most certainly not. It is strictly an ideological issue for you.

I don't think terminating a zygote is "killing a kid." I think it gets murkier the more that zygote develops.

It's a complex issue. Most people don't want it to be - which is why they go to extremes.

It's competing rights. There is the right of the potential human being, against the right of the body that potential human being needs. As I've said, it get murkier as the fetus develops - which is why I think Roe is such a perfect compromise.

Trust me - I've thought about this issue WAY more than you have. You're in over your head w/ me. You just see it as "lefty = bad." You don't care about life.

A fetus has a basic right to life. But it needs a body to exist - them's the breaks. It's not clever to try to distill this down into a simple, black & white issue - that's actually the refuge of people who aren't able to reason it through with the complexity that it deserves (which is really most people on the extremes of the issue).

The Court got it right with Roe. Issues like viability, cognizance, sentience & development all come into play. And don't hit me w/ the predictable "what about someone in a coma" strawman. The state should not have the right to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term. That is about as anti-freedom and big government a stance as I can imagine.

This is a fairly futile exercise w/ a poster like you. As I've said - you are an ideologue. You absolutely, 100% do not care about life, and your posts here have shown that. Please do not pretend that you do in this instance.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

So a couple of questions

You say that the Supreme Court got it right in 1972 because the baby isn't viable or doesn't have cognition in the first trimester. Justice Blackmon admitted it was an arbitrary date. Is it held that the day the baby hits the second trimester it magically crosses into sentience and viability?

If we extend the viability argument further, wouldn't it be possible to argue that a newborn isn't viable post birth? A newborn cannot survive on its own, so couldn't someone be justified killing a baby on those grounds?