Question for pro-choicers

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
 
g r i n d said:
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

No, because then it would be murder.
 
g r i n d said:
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it might grow up to vote DEMOCRAT.
 
Legion said:
Yes, because it might grow up to vote DEMOCRAT.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
g r i n d said:
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Would this "fully formed baby" be capable of life outside the womb if for instance the mother fell down the steps and suffered a miscarriage?
 
g r i n d said:
So you believe in this specific circumstance the viability of the fetus/baby trumps the womans right to not be pregnant for 9 months?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I also get that it's complicated. You can make the argument that when a man and a woman are having sex, they are entering into a contract, and part of the deal is that the woman could get pregnant. So if you don't want to carry a baby for 9 months, just don't have vaginal sex. But then there's the issue of rape. It's not a black and white topic, which is why I wish people would be more understanding of people who disagree on abortion.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, but I also get that it's complicated. You can make the argument that when a man and a woman are having sex, they are entering into a contract, and part of the deal is that the woman could get pregnant. So if you don't want to carry a baby for 9 months, just don't have vaginal sex. But then there's the issue of rape. It's not a black and white topic, which is why I wish people would be more understanding of people who disagree on abortion.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the rape argument. Would we abort a living 1 year old child that was the product of rape? People would say no, it's a kid and not its fault that one of its parents were raped. So why wouldn't that same logic apply to a 9 month old viable baby in the womb?
 
g r i n d said:
Yes. Lets consider it like what a baby would be at almost 9 months
Click to expand...

Then the scenario is that to abort it would involve murder since it can function w/o the support of the mom's body and is fully capable of life on its own.

The recent spate of "heartbeat bills" fail on the science. Yes, there is detectable, audible activity at six weeks' gestation. However, what is heard is not a heart that is doing anything other than nervous tissue reacting to neurotransmitters. There are no heart chambers, no valves, no circulatory system, no blood being moved. If you've ever taken a biology class you'll know what this is from the frog dissection. The entire fetus at this point is ~4-5mm in length. So it's about this size: ~~~. The "heartbeat bills" are purely designed to evoke emotions and to punish women who likely at that stage don't even know that they're pregnant, especially women whose cycles are irregular.
 
g r i n d said:
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Many liberals think post birth abortions are OK. Let's be clear about one thing here. The left is not pro choice. They are pro death...unless it's a mass murderer on death row. Then they are pro life for some sick reason. I used to say liberalism is a mental disorder. I've changed my mind. It is a gangrene of the soul. It is moral treason. It is opposed to everything that is good and decent.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Then the scenario is that to abort it would involve murder since it can function w/o the support of the mom's body and is fully capable of life on its own.

The recent spate of "heartbeat bills" fail on the science. Yes, there is detectable, audible activity at six weeks' gestation. However, what is heard is not a heart that is doing anything other than nervous tissue reacting to neurotransmitters. There are no heart chambers, no valves, no circulatory system, no blood being moved. If you've ever taken a biology class you'll know what this is from the frog dissection. The entire fetus at this point is ~4-5mm in length. So it's about this size: ~~~. The "heartbeat bills" are purely designed to evoke emotions and to punish women who likely at that stage don't even know that they're pregnant, especially women whose cycles are irregular.
Click to expand...

aren't some fetuses viable much earlier? My cousin was born at 7 months for example.

So you would also take the position that ultimately the viability of the baby trumps the womens right to her body once the baby is at a certain developmental stage?
 
g r i n d said:
I don't understand the rape argument. Would we abort a living 1 year old child that was the product of rape? People would say no, it's a kid and not its fault that one of its parents were raped. So why wouldn't that same logic apply to a 9 month old viable baby in the womb?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with that. But then we can't use the argument I gave about sex being a contract. It just makes laws against abortion a harder sell.
 
g r i n d said:
aren't some fetuses viable much earlier? My cousin was born at 7 months for example.
Click to expand...

The younger of my two sons was born two months premature as well. Without critical care (NICU for a month), a ventilator, and oxygen he would have died. Other babies born that early might fare better.

So you would also take the position that ultimately the viability of the baby trumps the womens right to her body once the baby is at a certain developmental stage?
Click to expand...

If the reason for the abortion is simply that the woman doesn't want to be a mom, then I would support laws against that for sure. However, if it's determined that the fetus has major defects and/or the mother's life is threatened, then it should be okay -- but only after consultation with more than one physician specializing in OB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top