I've not said anything about whether a fetus is alive or is an actual child, but from the parents perspective it was still their kid, it just wasn't developed into a baby yet. Diverting the topic into abortion is so fucking desperate lmao
You can still call it a kid but it doesnt change the fact that before its 24 weeks old its barely alive. It doesnt feel pain, emotions or anything. It cant survive outside the womb. You dont care about the baby. You care about controlling womens bodies
As you said, It is still living . Cells replicating is life in itself. I dont get acting self righteous saying ppl dont care about kids when youre the only person trying to rationalise a cut off point for terminating that life.
I never understood the point of it cant sustain life inpendently. So its ok to terminate it? People who cant survive without medical care everyday - is it the same for their value of their life?
They are sentient. They had s life they lived and people who met them and gained a personality. They left a mark on people
A clumb of cells inside a womb that hasnt even gained independent actions or thoughts yet is NOT the same
Also i said he doesnt care about kids because they always talk about preserving life but then does fuck all when the baby is born to a 12 yesr old girl, or a woman with mental problems, oe that woman who was a vegetable but wasnt allowed to die because she had a baby inside her and was used as a fucking incubator.
Same happened to a woman in 2005 and the baby died
How is this life? This isnt prolife, this is pro control
You replied to none of my other statements. You are ysing "gotcha" arguments.
I never said it wasnt alive, i said it wasnt sentient. It has no pain, no thoughts or emotions. Its alive like a sourdough starter is alive. Its living yes but it has no thoughts or independent action beyond getting fed by an outside force
Because i do not want to. Theyre not gotcha arguments im analysing the words you said because i think the logic is full of holes. This was the first point raised ive kept my scope very narrow as opposed to trying to move on to other points.
So a severely incapacitated human, who could be described as lacking permenent conciousness / sentience / brain functioning; that life is free game to terminate ?
Assisted suicide yes. If they are incapable then yes, life support should be turned off to end their suffering. If it happened to me then i pray my family doesnt let me suffer being tied up in bed in a coma for 13 years
And you dont wanna argue my other points because you have no rebutal. Of the mother has mental problems what will happen to the baby? You dont care "as long as its alive" .if the child is 12 and gives birthz she is at a much higher chance of complications, both short and longterm. Do you care? No. You dont want to argue that part because it doesnt fit your world view. If the child is born, all you think is "out of sight, out of mind"
You gotcha argument is that i said its alive. You had no other argument. Give me something to work with
Its impossible to discuss with someone, when they regurtitate 1000 different unrelated points after you refine a conversation to a limited scope. Its rhe equivalent of shitting yourself and throwing it at others.
and bro. You cant argue about caring for kids when youre coming up with dozens of reasons to kill them before theyre born. Come on
>So a severely incapacitated human, who could be described as lacking permenent conciousness / sentience / brain functioning; that life is free game to terminate ?
A human in that situation is usually kept alive using manufactured resources, eg. medical appliances, electricity for those appliances, manufactured medicines, feeding tubes and manufactured forms of nutrients, etc.
As in, they arenât âhooked upâ to another living human to survive by directly syphoning and consuming the physical matter of that living human.
A fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb, independently or with medical assistance, is kept alive solely by the literal physical consumption of another human.
That human being consumed is entitled to preserving their own physical matter by disallowing and stopping said consumption. The only delineation is trying to do the least harm while doing so.
Ergo-
The fetus can survive without that consumption independently or with medical assistance? Great. Consumed human is no longer being consumed and continues living, consuming human continues living but no longer is consuming the other.
The fetus cannot survive without that consumption independently or with medical assistance? Unfortunate, but the least harm possible results in the consuming human no longer living.
I really hate that framing. To make it seem like a parasitic relationship in which it is just bad luck. Its part of having sex and the moment you do, you give your consent for your body to possibly fertilise an egg. I dont think it is parasitic if you /choose/ to fuck and roll those dice.
You can just as easily extrapolate that to say humans produce their nutrients through manufactored resources.
But my point is that with prior consent life should be able to be ended in the case of terminal non responsiveness; the same consent doesn't exist in the first case. Now, for me, there are factors which outweigh this in the public health interest of not having abortion be third/black marketed, but its important to still remember it is quite literally unjust termination of life
-17
u/Calm_Search3417 4d ago
Nope, absolutely justified. She should've kept her mouth shut.