07-17-2022, 05:11 PM
(07-17-2022, 12:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the case of rape/incest? yes should be allowed to abort. Report it and let the law arrest the Rapist.
But not every teenage pregnancy a "rape", so how do you handle those, there was nothing 'evil' there?
I used the word evil to specifically describe not allowing exceptions for rape and incest.
Quote:I've posted multiple times about what I think is a fair compromise and never changed my stance.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Pro-Choice-People-Babies-Feel-Excruciating-Pain-During-Abortions?pid=653002?highlight=trimester#pid653002
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Question-For-Pro-Choice-People?pid=721580?highlight=trimester#pid721580
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Roe-vs-Wade-vs-SCOTUS-legitimacy?pid=1211435?highlight=trimester#pid1211435
Thanks for providing the links.
My issue with a first trimester cutoff is that a 3 month old fetus can't survive outside the womb because their lungs and other vital organs aren't developed enough. If the fetus can't be considered reasonably viable, it can't be considered to possess right to life.
The fetus usually doesn't start processing sensory stimuli at the cortical level until sometime around the 24/25 week mark, according to the consensus of research done on the subject. Consider also that the brain doesn't start directing chest compression or diaphragm movement until the second trimester. Finally, factor in the rates of survival and health risk. A fetus born at 28 weeks has about a 90% survival rate and only a 10% chance of serious long-term health problems, as compared to say a 24 week old fetus who only has about a 50% chance of surviving and even if they do, more than 40% will have health issues, many of which can result in life-long problems.
So, it seems to me that the most logical compromise would be 20 weeks, as it would be generous to both sides; allowing the pregnant individual 5 full months to make the choice to abort or not, and granting the fetus right to life even though it isn't yet reasonably viable.
Quote:For the last part. That ONE little cell with it's complete genetic makeup, does start to divide and grow. Frozen Fertilized Embryo's, once thawed out, will start right away with dividing and growing whether they are in the womb or not. No scientist will tell you that a cell that a dividing cell is NOT alive.
Of course, every cell is alive. Human life is very different than human being. Your fingernails contain human life. They are not human beings. Those are two very different categorizations.
How can a zygote possess personhood if it's capable of splitting in a manner that produces twins, for example, which replace the original single organism with two distinctly individual ones? It cannot already be a human being itself, or its status as a human being would simply cease to exist after splitting into twins, triplets, etc. -- because it ceases to exist.
Quote:This means, that blob of cells or whatever descriptive you desire to call it, KNOWS what to do in order to live.
And now for our favorite word of the month... this makes it an autonomous living being in the early stages of development.
According to this logic, using your definition of "know" -- bacteria, cancers and viruses would all be living beings.
