The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 07:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't see the difference between an embryo/fetus surviving outside the womb and an infant or a toddler? Does the normal, healthy infant need assistance breathing? Their heart pumping? Do they require their nutrients to be given via stomach pump (essentially) or are they able to ingest them? These are the things that would be needed to give a healthy embryo/fetus prior to the third trimester even a chance to live, and in most cases it wouldn't succeed. You call it BS Semantics, but your position here is extremely fallacious.

(07-07-2015, 08:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Both of my children were born prematurely.  26 weeks.  If you'd like to know the amount of time and money and effort it takes to keep a baby alive at that point I'd be glad to explain.

I support that abortion is a horrible, terrible decision that must be made by the mother and (hopefully) father of the fetus.  But lets stop pretending that a fetus (baby/child) can just "survive" at any point so it the exact same thing as killing a 6 year old.

There's no denying that a fetus and a newborn/infant are not the same thing. That's not up for debate. I understand the need to form a line if abortion is going to be legal and i doubt anyone here would disagree that it's a bad idea for pregnant women to be going to back alley "doctors" or whomever to have an abortion. It's not my job to judge a person and how they live their life or on the decisions they make. I'm not talking about pro-life/pro-choice and i'm certainly not trying to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. 

I have a problem with the 'fetus/person' debate, that's my whole point. When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it sets into action a chain of events that will eventually lead to a person, providing there are no complications/accidents/miscarriages. The debate on when a "lump of cells" becomes a person isn't honest because it's the act of ending the process that doesn't allow that lump to become a person. Beyond that, as i stated, neither a fetus nor a newborn/infant can survive on its own without assistance from it's mother or caregiver. It's semantics and rationalization because it's based on time. If that fetus that can't live outside the womb on its own were left to grow, it would eventually become a living, breathing thing. Intervention, based on time, is not a rational or logical base of argument because it takes an active role in ending what would have become a person. 

It's an argument that's there to make a person feel better about their decision. 

Trying to suppose that i don't know/see the difference between a fetus and a 6 year old is a nonstarter and a diversion from the point of my post.

(07-07-2015, 11:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That makes no sense and you clearly had some trouble reading my post. If you were to remove a fetus from the womb 6 weeks into pregnancy, it would have no chance of surviving. If you were to remove it 8 months into the pregnancy, it could.

That's the whole thing the justices said in Roe about drawing the line.

I didn't have any trouble readin' yo shit. To your point; wow! an 8 month old fetus could survive for a matter of hours or a couple days longer than a 6 week old fetus could. That's strong, dawg.

Like i said, i get 'the line' and what it's meant to do. I disagree with the argument of 1st trimester fetus vs newborn. They both die in short order if not cared for.