The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 06:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not confusing anything. I understand that point 100%. I'm saying it's bunk and a way of making someone feel better about the decision to end a "life". Rationalization.

I mean, seriously. Who would argue that a 6 week old fetus could survive outside the womb without assistance? It would be asinine to make that claim. Who would even consider trying to find out if it could happen? No one. In the same vein, it's silly to make the comparison to a 6 week old fetus and a full term baby. If the 6 week old fetus is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. 

It all, obviously comes down to where do you draw the line. I understand this as well and see it. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the ratonalization that "well....it couldn't survive on it's own outside the womb." Duh. Talk about false equivalence...

Party on Wayne.

and if a fertilized egg is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. So is it bunk to argue for emergency contraceptives if they might prevent the fertilized egg from implanting?

And it's not a false equivalency. It's a legal standard that has existed for decades because you need to draw the line at some point when allowing people to have freedom over their bodies.