Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
According to most, partial birth is ok. Is that still a clump?
Partial birth, as in they partially extract a child (usually just the head) that is viable outside the womb through the vaginal canal and kill it?
Cos I don't know anyone who is for that, so source on "most"?
Originally posted by Robtard
Partial birth, as in they partially extract a child (usually just the head) that is viable outside the womb through the vaginal canal and kill it?Cos I don't know anyone who is for that, so source on "most"?
Yea, my understanding is partial-birth is extremely unpopular, baring health needs (at which point there's a life at risk if it isn't done, so, unpleasant to be sure, but preventing it is no longer 'pro life'😉.
It's also very very rare to begin with, because, well, no-one wants it.
The vaaaaast majority of abortions are done at a point when there's no functional brain. Which is not a baby, it's a clump of cells.
For everything else, we treat 'is the brain functional?' as when someone is alive or not. I see no reason why this should be any different.
I'm not religious, so no. But if humans do have souls, then babies also have souls. And if humans have souls I see no reason why animals also wouldn't have souls of some kind. What is the sign of a soul? Most would say some kind of personality, well many animals have personality. So they might. Who knows.
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not religious, so no. But if humans do have souls, then babies also have souls. And if humans have souls I see no reason why animals also wouldn't have souls of some kind. What is the sign of a soul? Most would say some kind of personality, well many animals have personality. So they might. Who knows.
Using this way of thinking then it can be assumed that many of the posters here are zombies.
As someone who has never really explored this topic all too mich in the past, can someone explain to me the liberal argument that justifies abortions due to inconvenience. I am all for abortions performed in case the mother's health is at risk or if the child has abnormalities that would make the long term surivival of the child nonviable once born. But I keep hearing about the "abortion at-will without apology" rhetoric and (as a non-american) I am really not all that informed about the justifications regarding this issue or even if such a movement exists....
I think the main argument is that a fetus is not a full human and doesn't have rights that supersede the bodily autonomy of the woman. So if a woman does not want something growing in her, even something that can potentially turn into a full human being, it is her right to have this removed from her body.
Obviously there are more arguments as well and people don't all agree with the same reasons, but that's the main one in my view at least.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
What exactly constitutes a "full human"? Who determines this? Why is this so-called "autonomy" more important than human life?
That's what the debates are about. People have different views on it, and want them to be represented in their legal systems. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, whether they put autonomy at 0 or the rights of the fetus at 0, we still form an opinion based on different values we hold.
I understand the differences in opinion of this, of course. I know that this is a deeply polarizing subject. What I don't understand is the left's ability to justify this, where is it coming from?
I have the same confusion on how the right justifies (to themselves) what the NRA is doing, cept that I consider PP to be the far far the worse of the two.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I understand the differences in opinion of this, of course. I know that this is a deeply polarizing subject. What I don't understand is the left's ability to justify this, where is it coming from?I have the same confusion on how the right justifies (to themselves) what the NRA is doing, cept that I consider PP to be the far far the worse of the two.
Well, if you believe that a fetus is not a human being, and therefore believe it should not have human rights, but perhaps rights comparable to animals, or even less, then that justifies the removal of them perfectly. You would not require a person to host a parasite of another species would you?
Even further, some people don't even think whether it is a full human matters. Consider the example that you are tied to another human being and told they will die if you untie them but after 9 months you can separate again, do you think you have the duty to be tied to the other person or do you have the right to untie before these 9 months are up, even if it causes the death of the other person?
Also, surely you mean abortion and not PP. Planned Parenthood offers a lot of health services, many actually preventing abortions from happening. It's not just an abortion provider it does that as well.