Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Edwardo Piet]

If you really want to boil it down to rights, at what point does one have to enslave their body to the growth of what is functionally a parasite for 8.8-9.2 months against their own will?

I think my point still stands. And that is that you wouldn't abort a baby a few minutes before labour - and, on the other hand, you obviously would be retarded to think there's anything wrong with aborting right after conception!

So for me the question IS "Where is the cut-off point?".

I don't see how you have responded to my point, which is simply a question based on the fact that both of the above (being anti-abortion right after conception, or pro-abortion right a minute or two before birth) are retarded options so the question is where to draw the line.

And the further question is "wtf does it matter that the parasite is no longer directly connected to the host?"... it remains in dire need of support from birth to several years after said birth. Someone (or something) must be that support if it is to survive. Frankly... i don't see how it's being a baby changes much at all. Now the parasite walks and causes more trouble than it is initially worth... and it isn't a very wise long term investment in many cases either.

??

Are you advocating abortion after birth?

My whole point is nothing magical happens immediately after birth... the baby is no longer dependent but it's still just as physically developed right before birth.

Right before birth abortion is obviously wrong unless the mother might die or something like that I reckon. And abortion is obviously completely harmless right after conception... so my question is "When does the foetus become developed enough that it starts to get more immoral to abort it - just as it would be immoral to abort a baby that was just about to be born for no good reason?"

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

Some rights are strictly freedom based though... they are more ethically based right?

Torture of animals for instance. Since animals aren't considered members of society this isn't about not restricting their freedom, this is about not torturing animals because it's unethical. I would think that's why it's illegal.

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

EvF