I don't agree with abortion laws as they are, and even if someone changed my mind on that I'd never consider supporting its use for this reason.

(January 21, 2017 at 9:13 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: crazy

We know you are you don't have to tell us

It's nice personal health decisions aren't done by popular vote.

It's also nice that someone who is unstable can opt out of making a child when it is clear they cannot do a good job currently.

Finally, there's already a large number of children waiting for adoption - adding another one to that will only contribute to the nasty tragedy of broken homes for orphans, given up children and broken teens.

The laws as-is is infinitely better than the negatives the anti-abortionists would have us suffer.

(January 21, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: And for that poor woman, that WAS her child.  I don't think anyone would be cruel enough to dispute that with her.

I wish I shared your optimistic outlook.

Lol, it's probably more naïveté than optimism tbh.

So I'm going to dissect your post and point out some things that didn't exactly grind with me.

SteelCurtain Wrote:Right, but now we're not talking about anything more than a clump of cells.

Right, and if the kid is 2 years old we'd be talking about a huge chunk of cells, what your point? Saying it's just a "clump of cells" can be said about anyone. Hell you're just a huge chunk of cells, doesn't mean I can just shoot you in the face and feign innocence.

Quote:It's not a kid.

So this is pretty dishonest. It's not a 'fully formed' kid. It is still a kid.

Analogicaly speaking, imagine a meteor coming towards earth, you're telling me that the meteor is no threat because it hasn't hit earth yet.

Quote:This might be a projection of other, more serious emotions, and ultimately, it is her decision.

She's just batshit crazy.

The whole "clump of cells" and "potential life" arguments never convince me either. Those cells have distinct human DNA, and are very much alive.

A brick is not a building. We can add to the brick to make a building, but until then I'm not going to call it that or expect it to provide shelter.

Likewise, I will not call a clump of cells a person until it is viable to live as one on its own. I think it's pretty dishonest to give it more credit than that.

A newborn infant cannot live on its own. Is that a person?

Jesster Wrote:I will not call a clump of cells a person until it is viable to live as one on its own.

What about a person surviving under life support in a hospital - is that not a person?

Ah. You're using a different definition of "on its own" than I am, aren't you?

I'm talking about viability. Don't confuse my meaning to make your argument.