Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
First (to save posts), there is a middle ground. What happened to viability? It's as principled as conception or birth for a bright line.
|
But the point of viability changes with advances in medicine. In 1974 no 24 week old fetus was viable outside the womb. They are now viable. So according to those who would draw the line at viability, 30 years ago a 24 week old fetus wasn't a human being but now he or she is?
Anyone else see the intellectual dishonesty in a society that would spend $600,000 to save the life of one 24 week old fetus in the neonatal intensive care unit but would dispose of another in a red bag labeled "biohazardus waste" and bases its distinction between the two simply on the whether the mother wants the child?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Second, why does conception by rape make the fetus (once born) any less human (or less human, or fetal, before being born)?
|
It doesn't. That was my point in saying that the pro-lifers have a hard time with the children conceived by rape. On the one hand, everyone recognizes the horrific trauma forcing her to carry a child conceivec by rape would cause the mother. On the other hand, allowing the abortion would punish the child who comitted no crime. That is a hard choice for the pro-lifers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For birth defects, sure, one could argue isn't viable anyway.
|
Depends on what you mean by severe birth defect. I consider Down's syndrome a severe birth defect and those kids are viable at the same point as a fetus without Down's.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So what's the point of all this arguing? (late the game).
|
We are avoiding real life by choosing to argue here instead. Or we just like to see our words in print. One of the two.
