CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that,
I don't have a problem with long posts. I am not a mod. It doesn't matter if you make long posts. It doesn't matter if I did have a problem with long posts. You have a right to make long posts. Make long posts if you want.
My comment from before was regarding the first page when every other four posts in a row were yours, and were all overly long. I commented that it wasn't worth the time or effort on my part to respond because it was muddled and confusing to have debate like that; especially since you already admitted nothing will ever change your mind. But you know all of that, because we've had this discussion already.
But yeah, I think it is a great idea to bring this up in each and every post you make in this thread! By all means, please keep doing that. I'll make an effort to do the same. You know, it might even be a good idea to go ahead and mention it in every post we make even in other threads. That could be a lot of fun!
but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body. Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable. All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby. Why the change of heart? My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person. The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.
Because she had several months to take all of that into account. It is not a change of heart, it is merely putting a limit on at what stage of development the mother can have the baby removed. With your logic you could easily say the same thing about a post-natal child, they are stressful and can cause the mother a lot of hardships both financially and mentally. It is like that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom decides she wants to have him aborted only to discover you can't abort eight year old kids.
Obviously a limit has to be drawn somewhere.
Yes, obviously. My point is that the limit is rather arbitrary and acknowledges that an unborn human is still a person somewhere. And what I meant by change of heart was not the mother's change of heart, but rather that of society and lawmakers. I read in the news last week that a child born before the age of supposed viability has survived and is doing well. Should we adjust the timeframe for abortions now? Do/can they become people sooner? I simply see personhood as genetically human.
I did make the same point about post-natal children. When first born, they are still not even considered sentient in that they are not even self-aware. We do have to draw the line somewhere, and I personally feel that "somewhere" is much earlier.
I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?
"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.
I think both these examples show that even pro-choicers admit somewhere deep down that an unborn child is not quite of equal value to that of a person.
My point of view is that an unborn child is not that an unborn child is not of equal value to a person, but rather that we make efforts to save the life of as many as possible. Consider the scenario where the mother's life is seriously at risk. If the mother dies, the baby may live or may die. If the baby dies, the mother will more likely live. Also, the mother has more to live for. She may have a family to care for, has loved ones who need her. The child does not yet have such a place in society. It's a horrible choice, but if I leaned one way or another, I'd lean toward the mother. Let's now look at an example of conjoined ("Siamese") twins. In most cases both will die if they remain joined. If we separate them, one will likely die. Which do we choose to have live? The one who has the better chance of survival.
As for the rape case, I obviously will never be in those shoes, but I believe that if I were a woman and were raped and impregnated, I would still choose to allow the baby to live. However, I also acknowledge here two things: 1) rape is a very damaging thing, physically and psychologically; 2) I may not agree with abortion even here, but at least see the opposing POV and am granting room for it in this case. The mother could be very emotionally traumatized by rape and therefore her health is again endangered, though we're now speaking of her mental health. It often leads to depression, and depression can lead to suicide and other adverse behaviors. The pregnancy and delivery may exacerbate this depression. Therefore, I grant room for others, though I personally even oppose it in this case.