You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own.
They are viable though.
Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.
No, after 9 months it's induced because much longer would probably kill both. However long we stretch the analogy, end of a normal pregnancy is the working limit because considering cases longer than it lasts in reality is pointless.
A brain-dead person is still a human life
"dead" means you don't expect it to return to a functioning human being. Almost all babies will grow into functioning humans.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
The baby didn't consent to being attached to you either. If you in any way find elective abortion abhorrent, then this is the same; you are just scrambling for justification to feel okay with ending an innocent life. 2 wrongs don't make a right; killing the unborn is a wrong in addition to impregnating the unwilling.
They are viable though
We disagree that humanity is conferred on viability. I don't think there's any distinct line we can draw for the start of human life besides conception- anything else is arbitrary and can be argued up or down since there's no solid basis for it. I err or the side of caution.
If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented
And if the victim is too young or ignorant to know? Viability is a blurry line at best and can vary greatly depending on available medical technology. Also, abortion isn't an easy decision for the sane, so maybe they they remain indecisive until "too late".
I have yet to see a convincing argument for why aborting a rape baby differs from elective abortion. I understand your point that the victim didn't consent, but once a human life starts, it doesn't deserve to be ended just to make you feel better about what happened to you. Again, any distress the victim suffers in unwillingly carry the baby to term is in addition to the original crime- 2 victims instead of 1; the baby also deserves life.
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
They are viable though.
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.
No, after 9 months it's induced because much longer would probably kill both. However long we stretch the analogy, end of a normal pregnancy is the working limit because considering cases longer than it lasts in reality is pointless.
"dead" means you don't expect it to return to a functioning human being. Almost all babies will grow into functioning humans.
The baby didn't consent to being attached to you either. If you in any way find elective abortion abhorrent, then this is the same; you are just scrambling for justification to feel okay with ending an innocent life. 2 wrongs don't make a right; killing the unborn is a wrong in addition to impregnating the unwilling.
We disagree that humanity is conferred on viability. I don't think there's any distinct line we can draw for the start of human life besides conception- anything else is arbitrary and can be argued up or down since there's no solid basis for it. I err or the side of caution.
And if the victim is too young or ignorant to know? Viability is a blurry line at best and can vary greatly depending on available medical technology. Also, abortion isn't an easy decision for the sane, so maybe they they remain indecisive until "too late".
I have yet to see a convincing argument for why aborting a rape baby differs from elective abortion. I understand your point that the victim didn't consent, but once a human life starts, it doesn't deserve to be ended just to make you feel better about what happened to you. Again, any distress the victim suffers in unwillingly carry the baby to term is in addition to the original crime- 2 victims instead of 1; the baby also deserves life.