I'll be honest, this type of "gotcha" interrogation is both ghoulish and pointless.
For the latter, the people who already agree with you won't agree with you harder. The people who disagree with you won't suddenly change their minds. The wilfully ignorant will twist themselves into pretzels to remain willfully ignorant. It accomplishes nothing.
And for the former, this really comes off like asking a gun rights advocate what his favorite way of killing someone is. Yes, yes, I know someone is just itching to shout "guns are Constitutionally Protected and abortion isn't", but let's set that aside for a second.
Quite honestly, the goal of an abortion is a dead fetus safely extracted from the host mother. The method really doesn't matter. You still get a dead fetus, whether you use a magic pill that teleports it into the sun or an industrial vacuum to remove it by parts.
And for anyone who wants to make a moral "you're killing a person" argument, understand that, for anyone who isn't an adherent to the whole "life begins at conception" idea, a fetus isn't a person; it hasn't developed any of the characteristics that define personhood besides a shared DNA structure. And, quite frankly, calling a fetus a baby in this context is trying to emotionally manipulate people by making them imagine a full grown and birthed 9+ month old infant getting shoved into a blender, instead of the weird chicken-fish hybrid looking thing that a fetus spends the first four months resembling. This adds to the ghoulishness of the interrogation, and puts people off, circling back around to the pointless nature of it.
You mention DNA. Did you know that after (iirc) 5th cell division the developing fetus (or whatever it is called at that point) no longer 'borrows' DNA from the mother? It has its own, unique DNA.
How do you define who is human and what is not? By DNA of course.
BTW "full term abortions" are very real. 9 months along, they "crown" the fetus, carve its skull open & scoop out the brains. Then cut it up to extract. Hundreds, if not thousands every year.
Several Blue States have laws allowing doctors & nurses to refuse treatment of a fetus if it gets delivered accidentally during the abortion. It lays on the floor until it stops crying. That's not as common but if it never happens? Why pass laws allowing this?
I'm not sure what point you think you're making with the DNA argument. I just referenced it in terms of the general human genome; most you talk to think having human DNA makes you inherently special, and I disagree with the idea of inherent worth.
Yes, I am aware of full term abortions. Honestly, I don't know why they bother at that point; just take the baby out and shoot it or something, if you're so intent on killing it no matter what. The whole process as it stands just sounds like a massive waste of time and resources.
As far as the laws, I fully support them standing. I don't believe it is moral to compel people to provide services they do not wish to provide. Besides, give me an actual number for how often those even come into play. People who become doctors and nurses tend to have some specific mindsets about helping people and caring for them. What's the actual number of times this needs to happen?
And further, what are the circumstances? If they just need to wait for the baby to "stop crying", then you're describing a situation where a mortal wound has already been inflicted, and death is the awaited outcome. These laws would, in such circumstances, merely prevent hostile rent-seeking lawsuits demanding to know why the 80% aborted baby wasn't magically brought back to perfect health after it was discharged from the mother.
Having human DNA makes you, you know, human. A chimp has "similar" DNA but it isn't 100% the same & therefor a chimp is not a human. Or a person either.
DNA is the only thing that scientifically measures if you are a human or not. An opera singer or a person in a coma are both humans even if one of them can't move or speak. They both have human DNA. Different of course, but within the boundaries of what a human has.
As I said. Performing an abortion, the baby pops out still alive. You are allowed, in some Democrat states, to kill it even after birth. If it can cry it is fully developed, ok? "Mortal wound"? You DO know what babies do, yes? They cry.
You seem either unwilling or unable to understand that the basic quality of "being a human" is not what is dissgreed upon here. We have accepted "these fetuses and babies are human" as a foundation of our debate.
The disagreement stems from whether or not being human entitles something to inherent worth. Your camp appears to say yes, because it makes you feel good. I say no, and draw the distinction between "merely human", those who share the human genome, and "human person", those who bother share the human genome and have a mind beyond the pure meat of their biology. I posit that only the second group has value, and only because they demonstrate that value through accomplishment.
And crying is no evidence by itself of a viable baby. It is evidence of functioning vocal cords, inflating lungs, and just enough brain activity to use these two things to make noise. A severely mentally retarded adult human can cry as well, but you wouldn't say he or she is a functioning person, would you?
If you can leave a baby to lie on the floor and cry briefly before it dies, that baby has a mortal wound (perhaps from a botched brain extraction or the like). A normal, healthy baby will not die if you leave it lying on the ground for a while; it will, generally, tire itself out a d go to sleep.
You need to actually think about things before you say them.
I'll be honest, this type of "gotcha" interrogation is both ghoulish and pointless.
For the latter, the people who already agree with you won't agree with you harder. The people who disagree with you won't suddenly change their minds. The wilfully ignorant will twist themselves into pretzels to remain willfully ignorant. It accomplishes nothing.
And for the former, this really comes off like asking a gun rights advocate what his favorite way of killing someone is. Yes, yes, I know someone is just itching to shout "guns are Constitutionally Protected and abortion isn't", but let's set that aside for a second.
Quite honestly, the goal of an abortion is a dead fetus safely extracted from the host mother. The method really doesn't matter. You still get a dead fetus, whether you use a magic pill that teleports it into the sun or an industrial vacuum to remove it by parts.
And for anyone who wants to make a moral "you're killing a person" argument, understand that, for anyone who isn't an adherent to the whole "life begins at conception" idea, a fetus isn't a person; it hasn't developed any of the characteristics that define personhood besides a shared DNA structure. And, quite frankly, calling a fetus a baby in this context is trying to emotionally manipulate people by making them imagine a full grown and birthed 9+ month old infant getting shoved into a blender, instead of the weird chicken-fish hybrid looking thing that a fetus spends the first four months resembling. This adds to the ghoulishness of the interrogation, and puts people off, circling back around to the pointless nature of it.
You mention DNA. Did you know that after (iirc) 5th cell division the developing fetus (or whatever it is called at that point) no longer 'borrows' DNA from the mother? It has its own, unique DNA.
How do you define who is human and what is not? By DNA of course.
BTW "full term abortions" are very real. 9 months along, they "crown" the fetus, carve its skull open & scoop out the brains. Then cut it up to extract. Hundreds, if not thousands every year.
Several Blue States have laws allowing doctors & nurses to refuse treatment of a fetus if it gets delivered accidentally during the abortion. It lays on the floor until it stops crying. That's not as common but if it never happens? Why pass laws allowing this?
I'm not sure what point you think you're making with the DNA argument. I just referenced it in terms of the general human genome; most you talk to think having human DNA makes you inherently special, and I disagree with the idea of inherent worth.
Yes, I am aware of full term abortions. Honestly, I don't know why they bother at that point; just take the baby out and shoot it or something, if you're so intent on killing it no matter what. The whole process as it stands just sounds like a massive waste of time and resources.
As far as the laws, I fully support them standing. I don't believe it is moral to compel people to provide services they do not wish to provide. Besides, give me an actual number for how often those even come into play. People who become doctors and nurses tend to have some specific mindsets about helping people and caring for them. What's the actual number of times this needs to happen?
And further, what are the circumstances? If they just need to wait for the baby to "stop crying", then you're describing a situation where a mortal wound has already been inflicted, and death is the awaited outcome. These laws would, in such circumstances, merely prevent hostile rent-seeking lawsuits demanding to know why the 80% aborted baby wasn't magically brought back to perfect health after it was discharged from the mother.
Having human DNA makes you, you know, human. A chimp has "similar" DNA but it isn't 100% the same & therefor a chimp is not a human. Or a person either.
DNA is the only thing that scientifically measures if you are a human or not. An opera singer or a person in a coma are both humans even if one of them can't move or speak. They both have human DNA. Different of course, but within the boundaries of what a human has.
This mindset?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
As I said. Performing an abortion, the baby pops out still alive. You are allowed, in some Democrat states, to kill it even after birth. If it can cry it is fully developed, ok? "Mortal wound"? You DO know what babies do, yes? They cry.
You seem either unwilling or unable to understand that the basic quality of "being a human" is not what is dissgreed upon here. We have accepted "these fetuses and babies are human" as a foundation of our debate.
The disagreement stems from whether or not being human entitles something to inherent worth. Your camp appears to say yes, because it makes you feel good. I say no, and draw the distinction between "merely human", those who share the human genome, and "human person", those who bother share the human genome and have a mind beyond the pure meat of their biology. I posit that only the second group has value, and only because they demonstrate that value through accomplishment.
And crying is no evidence by itself of a viable baby. It is evidence of functioning vocal cords, inflating lungs, and just enough brain activity to use these two things to make noise. A severely mentally retarded adult human can cry as well, but you wouldn't say he or she is a functioning person, would you?
If you can leave a baby to lie on the floor and cry briefly before it dies, that baby has a mortal wound (perhaps from a botched brain extraction or the like). A normal, healthy baby will not die if you leave it lying on the ground for a while; it will, generally, tire itself out a d go to sleep.
You need to actually think about things before you say them.