Why on earth would you define that as a problem?? :unsure:Ah, but there is one problem with that. While it sounds good in theory, one would need to have the woman's permission to perform the necessary surgery to remove her fetus.:thumbup
Why on earth would you define that as a problem?? :unsure:Ah, but there is one problem with that. While it sounds good in theory, one would need to have the woman's permission to perform the necessary surgery to remove her fetus.:thumbup
So when does a fetus become a baby? When it breaths its first breath of air? When it's 6 months into pregnancy?It is not a baby
It is a fetus
Big difference
I am very rigid on this one Sarge
It is a moral issue that is used as a political one.
One can use every argument they like but for me this is a personal issue that a woman is the one to decide on.
I'm just curious, those of you that think it should be illegal because it's murder: what should happen to the women who do have abortions?
Is it first degree murder? I think most abortions are pre-meditated.
It is a baby IMO when it would be viable on its own.So when does a fetus become a baby? When it breaths its first breath of air? When it's 6 months into pregnancy?
Even if it is a moral issue, it should be treated politically, just like murder or stealing would (which are both moral issues as well).
And I don't care how the baby is created, by rape or whatever else. It's a HUMAN BEING. That's like saying Joe your neighbor looks like a guy who raped you, and because he reminds him of you he should be killed. Ridiculous. Give up your selfish desires and give the babies a chance at life!!
So if a woman, um ... lemme see, what's the word? ... if a doctor extracts a, um, mass of cells with unique DNA after appropriate gestation time, yet the, er, mass isn't viable because, say, its lungs aren't fully developed and it still needs machines to help its organs function, its still a fetus?It is a baby IMO when it would be viable on its own.
It is a fetus until that time and there lies the difference for me.
pretty muchSo if a woman, um ... lemme see, what's the word? ... if a doctor extracts a, um, mass of cells with unique DNA after appropriate gestation time, yet the, er, mass isn't viable because, say, its lungs aren't fully developed and it still needs machines to help its organs function, its still a fetus?
So a baby who is delivered yet can't live on its own is still a fetus?? :willy_nilly:pretty much
yup
I'm just curious, those of you that think it should be illegal because it's murder: what should happen to the women who do have abortions?
Is it first degree murder? I think most abortions are pre-meditated.
Why on earth would you define that as a problem?? :unsure:
So a baby who is delivered yet can't live on its own is still a fetus?? :willy_nilly:
I'm just curious, those of you that think it should be illegal because it's murder: what should happen to the women who do have abortions?
Is it first degree murder? I think most abortions are pre-meditated.
Ah, but there is one problem with that. While it sounds good in theory, one would need to have the woman's permission to perform the necessary surgery to remove her fetus.:thumbup
Why on earth would you define that as a problem?? :unsure:
You stated that needing to have the woman's permission is a problem. That's the that that I was talking about.Potential complications, not to mention major surgery. If you were to perform the operation on the woman without her consent, it would be assault. In order to get away it, laws would have to be changed, and that would never happen.
You stated that needing to have the woman's permission is a problem. That's the that that I was talking about.
Too many thats. My head hurts.
Yes I know. We're laying out a hypothetical.The medical term for a child in utero is 'fetus'. It has nothing to do with the fact it can't live on it's own (well, not so much) it's just basically a medical description.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.