fxashun

I had no problem answering either one especially if the first one had been as detailed. I as merely asking for the details.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

hot dragon

true. you have answered the first and answered the second.

now answer this.

if lack of consent is a sufficient reason to kill a "healthy innocent baby" before delivery, why is it suddenly not a sufficient reason to kill a "healthy innocent baby" after delivery?

fxashun

Since we are talking about rape. There is only a small window of opportunity. Timely reporting of the rape and 12 weeks to get the abortion. If the baby was gonna be a problem, it should have been taken care of before there is anything to worry about after delivery. If it gets that far, she has abdicated that choice. That's just discussing it from the "rape' perspective. Literally, after the baby is born though, it's outright a murder to take its life. And that's wrong in any way you look at it.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

hot dragon

ok, why? you are not answering the question. why 12 weeks? does something magically happen at 12 weeks? is a foetus less than 12 weeks old less deserving of life? you have always maintained the opposite to this, you have always said a foetus is a person, a living human. now suddenly you are arguing that a foetus older than 12 weeks has rights that a foetus less than 12 weeks doesnt have. are you starting to see the inconsistency in your position ?

this is the issue. you have argued constantly that a foetus is a person and should be treated with the respect any person deserves. now you are saying for the first time that there is a distinct difference between a foetus and a baby. so, what is that difference?

no, you are ignoring the rape perspective, which is strange given that "consent" has been your catch cry on abortion for months. these hypotheticals are identical when it comes to rape. they only differ when it comes to the age of the baby. so your argument has changed, suddenly it is nothing to do with rape, it is all to do with gestational age and delivery. you are suddenly starting to agree with the others that a foetus is less than a baby, that a born baby has fundamental rights that a foetus does not have.

true. but listen to yourself.

you have said it is outright murder to kill a baby after it is born.

and a foetus at 12 weeks gestation is a baby.

but it is NOT MURDER TO kill a foetus at 12 weeks gestation.

logic is deserting you. you are saying A=B, B=C, but A does not equal C.

this is the point. how many times to i have to ask? you are suddenly admitting that there is a difference between a foetus and a baby. a fundamental difference, a difference that makes killing one ok and killing the other murder. you are suddenly contradicting what you have been saying for months.

fxashun

It's a compromise. We've already covered that. Though. I would prefer NO abortions. But if you HAVE t compromise, I agree that's a good point.

No, I'm giving time for the abortion as a compromise.

No that's not identical. In the second hypothetical a medical snafu caused the test to be compromised. And while that's a shame, she should sue the testing facility that caused her to have to carry the baby to term. This is not about "the baby", it's still about the rape and the issues caused by her test being screwed up.

No, my logic is sound. A woman is raped, it takes usually 5 weeks before an abortion can be perform, that gives another 7 weeks for the woman to make the decision. I would prefer it be done as soon as possible, but then again, that IS a hard decision. Especially if you are particularly torn up about it.
You are concentrating on the "age of the baby" while my compromise places the fact that there was a forced sexual act on the woman over the baby and gives her the right to decide against pregnancy.

No I'm not, you are telling me what I'm thinking and tying to build hypocrisy where there is none. I agree that 12 weeks is an arbitrary number, so is what you get when you make a compromise, and I'd be perfectly happy to drop it to 7 or 8. Like I said that I couldn't wait to see your gotcha, I knew it was gonna have to be rather contrived.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

waitingtables

What is contrived is being pro-life except in the case of rape. Because the fetus is innocent in all cases. Saying one can be terminated but another can't doesn't make any sense. And I know that you say that you aren't pro-life, but you have to see the contradiction in their position on that.

fxashun

That's why I'm not pro-life. Never claimed such.

I see the contradiction in allowing abortion for ANY reason up til 12 weeks too. But I also place public safety as a good reason to allow it. There is no "right" to abortion.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

hot dragon

exactly, you say this gives her the right to decide against the PREGNANCY. but it does NOT give her the right to decide against the BABY.

so YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BABY AND A FOETUS.

but you have been saying for months that there ISN'T a difference. now you suddenly contradict yourself.

there is no need to contrive anything. you have stated your hypocricy very clearly. your statements from the last few months are contradicting your statements from the last few days. perhaps your memory is not very good.

again, you have said repeatedly that a foetus is human, a person, a living individual human being. when it is born, it changes its location but not its humanness. you have said that rape is a sufficient reason to allow this little person to be killed. then you suddenly change your mind and say actually, if it is not born yet, its ok to kill it but if it is born it is murder.

i am not putting words in your mouth or misinterpreting what you think, all i am doing is REPEATING what you have said.

you say that in the case of rape, abortion at 12 weeks is ok.

you are saying in the case of rape, killing a born baby is outright murder.

you have previously defined murder as "the intentional killing of a human being"

so you are admitting that there is a difference between a foetus and a baby. in fact, reading through your logic, you would have to conclude that you think a foetus is not a human being.

you have tried to distract us by saying it is an unfortunate but neccessary compromise. ok then, why is this compromise acceptable when it comes to foetuses but not acceptable when it comes to babies?

again, YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BABY AND A FOETUS.

fxashun

No I'm not. I have been saying that we know what it is when a woman gets pregnant. It's a developing baby. And if you choose to have sex, you are in fact placing yourself in the position to get pregnant every time you do so. If that choice is taken away, you shouldn't have to remain pregnant. It's still a baby, but the choice to create it was not the woman's.
Again, this IS a compromise.

No I'm not. I've always said that if a woman was raped she should not be forced to carry the baby. I've never said it wasn't a baby, just that rape overrules the pregnancy. That's my compromise.
A strict pro-life person wouldn't be able to make that compromise, but I'm not "pro-life".

You are arguing as if the rape happens at the 5th month. That's not the case. The great thing about a rape causing conception is that it can be taken care of quickly. In fact, I would probably recommend a day after pill just to be safe. Rape IS sufficient reason, but that secision should be mmadwe quickly. After it's born is not the cutoff. AS I said, it can and should be much sooner than that.

No you are...I've never said I was pro-life. I'v never given a time limit. But I did indicate that I felt that if rape was the cause it should be sdone quickly. That was in my questions to your first hypothetical.

Considering abortions can't be done for 5 weeks, that would be acceptable to allow a woman to get over the rape itself. That's a rough decision she has to make right after the trauma of the rape.

Killing a born baby is murder under any circumstance.

It is. But the woman right to consent to sex outweighs the ZEF's life.

Your interpretation of my logic is simplistic, erroneous, and misses a few points.

Again, it's not about the ZEF if it's rape, it more about the woman not consenting to the sexual act that put it there. Just as with the current laws in abortion are a compromise for public safety IMHO, not because a woman has a "right" to an abortion. That's just bullshit.

No, you are using the "after the baby is born" vs. your simple "before the baby is born". And it's not that simple. Nor did I ever imply it was. It's not the difference between baby and fetus, it's the difference between rape and consensual coitus.

__________________
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

waitingtables

No duh, did you read the part of the post you quoted where I said that I know that you said you aren't pro-life?

And yes, it is a right that I have to determine what happens in my body. Get it through your head that a woman's body isn't public property for other people to decide what happens to. And the law of the land agrees with me, and protects that right, even if it restricts my rights after the first trimester.