Why conservatives should support Roe v. Wade

[Sanguine]

You are making a moral argument.  But are you saying that raped woman can be forced by the State to endure 9 months of pregnancy and give birth?   

Are you saying that the person resulting from the rape should endure being killed?

[Oceander]

Ability of baby to live outside the uterus. Are you and @Jazzhead parents? I am. I have three. None of them were able to live outside my uterus even though they were all born between 37 and 39 weeks. Their lives were completely in our hands; feeding, changing, cleaning, safety, etc.

They quite clearly were able to live outside the uterus, since none of them died as a result.

[goodwithagun]

You are making a moral argument.  But are you saying that raped woman can be forced by the State to endure 9 months of pregnancy and give birth?   

But are you saying the baby should be executed by being stabbed in the head and systematically dismembered?

[goodwithagun]

They quite clearly were able to live outside the uterus, since none of them died as a result.

Nope. If I hadn’t done these things they would have been dead in hours. Maybe even sooner.

[Oceander]

Are you saying that the person resulting from the rape should endure being killed?

Yes, if the fetus is not yet viable.  If you want to be blunt about it.  Until viability exists in a real and meaningful sense, the fetus’ claims are untenable in the face of the woman’s competing claims to freedom of restraint as far as her body goes. 

[goodwithagun]

Yes, if the fetus is not yet viable.  If you want to be blunt about it.  Until viability exists in a real and meaningful sense, the fetus’ claims are untenable in the face of the woman’s competing claims to freedom of restraint as far as her body goes.

So a child with head, neck, spinal cord, and limbs all capable of dismemberment because of the fact that, like any full term baby, they are not viable.

[Oceander]

Nope. If I hadn’t done these things they would have been dead in hours. Maybe even sooner.

Nope. They were viable because they lived.

Did you take every breath for them, or were their lungs well enough developed that they could absorb oxygen from the air they took in?  Did you digest their food for them, or were they capable of turning what you fed them into useable metabolic products?

They were viable. 

[Oceander]

So a child with head, neck, spinal cord, and limbs all capable of dismemberment because of the fact that, like any full term baby, they are not viable.

We are not talking about full-term babies; neither was Roe v. Wade.

[goodwithagun]

Nope. They were viable because they lived.

Did you take every breath for them, or were their lungs well enough developed that they could absorb oxygen from the air they took in?  Did you digest their food for them, or were they capable of turning what you fed them into useable metabolic products?

They were viable.

So post-birth babies with these issues can be executed?

[Oceander]

No she doesn't....a fetus is still a human being...

So?  Status as a human being, without more, does not mean it is ipso facto wrong for one to be killed. 

[goodwithagun]

We are not talking about full-term babies; neither was Roe v. Wade.

Again, was Roe v. Wade about pecan pie? Here’s the thing, if your pregnant your going to have a baby. If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant.

[Oceander]

So post-birth babies with these issues can be executed?

I never said that, and Roe v. Wade never said that.  It’s not a relevant question. The relevant question is whether a woman can remove a fetus from her uterus during the first trimester, more or less; that is, the point in time when a normally developing fetus would go from being nonviable to viable.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Sanguine]

Yes, if the fetus is not yet viable.  If you want to be blunt about it.  Until viability exists in a real and meaningful sense, the fetus’ claims are untenable in the face of the woman’s competing claims to freedom of restraint as far as her body goes.

And, there we have it.  If the baby is a human being, it doesn't matter if they are viable or not.  We don't kill Downs kids, for instance, because they are people.  They are not viable on their own. 

Very damn few of us are viable on our own.  That's why people are society creatures - because, with rare exceptions, none of us are viable on our own.  You are only slightly more viable than that baby. 

Viability is not a test - it's a euphemism for "it's more convenient for me this way".

[Oceander]

Again, was Roe v. Wade about pecan pie? Here’s the thing, if your pregnant your going to have a baby. If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant.

I never said it wasn’t a baby.  And there is a definite difference between a fetus that is 9 months old (ie full-term) and a 5-minute old zygote that was just fertilized.

[goodwithagun]

And, there we have it.  If the baby is a human being, it doesn't matter if they are viable or not.  We don't kill Downs kids, for instance, because they are people.  They are not viable on their own. 

Very damn few of us are viable on our own.  That's why people are society creatures - because, with rare exceptions, none of us are viable on our own.  You are only slightly more viable than that baby. 

Viability is not a test - it's a euphemism for "it's more convenient for me this way".

Yep. That’s the trail I was leading him down. It’s all about human sacrifice to the god of convenience.

[Oceander]

And, there we have it.  If the baby is a human being, it doesn't matter if they are viable or not.  We don't kill Downs kids, for instance, because they are people.  They are not viable on their own. 

Very damn few of us are viable on our own.  That's why people are society creatures - because, with rare exceptions, none of us are viable on our own.  You are only slightly more viable than that baby. 

Viability is not a test - it's a euphemism for "it's more convenient for me this way".

More word games.  A downs child is viable.  Therefore the analogy is irrelevant.

[goodwithagun]

I never said it wasn’t a baby.  And there is a definite difference between a fetus that is 9 months old (ie full-term) and a 5-minute old zygote that was just fertilized.

You just admitted it’s a baby. Congrats.

[Oceander]

Yep. That’s the trail I was leading him down. It’s all about human sacrifice to the god of convenience.

Must have missed the trailhead then, because it has nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with whether a lump of cells, that might, maybe, possibly, become a viable fetus over the fundamental right of a person to control what happens with their own body.

Its about whether the State can commandeer a woman and turn her into a thing solely for the sake of a speculative possibility. 

[Oceander]

You just admitted it’s a baby. Congrats.

You’re right.  I’m on my phone.  It isn’t about killing full-term babies, it’s about killing a small lump of cells that cannot live outside of the uterus and off the umbilical cord.

[Sanguine]

You’re right.  I’m on my phone.  It isn’t about killing full-term babies, it’s about killing a small lump of cells that cannot live outside of the uterus and off the umbilical cord.

And, @goodwithagun, there's no point arguing with someone when they have talked themselves into the contradictory and erroneous position.  @Oceander has the right to his opinion just as you and I do, no matter how wrong it may be.

[Drago]

Yes, if the fetus is not yet viable...

Fetus viability outside the womb has changed a lot over the years (preemie medicine)...so you are saying that it was morally OK to kill a 30 week old in the 1940's, but not morally OK to kill a 30 week old baby in 2018? (Current "viability" age is about 24 weeks).   Can't have it both ways.

[Restored]

That isn’t a red herring.  If conception has taken place, that’s an abortion.

Yes but you don't know if it was an abortion. You can't compare it to a doctor killing a baby he knows exists.

[Restored]

Ok. To rephrase your position then: a raped woman who becomes pregnant as a result does not have the right to abort the resultin fetus, even immediately after the rape.

Does she have the right to kill that child?

[Oceander]

Fetus viability outside the womb has changed a lot over the years (preemie medicine)...so you are saying that it was morally OK to kill a 30 week old in the 1940's, but not morally OK to kill a 30 week old baby in 2018? (Current "viability" age is about 24 weeks).   Can't have it both ways.

It’s not inconsistent at all. It simply saying that the government cannot interfere with a fundamental right at a point where that interference would be meaningless. 

[Restored]

You are making a moral argument.  But are you saying that raped woman can be forced by the State to endure 9 months of pregnancy and give birth?   

No she can accept the pills they give her at the ER. This is not a valid point because there will be no child.