Addressing the elephant in the womb


What is that? Is that a scientific theory?

I believe we are God and we are mother nature. Therefore I guess we determine abortion.


Tumors have human DNA and grow and multiply. Pro life.

Wrong. Also I’m not sure why you need to be so personal all the time. Settle down.


Wrong again. I have science and religion on my side. You just have the simple minded excuse, “it’s her body.”

Tumors don’t
have separate organ systems, and it’s own unique DNA. You try to compare it to a tumor in order to dehumanize it, which is utterly disgusting.


Religion? Does your religion view humans as simply biological creatures with DNA with hearts pumping blood?

Also, believe it or not, science doesn’t prove your religion or your morality. You havent even broken down an ethical framework beyond “science classifies X as human”.


How would you quantify said will?

Or define it?


And neither do fetuses. Fetus are attached to the mother and created by the mother.


Fetuses are created by two beings and are separate beings themselves.


Yet they dont have organs capable of survival withoutthe mothers organs being connected


Um…yeah they do. They have separate organs, that are fully functioning as soon as they develop. Like I said, the heart can function a little at 8 weeks, and the foramen ovale closes at birth, allowing the heart to fully function independently, with the still-developing lungs. The nervous system is so complex at 24 weeks gestation, that it can feel pain. Don’t try to dehumanize it.


We kill other humans every day of the week.

Through our socio-economic systems, we define deifferent levels of worth to human beings such that if they can’t afford life-saving treatments that other human beings can afford, then they will die.

Funnily enough, as human society has evolved from hunter-gatherer to modern society, the worth of each individual life has decreased, not increased.


Not without the mothers organs


The lungs are not fully developed until 8 years after birth. Some infants are born after 6 months of gestation, where they still need support to live, and are on oxygen. By your standards, they should be aborted.


I’m not talking about babies who are born. And no my standards that I’ve been speaking of are in the context of a young fetus.


I never said anything about lungs being fully developed. Why are you arguing against things I’m not arguing?


Please point me to a post where I said I’d be for abortion at 5-6 months. In fact I made it very clear earlier that I am only for abortion if done in first 2-3 months.


Good question


You already said after a certain point in time, to some nebulous point of consciousness, which according to science has less consciousness of self awareness than an ape for example, those at that stage in the womb, you yourself said that they should be protected. So it is not just being about being in a womb, because you said those who reach that nebulous state of consciousness should be protected in the womb. So you definitely should be against the New York law which says that an unborn baby can be legally killed until the date of birth. So being in the womb, according to you is not enough of a criteria.

Outside the womb, a born child will not survive by itself unless it is fed by the mother, if not her, others. A born infant to 3 years old or so, will not survive on one’s own but if someone just neglects that kid, they will die. So the viability thing doesn’t work either.


The New York law specifically deals with cases where the woman’s or the unborn baby’s life might be in danger.

It’s not just that anyone can decide to have an abortion the day before they give birth.

I wish people would quit miscontruing the law because of their agendas.


I am against that law. I am ok with abortion up to about 2-3 months.

Its not about viability generically. It’s about viability when attached inside the mother’s physical body.


So did folks I was in High School with and they could quote British Comedy at length.