You're viewing part of a thread.
-
A fetus/baby is a human being. It is an organism composed of human cells, and the mother's body is made to accommodate it. The only difference between an adult and a fetus is the stage of development. If a fetus is a "blob," so are born babies, children, and adults.
A parasite is a different species which the host's body isn't meant to accommodate. Calling a fetus a parasite is insane.
Oh, and tumors aren't organisms, so fetuses don't fit that definition either.
-
No one should be forced to carry a fetus. End of story
-
Nobody is forced to carry a fetus any more than they're forced not to shoot their born children in the head.
-
Except for the laws that punish people who seek medical aid. As exemplified by the post. Also flase equivalency.
-
Literally nobody has been prosecuted for doing an abortion in a ban state since Dobbs. The threat you're asserting doesn't exist.
It's not a false equivalence because, in both cases, the parent is killing their child.
-
It doesn't exist except it's on the law books. OK.
It is an entirely false equivalence. Because a fetus isn't a child until further in development.
-
The law on the books is that a doctor can legally perform emergency abortions. Nobody has been prosecuted on the claim that the abortion wasn't an emergency, or even for performing an abortion at all.
The fetus carries its parents' DNA, is created from their intercourse, and is descended directly from them. They may not have reached adolescence, but in terms of genetics and biology, it is still their child.
-
Great who determines it's an "emergency"? With how poorly worded gop policies are it's too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it's not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.
-
The doctor can determine what an emergency is. Nobody has been prosecuted for performing an abortion since Dobbs. The "grey area" you're arguing for, if it exists, is irrelevant.
A fetus is the offspring of two parents. You're confusing the definition of child as in "adolescent animal" and the definition I'm using, namely "offspring". A fetus is an organism composed of human cells, therefore it is a human being, therefore killing it without a critical reason is murder.
-
No it's not irrelevant. If it was the laws should be removed. As it stands they exist and are therefore pertinent.
A fetus is a fetus, until it is a child it is a lump of cells and therefore no one should be forced to carry a fetus. It is not murder.
-
It's irrelevant because nobody has been prosecuted. You're imagining a legal threat that doesn't exist for the sake of pushing your ideology.
Case in point: you're willfully confusing definitions to claim it's okay to kill people. Everyone is composed of cells, therefore everyone is lumps of cells, therefore, according to the "lump of cells" logic, it is okay for parents to kill their offspring at any time. You're dehumanizing human beings to justify killing them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
If a fetus is a “blob,” so are born babies, children, and adults.
No, those are fully formed individuals that can survive on their own if separated from the mother. The fetus is surviving off it's mother's body. Stealing her nutrients. The only thing separating it from fitting the definition of a parasite is the "different species" caveat.
-
What's the difference between a "blob" and a "fully formed individual" and why is killing one acceptable while killing the other isn't? You also missed the "mother's body is made to accommodate the child" thing, too. That's what the uterus is for. If there was no such thing as a uterus and the fetus was a different species, then it would be a parasite. As it is though, a fetus is no more a parasite than someone living at home with their parents.
-
What’s the difference between a “blob” and a “fully formed individual” and why is killing one acceptable while killing the other isn’t?
The fully formed individual has sentience and can live more or less on it's own. An infant can be passed off to someone else to care for. The blob can only survive by leeching resources from it's mother's body. If she doesn't want to participate in that it's her decision. Similar to how if someone living with their parents outlasts their welcome they can be evicted.
-
Do people revert to being blobs when they go to sleep, become comatose, disabled, or otherwise under the care of another person? The fetus/baby is guaranteed to leave the mother at some point, and evicting it prematurely without a very good reason or regard for its safety would end its life. That is murder. Your argument would justify cutting people off from disability benefits.
-
That's not the same thing. Anyone can care for a disabled person. They don't invade a specific individuals body who then has to deal with them for 9 months. People should have autonomy of their own body over non-sentient blobs that have formed inside them without their consent.
The fetus/baby is guaranteed to leave the mother at some point, and evicting it prematurely without a very good reason or regard for its safety would end its life.
Not murder. It's a blob until it can survive being removed.
-
Your criteria for non-blobness was that the human being has sentience and it can live more or less on its own. A disabled person who can no longer care for themselves, or someone who may not fit your definition of sentience due to a mental impairment or simply not being old enough, would revert to blob status and be eligible for death because they do not fulfill both of these criteria.
The fetus did not "invade" the mother's body because it didn't choose to be there. It belongs in the mother's body because the uterus exists. Even if it was there without consent, that wouldn't justify killing it because that would be giving the child the death penalty for its father's crimes. Your statement "anyone can care for a disabled person" highlights the issue at hand: only the mother can take care of the fetus until it is born. That makes it even more crucial to protect the fetus, because there is no other option for keeping it alive.
-
I already clarified the disabled thing, they would be in the "or less" side of the statement you're referring to.
As for the rest, women exist for reasons beyond producing babies. If carrying a child would interfere with their goals they shouldn't be condemned to it. Stop trying to force your opinions on other people's bodies. There's enough unwanted people suffering on this planet already.
-
How disabled does someone have to be before they become a blob? And at what age does a human being not become a blob anymore? Why then, and why not sooner?
Everyone exists for more than one one reason. That's what's great about us. Women can do more than just sit around and be pregnant while pregnant, and that's a very good thing. But fetuses exist as more than hypothetical people that can be thrown in the garbage at one's earliest inconvenience. Simply having goals doesn't mean you get to kill those who stand in your way. I wish you would stop trying to push your opinion that fetuses can be killed on the unborn, because they are alive as well. There is enough wanton death and destruction on this planet already.
-
How disabled does someone have to be before they become a blob? And at what age does a human being not become a blob anymore? Why then, and why not sooner?
You start as a blob. It's not something you can revert to. But I guess to get to the point you are trying to make, the point cutting life support becomes a consideration would be the line. Which is already established by medical care standards.
Women can do more than just sit around and be pregnant while pregnant
Not always. Some women suffer greatly during pregnancy and are stuck in bed for a lot of it.
But fetuses exist as more than hypothetical people
Explain how this is true.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-