[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

That's like saying that if I won't admit that a cake is a pie because both are made out of flour, "the conversation is over". One has nothing to do with the other, one being true is not contingent on the other also being true. Kidney removal *and* pregnancy lead to changes in one's body and carry a mortality risk, but they are not analogous. The two scenarios you've presented do not share a sufficient degree of similarity to be considered analogous, in short, bad analogy. Abortion also carries a mortality risk and causes changes to one's body, but you're not going to touch that because it is inconvenient.

 

I'm sorry that your numbers didn't work out like you wanted them to.

 

I don't have a Rosetta stone so sometimes it's hard for me to decipher what you mean. I will do my best to answer your query in a more clear manner:

Pregnancy = changes to one's body
Kidney removal = changes to one's body
Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal

Does this help?

 

Your memory is not very good either, in addition to being bad at math.

I'm pretty sure that *kidney failure* endangers the mother's life. Once again, you hold the ball and trip over your laces at the final yard. Nevermind the fact that we're discussing the applicability of an analogy, not *a literal kidney*. You're a hoot, y'know that? In addition to the reasons listed above I have also agreed to a reasonable time frame which allows for abortion up until the fetus is advanced enough to start showing forms of cognitive function. This is consistent with abortion law in developed countries and is generally around the 24th week of pregnancy.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think he does. I maintain that the analogy is poor - in the case of forced kidney removal you lose a vital organ permanently, in the case of unwanted pregnancy you face potential health consequences which you will *also* face after abortion because the fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside a woman's body which has already undergone much of the changes, its hormonal balance has changed and, for all intents and purposes, as far as the body is concerned, a "miscarriage" has occurred. You bringing up a "bodily loss" in the case of abortion is irrelevant on the basis that the loss occurs regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not. If your objection is that in both cases the government forces a person to undergo a procedure that has consequences to their health (in the care of kidney removal *definitely*, in the case of pregnancy *maybe*) on behalf of another party, it's a flimsy argument - the government does that all the time.

Of course these complications are fairly rare, as the source states, but they exist - surely we can agree on that.

 

I fully understood that as your point and consider it flimsy, see above. The analogy is inapplicable for the reasons I've already mentioned.

It is also untrue that the government "forces a woman into pregnancy", the woman is already pregnant, and has been for a while. In your analogy you are equating a malicious action (forcibly removing an organ) to inaction (not aborting the pregnancy). The justification for this refusal is "first, do no harm". Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance), there is no obligation to perform one because, and this is a radical notion so hold on to your seat, the woman isn't sick - she's pregnant. It's not a disease.

I believe giving the woman +/- 24 weeks for a safe and legal abortion, nearly 6 months, when the fetus is nowhere near the level of brain development necessary to be considered cognisant, is mighty generous and fair. You're 3 months off your stated goal of 9 months, which is frankly distasteful. Would induced labour be a satisfactory middle ground or have you cemented yourself into the ground and refuse to budge? Because if you're not open to new ideas, the discussion is kinda pointless, the point is to exchange ideas.

 

If the law says it's okay to kill your neighbour when they're playing their music too loud, that *technically* wouldn't be murder and it would probably improve society quite a bit, but I don't think my suggestion would fly in parliament.

 

I would, by far, prefer the "brand-spanking new" baby to be adopted by a hopeful couple. Infertility rates are on the rise, 1 in 7 couples in the UK are either unable to have a child, or have huge problems trying, for a variety of health reasons. Naturally this "lowers demand" for non-newborns (the younger the child the more desirable being the unwritten rule, judging by statistics), but if I can only fix one problem at a time, it would probably be "not killing fetuses with developed brains that are capable of cognitive function". I'll even cede the "clump of cells" argument in regards to fetuses that are at earlier stages and can't experience a thing yet, saving some is better than saving none.

I cannot fathom how abortion of a viable fetus can be considered permissable without any extenuating circumstances when that same fetus has a good chance of survival in the event of premature birth (at 24 weeks it's 60%). It makes zero sense to me - if that same child, at that same stage of development, has better-than-not chances of survival outside of the womb and you instead opt to abort it, that's just not right. I won't hazard calling it "killing a baby" lest I offend someone, but it does quack like a duck.

If there's a fire and someone tells me there's a 6 in 10 chance I'll survive jumping out of the window *or* they can mercy kill me before I burn along with the building, I like my odds with the jump.

Our terms of service prohibit trolling, harassment or otherwise inflammatory content. I think calling someone the p-word that has to do with touching children in ways the law frowns upon, the word that doesn't look very good on search engines, is pretty inflammatory. You're more than welcome to post various conspiracy theories somewhere else, preferably on your own site - as a private website we have no obligation to host them. I will continue enforcing that as that's my interpretation of the rules. If it is an incorrect interpretation I am sure one of my immediate superiors will correct me on that - so far they haven't.