Well, I am not sure if that argument really works in the murder situation. Because the mother always has the prerogative until the last second to change her mind, and you can't really predict the future, so I am pretty sure legally (and arguably morally) the crime is the same whatever the mother's current desires.

So this whole torturing children thing is something that I've been giving some thought--because I'm pretty sure every time I change this baby's outfit she thinks she is being tortured*. And like I said--I've stopped letting her out of my sight when it's just me and her in the house, because she literally screams bloody murder like she is being tortured even if it's just 30 seconds in the playpen while I pee. And at first I was like "I don't care these kids need to toughen up it's a cruel world out there and better they learn abandonment from me than someone else". But I've changed my tune on that.
And you seem like you might have some strong opinions on torturing children and I wonder why it is that you feel the way you do? Is it a legal thing?
*there have been some relatively easy outfit changes but some bad ones too.

Man is born to die, which in the after death existence as a spirit/soul being he travels through a cosmic entelechy to which a great part of this existence is preparing for the next earthly life. The period of time within this realm is much longer than the duration of earth life and at present, can be approximated at about 800 years.

His heredity disposition which comes through his parents is more attuned that he enters into a nation, class,family, gender,...to which can be seen as the nations of the earth. You could say his physical body, with its attributes, are what he enters into at conception.

The human spirit/soul being enters into the fetus at 28-30 days and in this aspect he is prepared to be a human soul/spiritual being.

Some relevant points;

This spirit/soul being is involved with the planning of his next incarnation to the effect that he plans his nation, race, gender, clan,..etc and even parents. This planning effectively begins at about the mid point of spiritual existence or at about 400 years onward.

Of course he is ensconced with a hierarchical realm of spiritual beings whose picture is the ennoblement of the future man, the human being.

One could also say that the human being at conception has prepared his physical and etheric bodies (life body) and at the moment of entry these two bodies which ngare more plant like but not plants are the paints and palette of the incarnating human spirit/soul being.

All the above is truncated mercilessly but it can give an idea of the nature of man. And yes, the idea of karma is involved with his birth and carried from previous lives.

Reincarnation and karma has not always been man's fate and in the future the human soul/spiritual being will over come death, Christ Like, and enter into new existences.

I see a plethora of possible questions in the above but i'd hope to give some idea of the nobleness of the human being.

Can I ask what the basis for you thinking this is? I always enjoy your posts but this one seems like it calls for some engagement.

Thank you, WN!

uke-master and Max Cut signed a petition to not discuss this topic with me, so obviously we won't hear from them in this thread.

Edit: I should say they won't engage ME in this thread.

One would think taking down a sky fairy guy like you would be easy. And Max is already onto your game of using the most hurtful rhetoric possible, so he shouldn't have any problems with his jimmies either. So I don't know why they wouldn't want to discuss it.
But seriously Lagtight, I'll have to adopt their positions I guess if they won't. So what is a pregnant women who doesn't want to have a child supposed to do?

The woman can decide whether to raise the baby herself, or to give it up for adoption. Or maybe a foster care situation in which a foster parent can raise the child until the birth mother is ready, willing and able to raise the child herself (if she so chooses).

Ok. I'll cut to the chase:
I understand that your basis for thinking that abortion is wrong stems from your religious convictions, but what is the basis for those convictions? Why is it exactly that you feel the way you do and are you sure it isn't just that you want to control women?

I don't think this is that complicated, and there's basically two explanations.

1. Abortion rights in general only exist because of Roe v. Wade (and Casey...). Otherwise it's almost certain that most states and congress would have passed (or kept) laws making it illegal. Along with looking for ways to pass legislation to restrict abortion access without violating Casey, anti-abortion activists have often also supported legislation aimed at promoting the idea of fetal personhood. Fetal homicide laws are symbolically important to them for that reason, even sometimes when the laws themselves are legally redundant (cf. the BAIPA). So, the laws you're referring to are not indicative of some kind of hypocrisy, they mostly just reflect the fact that absent the courts most jurisdictions would have passed laws to declare fetuses as persons. The people who passed those laws would gladly also pass anti-abortion laws. They weren't generally passed or promoted by pro-choice activists.

2. You're ignoring that it's possible to believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether to terminate her own pregnancy, without believing that someone else should have the right to terminate it for her. Especially in the context of the compromise around fetal viability in Roe, it's not really surprising that some or most supporters of Roe would not object particularly strongly to fetal homicide laws. Those laws fit within the structure of the decision, for basically the same reasons why Roe supporters are mostly OK with stronger restrictions on post-viability abortion.

Major Premise: No innocent persons are persons who should be intentionally killed.

Minor Premise: All persons in the womb are innocent persons.

Conclusion: No persons in the womb should be intentionally killed.

The mood and figure of this syllogism is EAE-1, which is a valid argument form.

I submit that the conclusion above should be accepted as true unless there are reasonable grounds for denying the truth of either the Major or Minor premises
above.

The OP question is silly.

Two not so silly questions:

1. If after an attempted abortion the fetus is alive, should that fetus be given the exact same medical care as if it was an attempted birth?

2 If a doctor is attempting an abortion on a fetus who is borderline old enough to be saved if an attempted birth was being performed, should he be allowed to use a procedure that would instead give the fetus no chance (assuming both procedures were approximately equal as to the physical effects on the mother)?

Hi, David.

I will start out by being a picker of nits: The OP was not a question. It was a declarative statement to be defended or criticized.

Now to answer your two excellent questions:

1. Yes.

2. No.

Would you like to share with us unwashed masses why the OP is silly?

He's basically saying the OP isn't thought-provocative. Which is fine...you didn't intend for it to be an OP or thought-provocative so he threw out some questions that are more interesting.

The more interesting question that stems from this is: if a woman could choose to terminate her pregnancy at any point and still have the fetus survive and be cared for, should she still be able to not choose that?
Basically: is the purpose of abortion to remove the fetus from the woman or to remove the future child-rearing responsibilities?

Anthroposophy or spiritual science and yes you're right, it does call for some engagement.

I posted it to give some insight to these matters; they do not call for belief but can be comprehended .

As i said, there's much more and what I gave was weak but its important to comprehend that the human soul is born into the earthly realm and dies into that realm to which I referred. And so in spiritual science that higher realm is explored with comprehension and brought earthward.

The idea of "soul"was well appreciated in past ages in all directions of the compass and even in our age. In the west the scientific thought process has taken such a hold that we live in the depressive thinking of an abstracted minerality and project it upon our comprehension of birth and death.

With respect to abortion and without mandating action or non action politically, a real education of the human soul (male and female) as to reincarnation and karma will give the prospective parents a clear view of the realities of Man and the picture of the human soul into life on the earth.

In a sense we can all come within the idea of "unbornness" as that aspect of entry into the earthly sphere.

At present the priests , not all, appeals to the ego of man with respect to death, a self centered egoism promises a salutary 'heaven' upon death.

Comprehending the concept of "unbornness" qualitatively speaks to a selflessness of soul of much need for the future of Man.

It never stops,.....

Fair enough. But, why is it "silly"? That was hurtful!

I can very easily imagine a future where technology and social structures facilitate this possibility, elective abortion is outlawed, and where the people in that place and time will judgingly look back at us in disgust the same way we look back at slavery.

And a lot more statues are going to need to be torn down.

Fair enough, especially with point 1. This seems another one of those instances where all the leftist posters who are seemingly so eager for a true democracy (in response to Trumps transgressions), probably wouldn't actually be pleased with how things would play out if we actually had a truly more democratic system. They are narrowly focusing on the stuff where they would be the majority bullies, and not the other stuff where they would be on the other side.

Removing future child rearing responsibilities could be considered an acceptable reason as well, at least if adoption wasn't an option. What I don't consider acceptable would be if your only goal was to make sure that your child not exist (An exception might be if the child is seriously disabled). I just looked up whether you could insist a surrogate mother have an abortion if you decided to have nothing to do with the baby, and was surprised to learn that in some states you apparently can, even, I believe, if it would be well taken care of.

Actually, both your questions are silly too; the circumstances you’re describing don’t exist.

1. An intact D&E (a late term abortion where the fetus is a extracted intact) is only performed after there is a feticidal injection and discontinued heart beat. There is no circumstance where an attempted abortion results in live birth because the abortion procedure does not occur until after fetal death has been observed.

2. In these instances the fetus has been diagnosed with severe/lethal congenital anomalies, and death would be imminent immediately following birth. Feticidal injections that painlessly stop the heartbeat before extraction is significantly more humane than inducing labor on the woman and suffering on a preterm baby that has no chance of survival.

Partial birth abortion isn’t actually a thing, and women aren’t aborting viable fetuses. Late term abortion is a tragedy no woman or doctor wishes for- it means something has gone horribly wrong.

Leave women’s health to women and their doctors.

This argument easily collapses when you realize it could be applied to pretty much any surgical procedure or medical procedure that holds risk.

Anyways, if we're going down the "we'll control your body route", then the answer for how to minimize abortions is simple: Forcibly sterilize all men. Now pregnancy is only possible by procedure, and you'll have pretty much zero pregnancies started without intent.

As I said, I have a close family member who is an obstetrician. Neither her or most of her coworkers do the procedures you mentioned. There are two obstetricians that pretty much specialize in abortions, and get all the referrals funneled to them.

Both white males. Almost certainly Trump voters.

I'm not sure which argument you have in mind.