Speyside wrote:That was what I found with a quick read. I do not by any means think the issue is that simple. But I did want to clearly differentiate between fetus and baby. This is where legal rights change greatly under present laws if I understood what I read.
From a moral viewpoint it becomes much simpler for me. Once the fetus is viable it should be protected.
Thread jacking my own thread here, but the term "viable" is the key.
Viable how?
If keeping it alive with a machine counts, then today's fetus becomes tomorrows "viable baby" since we can assume our equipment will get better over time.
And is it "morality" that we're trying to define?
At some point, it's just common sense.
example:
If a woman wants to abort after 8 months, she would have to have a medical procedure to kill "it".
In other words, she would have to do "something" to prevent it from living.
If the same woman gave birth and decided she didn't want a baby after 1 month, she could technically do nothing and it would die.
Is this her "choice"?
Rhetorical, yes. But people get so caught up in the word "choice" that they forget what their choosing.
Religious freaks frown on contraception.
But there's a middle ground between the RU486 pill and a third term abortion a week before delivery. Since nobody here can tell us that precise moment when a fetus becomes a baby my gut (not my religion) says to err on the side of life.
But saying this out loud makes people like Brewha falsify what I'm saying in order to give legs to his narrow minded viewpoint.
The subject wasn't even ABOUT abortion, but because it was used in the example I provided to start the thread we get the Brewha's of the world wetting themselves in a fury over religion.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad.