If a woman was driving to an abortion clinic and got in a wreck which resulted in a miscarriage, I'm not sure if that is murder or a free abortion performed by an unlicensed medical practitioner.

HockeyDad wrote:

free abortion performed by an unlicensed medical practitioner.

HockeyDad wrote:

The mofo belongs in jail!

rfenst wrote:

I don't know why this is particularly confusing.

victor809 wrote:

A fetus is only viable if the host is willing, just like any other parasite.

victor809 wrote:

If a host is interested in keeping said fetus, then there is no reason to presume it will not eventually develop into a human being.

On the other hand, if unwanted, it's just a parasite.

Just like how a gardener differentiates flowers and weeds. One is intentional, the other isn't, although they both may bloom.

victor809 wrote:

It's confusing because you see only one side of the issue.

tailgater wrote:

Not true. A fetus is completely viable, even to an "unwilling" host. As long as that host doesn't take extreme actions against the fetus, then it will ferment into a little person.

Calling a fetus a parasite does nothing to strengthen your argument. It is the liberal equivalent of calling RU486 a murder pill.

But only at a cost (in energy, lifespan... overall health, and a non-zero risk of death at the time it decides to burst out. It seems fair to ask the host whether it wants to pay that cost, since we have the technology necessary to stop the process.

victor809 wrote:

.... drooling sacks of blood.

victor809 wrote:

The mother is "host" right up until birth.
At what point do you (honestly) think it's OK to use our "technology" to terminate?

tailgater wrote:

So this is a much more complicated question. First, does anyone actually WANT the thing? I mean, if someone wants it then I'm comfortable with drawing the line at up to the point where our technology can make them viable without a host. If they are viable without the host, then remove them and place them in an incubator (assuming another individual has the desire and resources to keep said fetus alive).

An alternative would be to minimize the total amount of pain/discomfort across all parties. At this moment however, there isn't any conclusive evidence of fetal pain in time frames at which premature birth isn't feasible, so at this time it cannot be ascertained as earlier than the above.

When more/better/different information and technology is available that time can be shifted.

If no one wants it... well, then I'm not sure what the purpose would be to have it.

victor809 wrote:

It's a more complicated question, but it is the crux of the issue for most.
The religious right feel that pulling-out too soon is against god's will.
Meanwhile, planned parenthood never met a pregnancy they didn't want to abort, and I hear they're pushing for 4th trimester abortions some day soon.

You have chosen to use technology to determine if a human life is worth saving.
So an unborn child of tomorrow is more important than those of 50 years ago.

tailgater wrote:

And the unborn in America are more worthy than those in Zimbabwe.

You do see, don't you, how you're using YOUR beliefs to set the standard?

And as far as "nobody wanting" the unborn child?
The father in the first post apparently DID want the child.

Sounds like more than a few liberals I know.

tailgater wrote:

he had a funny way of showing it... trying to abort it and everyhting.

victor809 wrote:

[-x

Brewha wrote: