A question for those who support abortion.

[Borillar]

Both babies were at the same stage of development. So why is one murder and the other not murder?

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

People on life support are frequently disconnected and allowed to die. Some people don't want extraordinary measures to be taken to prolong their lives. Some people do. Some are in a vegetative state and have a family member make the decision on their behalf. There are worse things than death.

 

[RWNJ]

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

People on life support are frequently disconnected and allowed to die. Some people don't want extraordinary measures to be taken to prolong their lives. Some people do. Some are in a vegetative state and have a family member make the decision on their behalf. There are worse things than death.

Irrelevant. Someone made the claim that a fetus is not alive because it requires life support. How is that any different for an adult on life support?

 

[sakinago]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

Yes they do respirate on their own, they take in nutrition on their own. Is it through the mother, sure. But it doesn’t all of a sudden go from an anaerobic being to an aerobic being once it’s left the womb, or once the umbilical is cut. Breathing is just the exchange of gasses, It’s been aerobic the entire time. It all of a sudden doesn’t need nutrition once it’s left the womb or it’s unbilical cord is cut. It’s always needed nutrition, like anything that grows alarmingly that fast. If what you’re saying is true than anyone who uses a feeding tube, ventilator, inhaler, O2 supplement, or whatever is fit to die.

And you don’t know an unborn fetus can’t breath, at 28 weeks they can, just not well and they need plenty of assistance to help them breath. It probably needs a feeding tube as well. So what’s the difference? The fact that it’s provided by the mother vs a machine? Is it because the mother “owns” her body, therefore she can do what she wishes with it? Can a hospital owner go around just turning life saving machines off just because they “own” them? NO, we would throw that guy away to rot in prison in a heartbeat.

Here’s the stupid part of this debate. THERE IS ZERO NEED FOR ABORTION. Birth control has become so easy, effective, cheap, accessible, etc, that there is ZERO excuse for saying “whoopsy” I was stupid and got pregnant. No in 99.879% of cases of abortion, they were all avoidible taking simple, cheap, easily obtainable steps to prevent it. If a truck driver makes a mistake, we throw them in prison with manslaughter, but when irresponsible people make a mistake, and participate in the act of reproduction, and are somehow surprised when they become pregnant...we say, yea no need to take personal responsibility for your actions, we’ll give you as many redo’s as you want, because this is totally fine up until a certain point, and only as long as a doctor causes it, if someone else were to kill your fetus, well we still call that murder...even if you were on your way to the abortion clinic.

Just be consistent.

 

[sakinago]

Both babies were at the same stage of development. So why is one murder and the other not murder?

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

 

[RDD_1210]

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

People on life support are frequently disconnected and allowed to die. Some people don't want extraordinary measures to be taken to prolong their lives. Some people do. Some are in a vegetative state and have a family member make the decision on their behalf. There are worse things than death.

Irrelevant. Someone made the claim that a fetus is not alive because it requires life support. How is that any different for an adult on life support?

An adult has been born. Is this really that tough?

 

[RDD_1210]

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

I think you missed my question.

 

[sakinago]

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

People on life support are frequently disconnected and allowed to die. Some people don't want extraordinary measures to be taken to prolong their lives. Some people do. Some are in a vegetative state and have a family member make the decision on their behalf. There are worse things than death.

Yea only when they are deemed brain dead, being kept alive ARTIFICIALLY with no good prognosis. And even then doctors still get it wrong. I was actually involved in a case as a nursing student like that, and the hospital got their pants sued off. Guy was supposedly a vegetable, had every hose imaginiable connected to him, and he was my only patient since he needed so much care. I even thought to myself, wow it’s selfish of the mom to put him through this. Me and a NA were giving him a spong bath, and when we turned him on his side, I found an O2 nozzle (Christmas tree) practically imbedded in his back. I pulled it out and laid him back down and said boy, I bet that feels better since we were trained to still talk to them to give them stimulatation. And at that point he looked directly at me, and almost nodded with his eyes, and the NA saw it and we both freaked out about it, which alerted the mom, who then eventually alerted lawyers. And I was deposed a couple months after that. Don’t think I’ll ever forget that, especially because it seemed like he WAS brain dead, and just staring ahed, and seeing him look me in the eye in response was just sickening, humbling, I don’t really know the right word for it.

Anyway. Would it be ok to pull someone off of life support when the doctor says “85% chance they make a full recovery, be a healthy functionable human being, and the longer they survive the more their chances go up and up.” Would it be ok to pull the plug then?

 

[sakinago]

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

I mean, I don’t know why you’re asking me, unless this is out of an appeal to ignorance. There’s a whole friggen world of knowledge at your fingertips in an instant if you are writing on this site.

But to satisfy your appeal to ignorance...a baby doesn’t just magically grow lungs once it’s outside of the womb. It’s been developing lungs the whole time. At 28 weeks the lungs are pretty much 90% developed, and the fetus does practice strengthening its breathing muscles by breathing in and out amniotic fluid, even though it’s not exchanging gases through the fluid. But the exchange of gas is still taking place, just through the mothers blood stream. The fetus is still respirating, the gasses are just being passed through the mothers blood stream, vs the capillaries in its lungs exchanging the gasses through its lungs. But 90 or whatever percent developed may not be good enough for survival of the baby, especially because it’s growing so fast. In practicing breathing in utero there is something in the amniotic fluid called surfactant, which is basically like lube for alveoli (the really thin small balloonish parts of the lungs that are thin enough for O2 and CO2 to pass in and out of the blood stream). Without surfactant, these alveoli tend to want stick together, so gas isn’t exchanging at the percentages it needs to. Or the alveoli aren’t all fully formed and are still too thick for the exchange of gasses. So to put it in different terms, this would be like me taking you (who I assume is an inexperienced mountain climber), and putting you on top of Everest, without supplemental O2, and telling you to do sprints, and then wondering why you pass out and die. It’s not that you can’t breath, your body just isn’t ready for that type of low pressure environment. This is why premies need incubators, it increases not only oxygen in the air but air pressure, to help inflate the alveoli in order to exchange gasses.

 

[RDD_1210]

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

I mean, I don’t know why you’re asking me, unless this is out of an appeal to ignorance. There’s a whole friggen world of knowledge at your fingertips in an instant if you are writing on this site.

But to satisfy your appeal to ignorance...a baby doesn’t just magically grow lungs once it’s outside of the womb. It’s been developing lungs the whole time. At 28 weeks the lungs are pretty much 90% developed, and the fetus does practice strengthening its breathing muscles by breathing in and out amniotic fluid, even though it’s not exchanging gases through the fluid. But the exchange of gas is still taking place, just through the mothers blood stream. The fetus is still respirating, the gasses are just being passed through the mothers blood stream, vs the capillaries in its lungs exchanging the gasses through its lungs. But 90 or whatever percent developed may not be good enough for survival of the baby, especially because it’s growing so fast. In practicing breathing in utero there is something in the amniotic fluid called surfactant, which is basically like lube for alveoli (the really thin small balloonish parts of the lungs that are thin enough for O2 and CO2 to pass in and out of the blood stream). Without surfactant, these alveoli tend to want stick together, so gas isn’t exchanging at the percentages it needs to. Or the alveoli aren’t all fully formed and are still too thick for the exchange of gasses. So to put it in different terms, this would be like me taking you (who I assume is an inexperienced mountain climber), and putting you on top of Everest, without supplemental O2, and telling you to do sprints, and then wondering why you pass out and die. It’s not that you can’t breath, your body just isn’t ready for that type of low pressure environment. This is why premies need incubators, it increases not only oxygen in the air but air pressure, to help inflate the alveoli in order to exchange gasses.

I actually didn't ask you. But I'll let RWNJ continue to ignore the question.

 

[sakinago]

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

I mean, I don’t know why you’re asking me, unless this is out of an appeal to ignorance. There’s a whole friggen world of knowledge at your fingertips in an instant if you are writing on this site.

But to satisfy your appeal to ignorance...a baby doesn’t just magically grow lungs once it’s outside of the womb. It’s been developing lungs the whole time. At 28 weeks the lungs are pretty much 90% developed, and the fetus does practice strengthening its breathing muscles by breathing in and out amniotic fluid, even though it’s not exchanging gases through the fluid. But the exchange of gas is still taking place, just through the mothers blood stream. The fetus is still respirating, the gasses are just being passed through the mothers blood stream, vs the capillaries in its lungs exchanging the gasses through its lungs. But 90 or whatever percent developed may not be good enough for survival of the baby, especially because it’s growing so fast. In practicing breathing in utero there is something in the amniotic fluid called surfactant, which is basically like lube for alveoli (the really thin small balloonish parts of the lungs that are thin enough for O2 and CO2 to pass in and out of the blood stream). Without surfactant, these alveoli tend to want stick together, so gas isn’t exchanging at the percentages it needs to. Or the alveoli aren’t all fully formed and are still too thick for the exchange of gasses. So to put it in different terms, this would be like me taking you (who I assume is an inexperienced mountain climber), and putting you on top of Everest, without supplemental O2, and telling you to do sprints, and then wondering why you pass out and die. It’s not that you can’t breath, your body just isn’t ready for that type of low pressure environment. This is why premies need incubators, it increases not only oxygen in the air but air pressure, to help inflate the alveoli in order to exchange gasses.

I actually didn't ask you. But I'll let RWNJ continue to ignore the question.

It doesn’t really matter who answers your dumb question. It got answered.

 

[RWNJ]

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

 

[sakinago]

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

Yea you missed the point I was making, that was bolstering your point further. That it’s worse than “pulling the plug”.

 

[RWNJ]

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

Yea you missed the point I was making, that was bolstering your point further. That it’s worse than “pulling the plug”.

Sorry. Had a brain fart there. It happens more often as I get older. Youth is wasted on the young, BTW.

 

[RDD_1210]

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

I mean, I don’t know why you’re asking me, unless this is out of an appeal to ignorance. There’s a whole friggen world of knowledge at your fingertips in an instant if you are writing on this site.

But to satisfy your appeal to ignorance...a baby doesn’t just magically grow lungs once it’s outside of the womb. It’s been developing lungs the whole time. At 28 weeks the lungs are pretty much 90% developed, and the fetus does practice strengthening its breathing muscles by breathing in and out amniotic fluid, even though it’s not exchanging gases through the fluid. But the exchange of gas is still taking place, just through the mothers blood stream. The fetus is still respirating, the gasses are just being passed through the mothers blood stream, vs the capillaries in its lungs exchanging the gasses through its lungs. But 90 or whatever percent developed may not be good enough for survival of the baby, especially because it’s growing so fast. In practicing breathing in utero there is something in the amniotic fluid called surfactant, which is basically like lube for alveoli (the really thin small balloonish parts of the lungs that are thin enough for O2 and CO2 to pass in and out of the blood stream). Without surfactant, these alveoli tend to want stick together, so gas isn’t exchanging at the percentages it needs to. Or the alveoli aren’t all fully formed and are still too thick for the exchange of gasses. So to put it in different terms, this would be like me taking you (who I assume is an inexperienced mountain climber), and putting you on top of Everest, without supplemental O2, and telling you to do sprints, and then wondering why you pass out and die. It’s not that you can’t breath, your body just isn’t ready for that type of low pressure environment. This is why premies need incubators, it increases not only oxygen in the air but air pressure, to help inflate the alveoli in order to exchange gasses.

I actually didn't ask you. But I'll let RWNJ continue to ignore the question.

It doesn’t really matter who answers your dumb question. It got answered.

Let me check again...no it didn't.

And next time you want to chime in, make sure you understand how the internet works and who is talking to you. Maybe you can google that too while you're at it big shot.

 

[RDD_1210]

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

Yea you missed the point I was making, that was bolstering your point further. That it’s worse than “pulling the plug”.

Sorry. Had a brain fart there. It happens more often as I get older. Youth is wasted on the young, BTW.

Oh look at the two idiots who can't figure out the intricate workings of the reply button but are going to tell me about biological development.

 

[RWNJ]

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

Yea you missed the point I was making, that was bolstering your point further. That it’s worse than “pulling the plug”.

Sorry. Had a brain fart there. It happens more often as I get older. Youth is wasted on the young, BTW.

Oh look at the two idiots who can't figure out the intricate workings of the reply button but are going to tell me about biological development.

Oh, look at the forum troll.

 

[sakinago]

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

That scenario wouldn’t even hold up, it’s more like a person on life support, a feeding tube and ventilator, who the doctor is giving an 85% chance of making a full recovery and being a full functioning human being in a matter of months, and “pulling the plug” on that person. And then as that person continued to survive their chances would go up and up, and recovery would essentially be imenent, barring some sort of tragic rare medical complication....and everyone would say in that scenario, no it’s not ok to “pull the plug”.

So it's OK to pull the plug on a fetus that will also be able to live on it's own eventually? Do you even read what you post on here? I suggest you do so. You might look less foolish. Then again, maybe not. You can't fix stupid.

Yea you missed the point I was making, that was bolstering your point further. That it’s worse than “pulling the plug”.

Sorry. Had a brain fart there. It happens more often as I get older. Youth is wasted on the young, BTW.

Oh look at the two idiots who can't figure out the intricate workings of the reply button but are going to tell me about biological development.

Haha nice ad hominem. That’s all people who can’t think for themselves have left in response to a challenge, logical fallacies. “I don’t like what you said so I’m gonna find ways to irrationally discount it, and not address it.”

 

[deanrd]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Republicans force the woman to have the baby. She has no healthcare. The baby gets sick. She tries to get it to the emergency room but doesn't have the money. She finally gets the baby to the Emergency room but it's too late and the baby dies.

Did the GOP murder that baby, not a fetus, but a born baby when they forced that woman to have that baby she didn't want because she couldn't take care of it and no one would adopt it?

Looking at the facts, it looks as if the GOP killed the baby because after they forced the woman to have the baby, they refused to help her with the baby.

 

[sakinago]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Republicans force the woman to have the baby. She has no healthcare. The baby gets sick. She tries to get it to the emergency room but doesn't have the money. She finally gets the baby to the Emergency room but it's too late and the baby dies.

Did the GOP murder that baby, not a fetus, but a born baby when they forced that woman to have that baby she didn't want because she couldn't take care of it and no one would adopt it?

Looking at the facts, it looks as if the GOP killed the baby because after they forced the woman to have the baby, they refused to help her with the baby.

On what planet are emergency rooms turning patients, especially infants in dire need away for lack of funds? This is so far past a strawman argument, it’s not even based in reality.

 

[sartre play]

The question required a yes or no answer. MY answer NO.