Nez Dragon said:
It has everything to do with it. If a man were to chop the head off of a born baby whose cord had not been severed yet, would it be murder?
That has nothing to do with abortions. Your emotional propaganda doesn't match reality. So don't claim that it has "everything to do with it." It still isn't a baby or a person until it is born. It still isn't an individual until the umbilical cord is clamped/cut. (Oh, and as for your STUPID analogy, per being born, it is a person, and therefore it would be murder. Now stupid hypotheticals without foundation in reality are just that, STUPID!!)
But AS I POINTED OUT, it has nothing to do with abortions, as the right to an abortion is based on the woman's bodily autonomy. Unless you think the status of the fetus gives it a right to use the woman's bodiily resources against her will, you simply have no argument.
I said "sounds", not "is". I was saying that calling it a fetus just makes it sound less alive.
But that is the problem. It DOESN'T sound less alive. YOU may have decided that it sounds less alive if you use the proper descriptor of "fetus" instead of the emotional hyperbole of calling it "baby." But REALITY is that there is no difference in how "alive" it "sounds."
I could say that removing your brains right now is a medical procedure, nothing else.
Well, it wouldn't be. If there was a medical indication for me as a patient to have my brain removed, then that is indeed what it it would be, just a medical procedure. Why would you think it was any different.
It's what we do to fetuses anyway, so what's the difference?
Ah, more hyperbole. Nice try of making stupid claims about what is typical. Couldn't you at least be honest when making claims?
When does it become sentient then?
The exact moment is unknown. But we know for sure that it is not happening before the 26th week of pregnancy.
If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway?
"invented"? More hyperbole. women are having sex for the purpose they are having sex, not for the purpose YOU ascribe them. If they are having sex just to have sex, thent hat is the purpose. You have no business telling them why they ought to be doing things. They have their life to live, it is not your life to live through them.
If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex.
And maybe they should. It is not your business to tell people why they should be having sex.
Sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. having sex is solely consent to having sex, nothing else.
and if some unwanted outcome occurs, then we treat that outcome just like we treat outcomes from all other activities.
Or are you saying that we shouldn't treat lung cancer in smokers? Are you saying we shouldn't treat heart attacks in people who ate burgers and didn't exercize?
That is just a weird argument.
Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
And people shopuld just stop doing all the things that are bad for them and we wouldn't have to treat them for it. NEWSFLASH: It is noen of your business how others live their lives. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.