Abortion

[Scott]

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not. If he gives her his sperm, that's what I'd call the handoff of responsibility, in the sense that it's now up to the woman what she intends to do with it if she becomes pregnant.

This is such a disgusting way to look at it.

I strongly disagree, but I suggest you read what I have to say below before making judgement calls.

There shouldn't be any "handoff of responsibility". Any man who "pumps and dumps" is a complete and utter piece of shit

Again, I believe the handoff of responsibility has nothing to do with the quality of the man, but rather where the sperm now resides- in the woman. I fully believe that even if the man is the most caring man in the world, the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy should be the woman's choice alone. I think we might agree that the more caring the man and the more able he is to provide for a potential child, the less likely it is that the woman would terminate a pregnancy, but as far as I'm concerned, the choice should still be the woman's alone.

This is such a disgusting way to look at it. There shouldn't be any "handoff of responsibility". Any man who "pumps and dumps" is a complete and utter piece of shit (and any woman who contracts the killing of her child for convenience purposes is likewise a complete and utter piece of shit).

Now here I strongly disagree. The buck stops with the woman in terms of responsibility. A man might take off or, for whatever reason, be unavailable once a pregnancy starts. A pregnant woman -can't- vacate the scene. There are many reasons why a woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy. I've made a thread on said reasons here:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

I can certainly acknowledge that some women who terminate their pregnancies may be making a mistake, but I also think that for some, if not most, it was the best decision they could make considering the circumstances. If memory serves, a former stepmother of mine once had an abortion. I don't know the exact circumstances, but I strongly suspect that she made the best choice at the time- I believe she said something to the effect that she just wasn't ready at the time. She now has 2 children.

Under God's design, a man and a woman are "joined together as ONE body" (marriage). They are both UNIFIED in spirit/will (just as Jesus is married to his Church).

There's some evidence that Jesus may have had one or more children of his own, though I fully acknowledge that this may not be true. Hard to know what happened around 2000 years ago- some people question whether he even existed as an actual person. In any case, I'm not a Christian, so appealing to one's idea of Jesus isn't going to score points with me.

 

[Scott]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex. Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly. Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great. This is not the case for a woman who -doesn't- want to have a child.

That's a matter of biology not legality.

I believe legality should follow biology. Biologically speaking, a man never has to worry about becoming pregnant, let alone worry about being forced to carry said pregnancy to term. I don't think women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term.

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not. If he gives her his sperm, that's what I'd call the handoff of responsibility, in the sense that it's now up to the woman what she intends to do with it if she becomes pregnant. At least, that's how I think it should be. U.S. states currently have different views on this, and people can (and do) frequently vote with their feet as to which laws regarding abortion they want to live under.

It's not. The two are co-equal partners in a contract.

In theory. In practice, the man may be unavailable once a pregnancy starts, or perhaps worse, be an abusive partner. There are many reasons why a woman may choose that terminating a pregnancy is her best option. I listed them in the following thread:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

 

[Scott]

Great. We agree that the species is human.

So far, yes. I reserve the right to talk about non human abortions later on in this thread -.-

Honestly, I'm not sure. I have heard of brain death, which apparently quickly leads to actual death:

Brain death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you consider someone who is brain dead to be dead, or is said person only dead when their heart stops?

Okay, so while we've clearly established the species as being 'homo sapien' (human), there's still some discussion to be had about the term 'living' and what would be considered 'living'.

You ask a good question here. My answer would be NO. The continued presence of a heartbeat still signifies the presence of life, even if the brain isn't functioning properly (or at all). The human isn't dead until the heart stops beating (meaning the cessation of any "keeping alive" efforts or a continued flatline after several failed revival attempts).

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts on this is that a braid dead human is going to die soon anyway and won't exactly be communicating much for the rest of their short lifespan either. I think pulling the plug at that point should be considered justifiable.

 

[Scott]

Great. We agree that 'fetus' is not any new species or a manner in which to dehumanize a human, but is rather a specific growth/developmental stage of a human.

Sure, they are a very early stage of human development. The important issue for me here is how intelligent a fetus is in comparison to the pregnant woman who is hosting him.

In the case of the removal of human fetuses, the fetus was both a fetus -and- a living human.

"the fetus was...a living human". [your own words]

You removed some of my words.

IOW, the living human was killed (and is now a dead human)?

The living human -fetus- was removed from the womb and as a consequence died. I've had a relatively long discussion with IBDaMann on the importance of terminology here. The dictionaries I've seen reference abortions as the termination of a pregnancy and the removal of the fetus, which causes its death. Killing is not a word they use and I think that's for the best.

 

[Scott]

A question that should be asked at this point, is why the focus on the word fetus?

People like to use the word 'fetus' as a way to dehumanize the living human child.

As I said previously, I don't agree. I think the main reason is to highlight the different levels of intelligence between the fetus and the pregnant woman.

 

[gfm7175]

If we're talking about the lottery of what parents we get and where we're born, sure.

Yes, that's part of it. There's all sorts of other things too that lead towards "unfairness" and "unequalness" in life. It's just the way that life is in an imperfect (sinful) world.

You misunderstand me, not that there aren't some men that ghost women when they hear that they're pregnant. I was referring to the fact that, biologically speaking, men don't do a lot when it comes to creating new life.

That's fair. Focusing solely on the biological aspect, it's true that women "do more". Men have other duties instead, including supporting the woman's physical and emotional wellbeing during that time. Marriage (and the in-principle stability that it provides) plays an important role in that.

I've learned over the years that, generally speaking, the "Christian" way of doing things makes A LOT of practical sense and it tends to avoid the pitfalls of "deviating from God's way". Such deviation from God's way typically leads to destruction of some sort rather than fruitfulness.

I certainly agree that there are some men who are, shall we say, not exactly good parental figures.

I'd say that there are even some women who aren't exactly good parental figures.

That being said, it's not always so clear cut. There are many reasons why a man might not be able to be there much if at all for a woman -without- it being a simple case of just being a bad parental figure. From incarceration, to needing to work long hours to needing to work in another location (if one is in the army, for instance). There are also more exotic cases such as a man who was having marital problems and then has an affair that leads to a pregnancy out of wedlock. I mention that last one because I personally know someone in that boat. The woman chose not to terminate the pregnancy and said man is doing his best to raise 2 children- one with his wife (who he actually had a bit later) and the one with the woman he had an affair with. I think he's a good man who went through a bad spot and is doing the best he can with the result. He loves both his children very much.

I agree that there are unique situations that shouldn't be viewed in the same way as the overarching generalizations that I've presented.

I certainly agree that life is generally easier when a man and a woman have entered some form of contract, such as a marriage, and actually want a child instead of it being the result of an unplanned pregnancy. That being said, even in such cases, things don't always work out. I'm sure you're aware that the divorce rate in the U.S. is pretty high. From an article on the subject:
**

How Many Marriages End in Divorce?​

So, what about the famous statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce? That’s a bit of an exaggeration when it comes to first marriages, only 43% of which are dissolved.2 Second and third marriages actually fail at a far higher rate, though, with 60% of second marriages and 73% of third marriages ending in divorce.3
**
Source:

Revealing Divorce Statistics In 2025

The decision to end a marriage is deeply personal, but there are some widespread factors that weigh into the decision. For example, you’re more likely to divorce if you have divorced friends. And you’re less likely to divorce in Louisiana than in Nevada. We’ve combed through research from the U.S. C

www.forbes.com

I think one knows one is in trouble when a journalist can say that "only" 43% of first marriages are dissolved, and the divorce rate for second and third marriages speak for themselves.

Here, again, I can speak from close second hand experience- my eldest sister (I'm the eldest of my siblings, but I have a younger sister too) got married and got divorced shortly after having her second child. Fortunately for her, my mother had the financial resources to help her out, because her ex husband used a fair amount of his for a child custody battle and only seemed to pay child support when it was his only option to continue his fight for child custody (clever lawyer trick there to force the issue). I think it's a good thing that he lost the child custody battle- in my mind, my sister was much better suited to caring for them than he was.

I agree that divorce rates are quite high, even amongst self-professed Christians. Some reasons for divorce are "godly" while others aren't. This connects back to the fact that "life in general is unfair and unequal".

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed, but again, I wasn't referring to what the man does. With or without the man's support, being pregnant generally isn't easy from what I've heard. Ofcourse, it can be much harder if, for whatever reason, the man either can't or doesn't support the woman much if at all.

Agreed.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, as the old saying goes. You are at first assuming that they are married, before later acknowledging that this may not be the case. Then there is the fact that even if they -are- married initially, that doesn't mean they will stay that way once the woman is pregnant or shortly thereafter. And we're not even getting into cases where the woman would be better off with a divorce.

Agreed.

In an imperfect world, nothing is perfect (DUH! ). Everything that is holy and good can be twisted into something unholy and bad. Marriage, in and of itself a holy and good thing, can be easily twisted into something that no longer resembles God's design and intention for it. That's where destruction (rather than fruitfulness) sets in. Abortion (aka a form of contract killing) is one such example of the destruction that results due to deviating from "God's way" with regard to sexual intercourse.

 

[AProudLefty]

The keyword is "murder". Is the termination of a fetus murder?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I believe legality should follow biology. Biologically speaking, a man never has to worry about becoming pregnant, let alone worry about being forced to carry said pregnancy to term. I don't think women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term.

I say It's a couple's Right to choose. Each gets an equal say in what happens. She wants the child and he doesn't? He's out of the picture entirely and owes nothing, she gets the child. He wants the child and she doesn't? She carries it to term--because of biology and no other reason--and he gets the child. He pays for all OB gyn services through childbirth for her. She has no further part in things.

In theory. In practice, the man may be unavailable once a pregnancy starts, or perhaps worse, be an abusive partner. There are many reasons why a woman may choose that terminating a pregnancy is her best option. I listed them in the following thread:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

Abusive, rape, etc., are NOT what I'm talking about. Those cases are criminal ones and handled through the criminal courts. I'm talking about consensual sex between two people, married or unmarried. Both parties get equal say in the outcome. That's how civil contract law works. The woman does not get to make those decisions on her own without consulting the man involved. He gets equal say. Obviously, if there were some medical complication and something had to be done quickly without such consultation, that's an exception, and fine and understandable. But the norm is both get equal say.

If the woman is sleeping with a trailer park, that's her problem. The legal situation doesn't change. She can't carry the kid to term and then expect child support after a paternity test because she didn't do due diligence to find and notify the man involved of the situation legally. That's FAIR AND EQUAL.

Fair and equal is something the Left demands all the time when it suits them. They toss it out the window when it doesn't. I say fair and equal applies ALL of the time and in this case the man gets equal say of the woman is solely responsible for everything and men aren't legally obligated to pay child support.

 

[gfm7175]

Now you're getting into your religious beliefs, which not everyone shares.

Yes! You're very astute! I'm definitely dabbling into my religious beliefs a bit here, as it's "what I know best". I am aware that my religious beliefs are not shared by everyone (I even disagree with fellow Christians when it comes to certain beliefs), but I do think that there's practical knowledge to be gained from Christianity even if one doesn't "share the faith". I think that the statement "a woman who doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be having any sex (with a man) in the first place" is one example of such practical knowledge, regardless of one's belief or lack of belief in the Christian faith.

But from the Christian faith angle, having sex before marriage IS a deviation from God's design for sex (which is meant to occur AFTER marriage).

I can certainly understand the desire to have sex but not have children. It may not even be that the woman doesn't want children, but rather that, for various reasons, she doesn't believe she is currently ready to have one, or more than one if she already has one or more.

I can likewise understand that desire. Sex is FUN. Sex FEELS GOOD. Heck, even masturbation (a cheap imitation of sex) FEELS GOOD. However, what is fun and feels good is not always what is best for us. Deviating from God's design in such a manner is not only unfruitful but it can (and does) cause harm/destruction to self and others.

Humans are creatures of habit, and I have learned that it is important to form GOOD (fruitful/constructive) habits rather than BAD (unfruitful/destructive) habits. Habits can easily become addictions and are VERY hard to break once deeply rooted.

I think there's nothing wrong with that desire.
This desire can happen in marriage and outside of it.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that desire. This, in Christian theology, gets into the distinction between temptation and sin.

However, one must be VERY careful with such desires, as they easily lead to sin. The "Christian course of action" to take when facing such a desire is to immediately RUN from it (don't even entertain the thought). Don't even entertain the thought of sex outside of marriage. Don't even entertain the thought of sex when there's no intention of procreating. Don't even entertain the thought of watching porn and/or masturbating. All of those thoughts can easily lead to actions that will definitely lead to destruction/unfruitfulness rather than construction/fruitfulness.

While I'm a Christian and I like to promote my faith to others, this really doesn't have to be about Christianity at all. There's still a number of very practical and healthy reasons to view this subject matter in a similar way as I do.

I also don't mean to put myself on any sort of a pedestal either; If I deserve to be anywhere, it's towards the bottom of the barrel. I'm guilty of doing some of the very same things that I speak out against on here. I'm guilty of succumbing to various temptations. I'm even guilty of carelessly allowing certain temptations to become habitual sins (and experiencing firsthand how extremely difficult it is to loose oneself from such sins when it gets to that point).

The problem is when having sex leads to unwanted pregnancies.

... which is precisely why I strongly advise AGAINST any woman and man having sex who do NOT want to have a child. This course of action is not only the "Christian way", but it is also the practical sense way. It is also the "avoiding destruction" way.

Refusal to heed this advice is precisely what leads to the destruction that is known as the subset of 'contract killings' that is commonly referred to as 'abortion' (which is what your thread is about).

There's also the issue that even a woman who -wanted- to get pregnant may have second thoughts afterwards due to changing circumstances after the fact.

In other words, procreation (and the sexual intercourse that can lead to it) is NOT something to take lightly. Yes, I understand that even the best of preparations are not a guarantee of "smooth sailing" going forward. That goes back to the "life in general is unfair/unequal" preface.

As to STDs, I have rather strong views on some of those, particularly AIDS, which I don't believe is caused by a virus- I don't believe biological viruses exist at all. I have 2 threads on that if you're interested.

Yes, I am aware of your rejection of the existence of viruses (and of your threads about it). I think it makes sense to leave that discussion over there and to keep this discussion more focused on abortion.

Surely you recognize that not everyone follows your proper order of operations, for whatever reason. I suspect one of my elder nieces didn't, though I know so little of her life that I'm not actually sure. I just know that she now has a 1 year old daughter and I haven't heard much of the father. As with my sister/her mother, it looks like my mother has been helping her out, and she's had some help from elsewhere as well. Many women aren't nearly so fortunate.

To be clear, this isn't MY order of operations (although I do recommend following it). I realize that many people do NOT follow it. I've also seen the destruction that arises from people choosing not to follow it. One such example is widespread abortion, the subset of contract killings that this thread is about.

 

[gfm7175]

In most cases, yes.

Great. We agree once again. I do also think that "most cases" is what should be focused on rather than the "0.000001% of exceptions" to said "most cases".

Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion after being raped?

This is a rather difficult question, and ascertaining the "godly" manner to react to such a situation is not the easiest thing to do.

I understand and sympathize with the fact that the woman in this case didn't ask for it to happen (IOW, this is no fault of her own). In that regard, it makes sense that she shouldn't have to go through the struggle of pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child that she didn't want or plan to have (but rather exists due to the sin of another).

On the other hand, the living human child who now exists likewise didn't ask for this to happen -- and likewise didn't do anything wrong). In that regard, it makes sense that this child shouldn't have to be killed for the sin of another. Likewise, such an abortion is still the "killing of a living human who committed no crime nor expressed any desire to die". As such, my position on the matter would have to be "no abortion after being raped".

But like I said, this is very difficult subject matter. For the purposes of a fruitful discussion on abortion, I'm okay with fully granting what is commonly known as "the exceptions" --- rape, incest, and life of the mother. Let's put those RARE instances aside, granting exception to abort children under those rare circumstances.

Let's instead focus on the remaining 99+% of cases, the cases in which abortions are contracted killings that are done to convenience some other living human(s).

 

[AProudLefty]

Great. We agree once again. I do also think that "most cases" is what should be focused on rather than the "0.000001% of exceptions" to said "most cases".

This is a rather difficult question, and ascertaining the "godly" manner to react to such a situation is not the easiest thing to do.

I understand and sympathize with the fact that the woman in this case didn't ask for it to happen (IOW, this is no fault of her own). In that regard, it makes sense that she shouldn't have to go through the struggle of pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child that she didn't want or plan to have (but rather exists due to the sin of another).

On the other hand, the living human child who now exists likewise didn't ask for this to happen -- and likewise didn't do anything wrong). In that regard, it makes sense that this child shouldn't have to be killed for the sin of another. Likewise, such an abortion is still the "killing of a living human who committed no crime nor expressed any desire to die". As such, my position on the matter would have to be "no abortion after being raped".

But like I said, this is very difficult subject matter. For the purposes of a fruitful discussion on abortion, I'm okay with fully granting what is commonly known as "the exceptions" --- rape, incest, and life of the mother. Let's put those RARE instances aside, granting exception to abort children under those rare circumstances.

Let's instead focus on the remaining 99+% of cases, the cases in which abortions are contracted killings that are done to convenience some other living human(s).

A fetus less than 6 weeks is not a conscious being.

 

[IBDaMann]

instead of it being the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

This is a fallacy. It's called the "Unplanned Pregnancy" fallacy. It treats a fully foreseeable possibility as though it was a completely unforseen, random event that came out of nowhere, like a meteor falling on a house or a transmission dropout on the freeway.

An unplanned pregnancy is the same as an unplanned loss at the roulette table, i.e. it is an anticipated possibility. The sex was not randomly imposed on anyone, and if you can't afford to lose your rent money for the month, don't gamble it at the roulette table.

The problem is when having sex leads to unwanted pregnancies.

I get it. The problem is when procreating leads to procreation.

When a life is created, who gets to kill it? Who gets to kill you?

 

[Yakuda]

I've already told you why- I don't see the removal of a pregnant woman's fetus at her request to be a killing, but rather a termination. As I've explained elsewhere, society uses different words for procedures that end the life of various life forms. We tend to reserve terms such as killing and especially murder for the wrongful and deliberate removal of human lives. For cases where the life isn't human, we tend to use terms such as slaughter. For cases where the ending of a human life that has some type of mitigating circumstance, we use the term manslaughter. Here's The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition's definition of the term:
**
The killing of a person without malice aforethought but with either the intention to commit an unlawful act that leads to an unintended death, or with an otherwise murderous intent that is extenuated by some partial defense, such as acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance occasioned by a substantial provocation on the part of the victim.
**
Source:

manslaughter — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

And finally, for cases such as a mother's decision to remove a fetus from her body, we tend to use the term termination. This is certainly the case with The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, as mentioned and referenced in the opening post of this thread.

It is a termination. Of a life. If they found a fetus like life form on another planet what would the response be?

 

[Yakuda]

A fetus less than 6 weeks is not a conscious being.

What does consciousness have to do with it? In coma? Kill em right?

 

[gfm7175]

Again, I believe the handoff of responsibility has nothing to do with the quality of the man, but rather where the sperm now resides- in the woman. I fully believe that even if the man is the most caring man in the world, the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy should be the woman's choice alone.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. The man should have every much a say in the matter as the woman does (as man and woman, when married, are "one body"). This comes back to the "order of operations" that I brought up earlier, and this is precisely why it is very wise to be married (and wanting children) BEFORE having sexual intercourse.

Marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Marriage is the joining together of those two separate bodies into one single unified body (representing the greater unified body of Jesus [the bridegroom] and The Church [the bride]). A child born unto the married couple is likewise a physical manifestation of marriage itself (the "joining together of two separate bodies into a single unified body").

--- This is why I do not recognize any so-called "gay marriage" as a legitimate 'marriage', as so-called "gay marriage" is a counterfeit of the real thing because procreation (which is the physical manifestation of the definition of marriage) is completely impossible via homosexual intercourse.

I think we might agree that the more caring the man and the more able he is to provide for a potential child, the less likely it is that the woman would terminate a pregnancy, but as far as I'm concerned, the choice should still be the woman's alone.

I'm agreeable to the first part. I strongly disagree with your "woman's alone" conclusion for the reasons I stated above.

A pregnant woman -can't- vacate the scene. There are many reasons why a woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy.

... and a common reason to "terminate a pregnancy" is to quite literally "vacate the scene". Aka, contractual killing (of a living human) for convenience purposes.

I can certainly acknowledge that some women who terminate their pregnancies may be making a mistake,

I would say that the contractual killing of innocent humans is definitely making a mistake.

but I also think that for some, if not most, it was the best decision they could make considering the circumstances.

I suppose if the mother's life was at risk, but even for a number of those 0.0001% of cases, C-sections can be performed.

If memory serves, a former stepmother of mine once had an abortion. I don't know the exact circumstances, but I strongly suspect that she made the best choice at the time- I believe she said something to the effect that she just wasn't ready at the time. She now has 2 children.

I'd say that she made a rather careless choice to have sex at the time, and that the living human inside of her womb was sentenced to the death penalty because of her careless choice.

There's some evidence that Jesus may have had one or more children of his own, though I fully acknowledge that this may not be true. Hard to know what happened around 2000 years ago- some people question whether he even existed as an actual person. In any case, I'm not a Christian, so appealing to one's idea of Jesus isn't going to score points with me.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Jesus having children, and parenthood doesn't really go along too well with the life purpose of quickly dying on a cross to save humanity from their sins. I see no good reason to believe that Jesus would have children (or even get married) knowing full well that he'd quickly leave his children fatherless (and leave his wife a widow) in order to fulfill his life purpose.

 

[gfm7175]

So far, yes. I reserve the right to talk about non human abortions later on in this thread -.-

Fair enough, although I can't say that I've ever participated in such a discussion.

My thoughts on this is that a braid dead human is going to die soon anyway and won't exactly be communicating much for the rest of their short lifespan either. I think pulling the plug at that point should be considered justifiable.

The way that you worded this response sounds like you are in agreement with me that a "brain dead" human is still "living" (due to "being kept alive") and that a human isn't dead until the heart stops beating (meaning the cessation of any "keeping alive" efforts or a continued flatline after several failed revival attempts). IOW, the presence of a heartbeat signifies the presence of life.

 

[gfm7175]

Sure, they are a very early stage of human development. The important issue for me here is how intelligent a fetus is in comparison to the pregnant woman who is hosting him.

I'm baffled as to why you would find "intelligence level" to be any bit relevant in this discussion. "Intelligence level" has absolutely no effect on whether a human is a human or whether a human is living, correct? In other words, a very stupid living human is still a living human, same as a very intelligent living human is still a living human.

You removed some of my words.

I did. I solely focused on the relevant ones. Your whole sentence was: "In the case of the removal of human fetuses, the fetus was both a fetus -and- a living human." --- I think it's reasonable to rephrase your words as "the fetus was...a living human" because this context is a superset of what this very thread is about (the subset of abortion). --- My presentation of your words clearly shows that you are asserting (in agreement with me) that "the fetus" was a living human.

The living human -fetus-

A living human is a living human. It doesn't matter what stage of life (fetus, newborn, adolescent, adult, etc) the living human is in. I'm not sure why you are so insistent upon inserting the word 'fetus' into this discussion. Actually, I am, but I'll give you a chance to explain it first.

was [intentionally] removed from the womb [too early] and as a[n intentional] consequence died.

Fixed that for you. IOW, a contract killing of a living human who didn't commit any crime or express any desire to die.

I've had a relatively long discussion with IBDaMann on the importance of terminology here.

Yes, you have. I believe in the importance of it too (see my above "fixed that for you") commentary that included the [vitally important terminology] that you chose to leave out.

The dictionaries I've seen reference abortions as the termination of a pregnancy and the removal of the fetus, which causes its death. Killing is not a word they use and I think that's for the best.

I don't accept any "dictionary definition" as a trump card of any sort. I would argue that the "dictionary definitions" that you are referencing here are in error, purposely using dehumanizing verbiage (and purposely leaving out key verbiage) in order to mask the horror of what is truly happening.

 

[gfm7175]

As I said previously, I don't agree. I think the main reason is to highlight the different levels of intelligence between the fetus and the pregnant woman.

I think that "highlight[ing] the different levels of intelligence..." is completely irrelevant because, regardless, a living human is still a living human.

Should our country "contract kill" all of the "stupid living humans" so that only the "intelligent living humans" remain?

 

[Hume]

Should our country "contract kill" all of the "stupid living humans" so that only the "intelligent living humans" remain?

Sounds good.