The law on the books is that a doctor can legally perform emergency abortions. Nobody has been prosecuted on the claim that the abortion wasn’t an emergency, or even for performing an abortion at all.
The fetus carries its parents’ DNA, is created from their intercourse, and is descended directly from them. They may not have reached adolescence, but in terms of genetics and biology, it is still their child.
Great who determines it’s an “emergency”? With how poorly worded gop policies are it’s too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it’s not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.
The doctor can determine what an emergency is. Nobody has been prosecuted for performing an abortion since Dobbs. The “grey area” you’re arguing for, if it exists, is irrelevant.
A fetus is the offspring of two parents. You’re confusing the definition of child as in “adolescent animal” and the definition I’m using, namely “offspring”. A fetus is an organism composed of human cells, therefore it is a human being, therefore killing it without a critical reason is murder.
It’s irrelevant because nobody has been prosecuted. You’re imagining a legal threat that doesn’t exist for the sake of pushing your ideology.
Case in point: you’re willfully confusing definitions to claim it’s okay to kill people. Everyone is composed of cells, therefore everyone is lumps of cells, therefore, according to the “lump of cells” logic, it is okay for parents to kill their offspring at any time. You’re dehumanizing human beings to justify killing them.
“It’s irrelevant because it is” is just an assertion with no evidence to back it up. You’ve yet to provide evidence or argumentation to counter what I’ve provided. But if you don’t want me explaining what you believe, please tell me: why is murder wrong? If you want to complain about bad faith debate, then why will you not provide evidence (that we haven’t already discussed and disproved) to back up your claims?
Literally nobody has been prosecuted for doing an abortion in a ban state since Dobbs. The threat you’re asserting doesn’t exist.
It’s not a false equivalence because, in both cases, the parent is killing their child.
It doesn’t exist except it’s on the law books. OK.
It is an entirely false equivalence. Because a fetus isn’t a child until further in development.
The law on the books is that a doctor can legally perform emergency abortions. Nobody has been prosecuted on the claim that the abortion wasn’t an emergency, or even for performing an abortion at all.
The fetus carries its parents’ DNA, is created from their intercourse, and is descended directly from them. They may not have reached adolescence, but in terms of genetics and biology, it is still their child.
Great who determines it’s an “emergency”? With how poorly worded gop policies are it’s too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it’s not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.
The doctor can determine what an emergency is. Nobody has been prosecuted for performing an abortion since Dobbs. The “grey area” you’re arguing for, if it exists, is irrelevant.
A fetus is the offspring of two parents. You’re confusing the definition of child as in “adolescent animal” and the definition I’m using, namely “offspring”. A fetus is an organism composed of human cells, therefore it is a human being, therefore killing it without a critical reason is murder.
No it’s not irrelevant. If it was the laws should be removed. As it stands they exist and are therefore pertinent.
A fetus is a fetus, until it is a child it is a lump of cells and therefore no one should be forced to carry a fetus. It is not murder.
It’s irrelevant because nobody has been prosecuted. You’re imagining a legal threat that doesn’t exist for the sake of pushing your ideology.
Case in point: you’re willfully confusing definitions to claim it’s okay to kill people. Everyone is composed of cells, therefore everyone is lumps of cells, therefore, according to the “lump of cells” logic, it is okay for parents to kill their offspring at any time. You’re dehumanizing human beings to justify killing them.
It’s relevant because it is. And now you’ve moved onto strawman fallacies. Try to argue in good faith :)
“It’s irrelevant because it is” is just an assertion with no evidence to back it up. You’ve yet to provide evidence or argumentation to counter what I’ve provided. But if you don’t want me explaining what you believe, please tell me: why is murder wrong? If you want to complain about bad faith debate, then why will you not provide evidence (that we haven’t already discussed and disproved) to back up your claims?