Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,452
- 82,707
- 2,635
That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your viewsIt's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
....... it's not 98%.
And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.