Georgia's Move to Ban Abortion.

[Dyakovo]

no i just hate murderers

But are 100% in favor of slavery...
Good for you.

[Deus Malum]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

No form of birth control is 100% effective.

Including (if you're Christian) abstinence.

[Galloism]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

No form of birth control is 100% effective.

Including (if you're Christian) abstinence.

You made me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except that it isn't baby killing. Pretty-much all elective abortions are performed well before the fetus has even developed a working nervous system.

Would you concede that elective abortions performed after that point are wrong?

[Deus Malum]

Except that it isn't baby killing. Pretty-much all elective abortions are performed well before the fetus has even developed a working nervous system.

Would you concede that elective abortions performed after that point are wrong?

Generally, which is why A: they're already illegal except in cases of medical necessity, and B: the more common option at that point is forced labor.

[Deus Malum]

No form of birth control is 100% effective.

Including (if you're Christian) abstinence.

You made me.

Hehehe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except that it isn't baby killing. Pretty-much all elective abortions are performed well before the fetus has even developed a working nervous system.

Would you concede that elective abortions performed after that point are wrong?

Generally, which is why A: they're already illegal except in cases of medical necessity, and B: the more common option at that point is forced labor.

Fair enough. I know however that some people would attempt to justify abortion right up until birth, so I consider it a fair question to ask.

[PurgatoryHell]

I'm all for allowing these kinds of things being left up to the states. But I disagree with the government trying to classify medical terms to benefit special interests.

[Enadail]

Now, lets do the second part of the question. Why?

Why complicate it? Medically, its not a complicated line.

That may be an unfortunate consequence, but if that's your position, we should have mandatory abortions for all people below a certain income bracket or people who suffer from disadvantage or mental illness. After all, it's likely the children might be born and wind up wishing to be dead.

But the whole point is its about choice.

Except it's not an either/or. You're talking about killing a fetus in order to save it from a life of hardship. I don't buy that argument for a second. If that's the case, we should be able to kill a 2 month old child if its mother is a crackwhore, after all, he's probably going to live a life of hardship.

That was my point by saying its not simple. There is no clear distinction on what to do. And no one has enough information to make an informed decision. The person with the most information is the mother, not the child or the state or anyone else, and it should be on the mother to make the more morally difficult choices.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Your post slightly rearranged, to make some things clearer.

Except there are two bodies at stake. You have the body of the mother, and then the body of the fetus. They are two separate entities. What happens, due to biology, is that the body of the fetus is dependent on the body of the mother for a significant period of time. The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

No they aren't. The foetus is not a moral agent -- it has no rights here. Alternately, until birth, the fetus does not have an independent body, so the mother's right to control her own body extends to that of the foetus. Irregardless, no right to life can include the right to demand the body of another for life support. This, however, is exactly what preventing abortion is equivalent to.

Arguably, a consequence of your position is that it isn't justified for the mother to have labour induced. In doing so, she's doing what she wishes with the foetus' body, without its consent.

Ergo, as you said, most abortions are carried out very early, when the fetus (or zygote, or whatever) has absolutely zero chance of surviving outside the woman's body. The fact that it's removed from her body is what kills it - the idea isn't to kill it. The idea is to get it out.

The idea is to end her participation in the reproductive process -- in short, to stop a child from being born. Any woman can voluntarily participate, and end her participation at any time. If early enough, that means abstaining, or taking the morning after pill. Later, it means an abortion.

In all cases, the point is that she is withdrawing her consent to allow reproduction to take place. With sex, she can withdraw her consent at any stage. Just because she's started, doesn't mean she has to finish the process. I see pregnancy in exactly the same way.

(Possible interesting analogy: You're into D/s, as I recall.The Dom corresponds to the foetus, the scene to the pregnancy, and the sub to the mother. At any point in the pregnancy (scene), the sub (mother) can stop to consent. At that point, the Dom (foetus) loses any claim to the sub's (mother's) body. No demand that the Dom (foetus) makes on the sub (mother) is legitimate unless the sub (mother) consents to that claim. Does the analogy make some sense?)

I kind of figured. However, if you're going to argue that the right to kill someone dependent upon you is absolute, then you might as well extend it to children up to 18yrs - 1 day.

Fallacy. You have the absolute right to bodily integrity, which means this choice ends at exactly the point that the foetus is no longer a part of your body -- birth. After that, you no longer have rights, you have responsibilities.

I never said anything of the sort, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

Well, you didn't quite say that. However, you did state that, in certain circumstances, a woman should be forced to bear a child, right here:

If you can get it out and still save the fetus' life, that should be required. It satisfies all parties.

I reiterate my question.

[Galloism]

Now, lets do the second part of the question. Why?

Why complicate it? Medically, its not a complicated line.

So you should be able to explain it without too much difficulty.

That may be an unfortunate consequence, but if that's your position, we should have mandatory abortions for all people below a certain income bracket or people who suffer from disadvantage or mental illness. After all, it's likely the children might be born and wind up wishing to be dead.

But the whole point is its about choice.

Indeed it is. The woman has the choice and should have the choice as to how much her body participates in the reproductive process. She should not have the choice to kill other people. Since I believe the fetus is a person, and you have not shown me why personhood starts at birth instead of earlier (note, I did not say conception - I'm nipping the potential strawman in the bud there), I think the fetus should have the choice, as far as it is possible, to grow up and decide whether it wants to live or die.

Except it's not an either/or. You're talking about killing a fetus in order to save it from a life of hardship. I don't buy that argument for a second. If that's the case, we should be able to kill a 2 month old child if its mother is a crackwhore, after all, he's probably going to live a life of hardship.

That was my point by saying its not simple. There is no clear distinction on what to do. And no one has enough information to make an informed decision. The person with the most information is the mother, not the child or the state or anyone else, and it should be on the mother to make the more morally difficult choices.

So you support killing 2 month old babies if the mother says it's a good idea? This is an interesting approach. After all, the child knows nothing, the state has very little input from the workings of the home, and the mother (and or father) of a 2 month old child clearly have enough information to make an informed decision about whether the 2 month old should live or not.

[Aggicificicerous]

Indeed it is. The woman has the choice and should have the choice as to how much her body participates in the reproductive process. She should not have the choice to kill other people. Since I believe the fetus is a person, and you have not shown me why personhood starts at birth instead of earlier (note, I did not say conception - I'm nipping the potential strawman in the bud there). I think the fetus should have the choice, as far as it is possible, to grow up and decide whether it wants to live or die.

I don't see the problem with this. The woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, as you seem to be saying. And the fetus has a right to survive. So, we take the fetus out of the woman's body, and we'll let it survive on its own. It might die, but at least we gave it a chance, right?

[Galloism]

Your post slightly rearranged, to make some things clearer.

Except there are two bodies at stake. You have the body of the mother, and then the body of the fetus. They are two separate entities. What happens, due to biology, is that the body of the fetus is dependent on the body of the mother for a significant period of time. The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

No they aren't. The foetus is not a moral agent -- it has no rights here. Alternately, until birth, the fetus does not have an independent body, so the mother's right to control her own body extends to that of the foetus. Irregardless, no right to life can include the right to demand the body of another for life support. This, however, is exactly what preventing abortion is equivalent to.

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

Also, saying that I think they should be forced to carry the child is a ridiculous strawman. If you had even read any of my posts, you would know that. Shame on you for even suggesting that.

Arguably, a consequence of your position is that it isn't justified for the mother to have labour induced. In doing so, she's doing what she wishes with the foetus' body, without its consent.

This is the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I've been saying that having labor induced early is fine, and morally accepted throughout this entire thread.

Ergo, as you said, most abortions are carried out very early, when the fetus (or zygote, or whatever) has absolutely zero chance of surviving outside the woman's body. The fact that it's removed from her body is what kills it - the idea isn't to kill it. The idea is to get it out.

The idea is to end her participation in the reproductive process -- in short, to stop a child from being born. Any woman can voluntarily participate, and end her participation at any time. If early enough, that means abstaining, or taking the morning after pill. Later, it means an abortion.

In all cases, the point is that she is withdrawing her consent to allow reproduction to take place. With sex, she can withdraw her consent at any stage. Just because she's started, doesn't mean she has to finish the process. I see pregnancy in exactly the same way.

(Possible interesting analogy: You're into D/s, as I recall.The Dom corresponds to the foetus, the scene to the pregnancy, and the sub to the mother. At any point in the pregnancy (scene), the sub (mother) can stop to consent. At that point, the Dom (foetus) loses any claim to the sub's (mother's) body. No demand that the Dom (foetus) makes on the sub (mother) is legitimate unless the sub (mother) consents to that claim. Does the analogy make some sense?)

This was one giant ass strawman and I won't even respond to it. I don't think any woman should be forced to participate in the reproductive process any more than she wants to. I have said that, repeatedly.

I kind of figured. However, if you're going to argue that the right to kill someone dependent upon you is absolute, then you might as well extend it to children up to 18yrs - 1 day.

Fallacy. You have the absolute right to bodily integrity, which means this choice ends at exactly the point that the foetus is no longer a part of your body -- birth. After that, you no longer have rights, you have responsibilities.

And I feel the fetus has a right to bodily integrity. Therefore, when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, with its own body, abortion should not be allowed - only premature birth. That gets the fetus out of the mother and ends the mother's role in the reproductive process, which is clearly her wish. It also allows the fetus to live as a human being, which it has the right to.

(let's not use that term "absolute rights", or we'll attract an objectivist, and neither of us want that)

I never said anything of the sort, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

Well, you didn't quite say that. However, you did state that, in certain circumstances, a woman should be forced to bear a child, right here:

If you can get it out and still save the fetus' life, that should be required. It satisfies all parties.

I reiterate my question.

Then I restate mine - is it ok to kill a 2 month old child if you can't financially support it?

[Galloism]

Indeed it is. The woman has the choice and should have the choice as to how much her body participates in the reproductive process. She should not have the choice to kill other people. Since I believe the fetus is a person, and you have not shown me why personhood starts at birth instead of earlier (note, I did not say conception - I'm nipping the potential strawman in the bud there). I think the fetus should have the choice, as far as it is possible, to grow up and decide whether it wants to live or die.

I don't see the problem with this. The woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, as you seem to be saying. And the fetus has a right to survive. So, we take the fetus out of the woman's body, and we'll let it survive on its own. It might die, but at least we gave it a chance, right?

That's pretty much my position, although medically we should do as much as is practical to help it survive afterward.

If you do it at one month, why even fucking bother - nothing you do medically is going to make it survive. If you do it at 8 months, it can probably survive on its own with little to no medical help.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Except the fetus is not part of the woman's body. Certainly not at the point where it is able to survive on its own. Frankly, saying that life spontaneously begins at the moment the baby leaves the vagina is about as scientific as saying that it magically begins at the moment of conception.

I am not saying that life begins at that point. Independent life, however, does. Until the foetus is separated from the woman's body, it is infringing on her right to bodily integrity. As long as she consents for this, she can allow it to do so. But her consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Of course, the woman still have to carry it to a point, and even then still has to go through with delivering it, which is a painful and dangerous proposition. I can certainly understand the moral qualms with doing so. However, unless you believe that a baby suddenly comes to life at the instant it leaves the woman's body (and can provided scientific evidence of this), then you are faced with an apparent dilemma: does preserving one person's bodily integrity outweigh preserving another person's life?

An apparent dilemma, perhaps, but not a tricky one. I simply belief that no person's right to life ever outweighs another person's right to bodily integrity. Rejecting this principle leads to a few problems, such as you being justifiably compelled to donate a kidney to a person who needs one to survive. After all, their right to life (having a kidney donated) outweighs your right to bodily integrity (keeping your own kidneys).

Actually, on thinking about it, I might take up arguing that the right to life doesn't exist. Most of the things it's invoked to defend should be defensible on the basis of a right to bodily integrity, and that should also deal with the conflicts between them. However, I'd need to think about this a bit more.

Note, since I fully expect to be strawmanned for this position, let me state up front that I do not believe that life begins at conception, my motives are not religious in nature, and I do not believe that women should not, when at all possible, have control over their bodies. I simply have yet to see anyone explain in a satisfactory way how a baby suddenly becomes a person the moment it is born. It seems to me that it is a person before hand, albeit one dependent on another individual. The point at which it becomes a person is not conception, nor very shortly thereafter, but somewhere in between. The difficulty is in determining when that point has been reached, and then excepting that you must infringe on one person's rights to preserve another's.

I think the important distinction is when a foetus becomes an independent moral agent, not when it becomes 'alive' or 'a person', both of which are rather fuzzy concepts (consider someone like BC, who argues that personhood can be revoked). And the most important part of that is, in this case, the word 'independent'. Until birth, the foetus is directly dependent on the mother. After birth, it is not. Thus birth seems to be the obvious line to draw here.

So you don't care about what's right, what makes sense, or what's based in facts, you just treat everything as black and white to avoid any complex decisions or using your judgement?

I am sorry, but that is an opinion and a justification that I cannot possibly respect, especially in an issue involving fundamental rights.

You misunderstand. Where possible, I adopt the most consistent forms of my positions, aiming for a minimum of exceptions. A great amount of thought goes into that beforehand, and into it when I seek to defend them later (like now).

While I hate even the semblance of a 'slippery slope' argument, I believe that this is especially valuable in the case of rights. If I defend rights with a minimum of exceptions (ideally with no exceptions), I avoid endless wrangling over how far exceptions can reach, or where fuzzy and subjective lines must be drawn. I instead defend a right in its cleanest, purest, most general form, which will incidentally lead to the position I want to defend being defended.

If you feel I've misrepresented your position somewhere, do feel free to point out where.

[Dyakovo]

Your post slightly rearranged, to make some things clearer.

Except there are two bodies at stake. You have the body of the mother, and then the body of the fetus. They are two separate entities. What happens, due to biology, is that the body of the fetus is dependent on the body of the mother for a significant period of time. The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

No they aren't. The foetus is not a moral agent -- it has no rights here. Alternately, until birth, the fetus does not have an independent body, so the mother's right to control her own body extends to that of the foetus. Irregardless, no right to life can include the right to demand the body of another for life support. This, however, is exactly what preventing abortion is equivalent to.

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

Bolded the ket part.

Also, saying that I think they should be forced to carry the child is a ridiculous strawman. If you had even read any of my posts, you would know that. Shame on you for even suggesting that.

True

I kind of figured. However, if you're going to argue that the right to kill someone dependent upon you is absolute, then you might as well extend it to children up to 18yrs - 1 day.

Fallacy. You have the absolute right to bodily integrity, which means this choice ends at exactly the point that the foetus is no longer a part of your body -- birth. After that, you no longer have rights, you have responsibilities.

And I feel the fetus has a right to bodily integrity. Therefore, when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, with its own body, abortion should not be allowed - only premature birth. That gets the fetus out of the mother and ends the mother's role in the reproductive process, which is clearly her wish. It also allows the fetus to live as a human being, which it has the right to.

And potentially be just another kid "rotting" away in an orphanage...
I see your point about if it can survive on its own it should be given the opportunity, just not sure I agree with you.

[Galloism]

Bolded the ket part.

Which brings me back to the key question I have asked 4 or 5 times already - why there?

And potentially be just another kid "rotting" away in an orphanage...
I see your point about if it can survive on its own it should be given the opportunity, just not sure I agree with you.

I can see that, really. But I still haven't seen any reason why "birth" should be the drawing line. I agreed with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade - where it said that at the point of the age of viability, the state has a compelling interest to protect the developing human life. Now, that age of viability has moved since the court made that stance, and will probably continue to move further, but I agree with the court's original assessment.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

Also, saying that I think they should be forced to carry the child is a ridiculous strawman. If you had even read any of my posts, you would know that. Shame on you for even suggesting that.

My apologies.

I haven't been arguing about personhood. I feel you have slightly mistaken my position -- I have been claiming the line should be drawn when birth occurs, because at that point the two separate. Until then, both are living on the mother's body, and so the mother's consent is required.

(Having said that, I consider late term abortion a great tragedy. Don't make the mistake of assuming that arguing something should be permitted means I consider it good.)

This is the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I've been saying that having labor induced early is fine, and morally accepted throughout this entire thread.

However, you also said this.

The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

Hence I would argue that inducing labour in some way is the mother "doing what she wishes with the fetus' body". After all, inducing labour affects both the mother and the foetus.

This was one giant ass strawman and I won't even respond to it. I don't think any woman should be forced to participate in the reproductive process any more than she wants to. I have said that, repeatedly.

My apologies. Just one comment, however. You do appear to be arguing, unless I have completely misunderstood your position, that after a certain point the mother should no longer be able to have an abortion, only to induce pregnancy. To pick up the analogy with sex again, I would consider that equivalent to saying that after a certain point, the woman should no longer be able to demand an absolute end to the process, without bringing the man to climax first.

In short, I contend that believing 'no woman should be forced to participate in the reproductive process any more than she wants to' necessarily implies believing that a woman should always be able to abort.

And I feel the fetus has a right to bodily integrity. Therefore, when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, with its own body, abortion should not be allowed - only premature birth. That gets the fetus out of the mother and ends the mother's role in the reproductive process, which is clearly her wish. It also allows the fetus to live as a human being, which it has the right to.

(let's not use that term "absolute rights", or we'll attract an objectivist, and neither of us want that)

See previous comment.

Then I restate mine - is it ok to kill a 2 month old child if you can't financially support it?

Of course not -- once born, the situation is quite different. I have been arguing since the beginning that the question of rights is only meaningful about independent beings. Once the child is born, it too has a right to bodily integrity, which extends to the fact that killing it is not justified.

[Dyakovo]

Bolded the ket part.

Which brings me back to the key question I have asked 4 or 5 times already - why there?

Because before that point the fetus is essentially a parasite.

And potentially be just another kid "rotting" away in an orphanage...
I see your point about if it can survive on its own it should be given the opportunity, just not sure I agree with you.

I can see that, really. But I still haven't seen any reason why "birth" should be the drawing line. I agreed with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade - where it said that at the point of the age of viability, the state has a compelling interest to protect the developing human life. Now, that age of viability has moved since the court made that stance, and will probably continue to move further, but I agree with the court's original assessment.

See my answer above. And no, I really don't have a better answer. I wish I did, one way or the other. I am firmly pro-choice, but I do not have a firm stance one where the line should be drawn.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

I was born premature, at 8 months. My nephew was 7 months when he was born.

I want to think that despite that, we were both considered people. Small people, but people nonetheless.

[Dyakovo]

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

I was born premature, at 8 months. My nephew was 7 months when he was born.

I want to think that despite that, we were both considered people. Small people, but people nonetheless.

Nah, you're not a person, you're a Nanatsu...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Babies are not moral agents either. Drawing the line at birth is ridiculous.

However, the fetus can survive on its own at 8 months, right? Women naturally give birth at 8 months sometimes (rare, but it happens). Why is the baby that was born at 8 months more of a person than the one that wasn't born yet but is 8 months along?

I was born premature, at 8 months. My nephew was 7 months when he was born.

I want to think that despite that, we were both considered people. Small people, but people nonetheless.

Nah, you're not a person, you're a Nanatsu...

Does that makes me special?

[Dyakovo]

I was born premature, at 8 months. My nephew was 7 months when he was born.

I want to think that despite that, we were both considered people. Small people, but people nonetheless.

Nah, you're not a person, you're a Nanatsu...

Does that makes me special?

Of course!

[Galloism]

I haven't been arguing about personhood. I feel you have slightly mistaken my position -- I have been claiming the line should be drawn when birth occurs, because at that point the two separate. Until then, both are living on the mother's body, and so the mother's consent is required.

(Having said that, I consider late term abortion a great tragedy. Don't make the mistake of assuming that arguing something should be permitted means I consider it good.)

I understand you're arguing for argument's sake. However, I again subscribe to the Roe v. Wade doctrine, that at the age of viability, the state has a compelling interest to protect the life of the fetus. I do, however, believe that the mother should be able to have the child removed at any time. If it fails to survive, as the saying goes, "them's the breaks."

This is the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I've been saying that having labor induced early is fine, and morally accepted throughout this entire thread.

However, you also said this.

The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

Hence I would argue that inducing labour in some way is the mother "doing what she wishes with the fetus' body". After all, inducing labour affects both the mother and the foetus.

True, but it's an acceptable tradeoff. After all, we're just moving the fetus out of the mother's body. It is true that it affects the fetus - in the same way that walking into a cold room (or a hot one) affects a child - by changing its environment. However, the right to life is still preserved (probably). As a person grows up, more and more of their rights are recognized by the state. However, the right to life is one of the earliest in our laws.

As a side note, how is a late term abortion such as that performed? I don't really know, but I would think it would be basically a C-section. I could be completely wrong, though.

My apologies. Just one comment, however. You do appear to be arguing, unless I have completely misunderstood your position, that after a certain point the mother should no longer be able to have an abortion, only to induce pregnancy birth. To pick up the analogy with sex again, I would consider that equivalent to saying that after a certain point, the woman should no longer be able to demand an absolute end to the process, without bringing the man to climax first.

In short, I contend that believing 'no woman should be forced to participate in the reproductive process any more than she wants to' necessarily implies believing that a woman should always be able to abort.

I fixed that to what I think you *meant* to say, because otherwise it makes no sense. A woman should have the right to do whatever it is with her body, but I don't consider a fetus (especially an 8 month old fetus) to be a part of her body anymore. It's subsisting from her body. It's drawing nutrients from her body. It's being carrying around by her body. However, it isn't her body. It's the fetus' body.

Therefore, the fetus can be removed at any time is my position. However, its life should be preserved if its capable of living, because it can. As soon as the doctor takes that child out of the woman's body in one of these late term "abortions", they should attempt to save its life. That's my position.

Then I restate mine - is it ok to kill a 2 month old child if you can't financially support it?

Of course not -- once born, the situation is quite different. I have been arguing since the beginning that the question of rights is only meaningful about independent beings. Once the child is born, it too has a right to bodily integrity, which extends to the fact that killing it is not justified.

Why then, when the fetus is already capable of surviving on its own (relatively speaking, still needs to be cared for, fed, diaper changed, etc just like any baby)?

[Galloism]

Bolded the ket part.

Which brings me back to the key question I have asked 4 or 5 times already - why there?

Because before that point the fetus is essentially a parasite.

Acts like a parasite. It doesn't meet the definition of a parasite, but you might say they're similar in ways. However, it doesn't have to be. If removed, it functions on its own, and what right is it of ours to kill it?

And potentially be just another kid "rotting" away in an orphanage...
I see your point about if it can survive on its own it should be given the opportunity, just not sure I agree with you.

I can see that, really. But I still haven't seen any reason why "birth" should be the drawing line. I agreed with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade - where it said that at the point of the age of viability, the state has a compelling interest to protect the developing human life. Now, that age of viability has moved since the court made that stance, and will probably continue to move further, but I agree with the court's original assessment.

See my answer above. And no, I really don't have a better answer. I wish I did, one way or the other. I am firmly pro-choice, but I do not have a firm stance one where the line should be drawn.

Mine has moved around on occasion as well. When I first came here, I was firmly against abortion. Muravyets set me straight, and I moved to birth, then a few threads later I got set straight again, and I settled on "age of viability."