The pics thread

EAiKKGxXkAAqM4R.jpg
The blatantly wrong thing in this image is where it says "entirely separate". It's attached and dependent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and jimmy101
Killing a 22 week old premature infant = infanticide
Aborting a fetus at 22 weeks = CHOICE

Over 98% of abortions occur before the fetus has any remote chance of surviving outside the womb. Even after that, the fetus has no right to a host body. It is not infanticide to simply evict it from the womb, and if it jeopardizes the health of the mother, then by all means, yeetus that fetus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bloopy
Over 98% of abortions occur before the fetus has any remote chance of surviving outside the womb.

This is irrelevant to my comment you quoted, but nice duck and weave.

Even after that, the fetus has no right to a host body.

Bizarre language.

It is not infanticide to simply evict it from the womb

But it is infanticide to kill it once it has been born, regardless of how premature. My original comment you weaved points out the basically nonsensical distinction between a fetus and an infant. A fetus born 4 months premature is an infant and killing it would be infanticide, but if you kill it 5 months into gestation it's simply called a "choice" by leftist cucklets like yourself.

if it jeopardizes the health of the mother, then by all means, yeetus that fetus.

Agreed.
 
I don't mind the Cap'n either but if someone gives me one of those bottles with the polar bear on it and I'll throw it at them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimmy101
This is irrelevant to my comment you quoted, but nice duck and weave.

It's not irrelevant when the topic is abortion in general, and not whether it should be allowed after a certain point. That small percentage of abortions that happen when the fetus has a chance of surviving if born prematurely cannot be used to justify opposing abortion for the other 98% of cases.

But it is infanticide to kill it once it has been born, regardless of how premature. My original comment you weaved points out the basically nonsensical distinction between a fetus and an infant. A fetus born 4 months premature is an infant and killing it would be infanticide, but if you kill it 5 months into gestation it's simply called a "choice" by leftist cucklets like yourself.

An infant born that premature only a has small chance of survival through aggressive intervention, which was totally outside the realm of possibility until recently, which means that line between viable and non-viable has shifted and is not set in stone. Hypothetically speaking, a doctor is not obligated to provide their body as a host to ensure the survival of a premature infant, so neither does the mother have an obligation to carry a baby to term. What a mother cannot do is take steps to ensure that the baby doesn't survive outside the womb; that would be infanticide.
 
It's not irrelevant when the topic is abortion in general, and not whether it should be allowed after a certain point. That small percentage of abortions that happen when the fetus has a chance of surviving if born prematurely cannot be used to justify opposing abortion for the other 98% of cases.
*What a mother cannot do is take steps to ensure that the baby doesn't survive outside the womb; that would be infanticide.

It is irrelevant because my point was to call into question the flimsiness of the definition of an infant, which you were passive-aggressively referencing with your comment about not seeing Blurry support infanticide anywhere.

*A mother can abort her 22 week old fetus, but if she slams it against the wall a second after it is born at 22 weeks she will be charged with infanticide.

An infant born that premature only a has small chance of survival through aggressive intervention, which was totally outside the realm of possibility until recently, which means that line between viable and non-viable has shifted and is not set in stone.

No shit, my position is scientific. This is also why I'm not an activist on the subject because I have always believed that as science progressives, so too does viability and thus the pro-abortion position has a limited shelf-life. It's an issue that will eventually sort itself out, once the regressives catch up.

Hypothetically speaking, a doctor is not obligated to provide their body as a host to ensure the survival of a premature infant, so neither does the mother have an obligation to carry a baby to term.

Do you mean a legal obligation? Because that's a nonsensical argument, of course that's true because abortion is legal. Any other kind of obligation is entirely subjective based on the worldview of the person making the claim.

Not sure what you mean with the doctor example, do you mean a doctor isn't obligated to do all they can medically to save a premature infant's life after it's born/removed? Pretty sure that's wrong on a few levels, like legally and the Hippocratic Oath.

Anyway I think we can meet in the middle and agree that any of the legion of bus stop crackwhores Blurry impregnates should be given full access to abortion services. Last thing we need is more of his DNA out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimmy101
Anyway I think we can meet in the middle and agree that any of the legion of bus stop crackwhores Blurry impregnates should be given full access to abortion services. Last thing we need is more of his DNA out there.

That's for damn sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG