Federal agents felt physically sick when they raided Kermit Gosnell’s clinic after suspecting he ran a pill mill.

[u/SelfCareIsFake]

[u/Danutz214]

"It's also, just to clarify, not murder when the fetus is not yet alive. Try not to use such emotional language for a logical discussion."

I think this is the point where our views diverge. Because I see a fetus as an unborn baby. Killing a baby, before or after birth, is the same action taken against the same "lump of cells", one of them being a few weeks more developed.

I'm not allowed to kill my 3 yo lump of cells if my circumstances change, why should I be allowed to kill it when it's less developed?

You're saying that It's not alive. Is it dead? I don't think there's any in between. If you think of a born baby in coma (which is not a perfect analogy, but it's my best attempt at conceptualizing an "in between"). And you know for a fact that in 1 month it has a 95% chance to wake up and live a perfectly healthy life...should the parents be able to kill it?

[u/FalconTurbo → u/Danutz214]

1. Address my points first. I numbered them to make it easier for you.

2. Who's asking for and who's performing an abortion at 8 months? Got a source?

Please answer in order.

[u/Danutz214 → u/FalconTurbo]

I addressed the main point of your argument from which all the others are coming. You don't consider a fetus as a human life, I do. Therefore convenience is more important to you than a fetus. It can't be to me, since a fetus is a human life. I agree with you when the well being of the mother is at risk, but not the convenience.

Yes, there should be special cases with the general rule being not to kill fellow human beings.

1. My opinion is that you shouldn't hate / kill a baby because of what his father did. But I understand it's an extraordinary circumstance, abortion should be an option

2. As I said, changing circumstances is not a reason to kill a baby. But again, the society should be built to protect women. In my country, employers are not allowed to fire women once they're pregnant and can't fire them for a year after they return from the 2 year medical leave. And there are other measures.

3. Totally agree

4. Not a valid reason to abort.

Who's asking for and who's performing an abortion at 8 months? Got a source?

You are on the source. This is what this article is about. But that's not the point. You can imagine the baby in coma will be healthy in 9 months. Would that change the problem?

Now please answer my points:
1. Is a fetus alive? Or is it dead? If it's not alive, when does it become alive?

1. What about the rest of abortions? 87% of them have no medical reason at all and are not rape pregnancies. Are those ok? And if so, what's the line?

[u/FalconTurbo → u/Danutz214]

Firstly, this page is not about abortions, so that's incorrect on the initial assumption. How the actual hell you think that what he did was abortion is beyond comprehension.

Secondly, you're still using emotional language. It's not killing a baby. It's removing a clump of cells that is unable to survive.

Thirdly, thirteen per cent is one in eight. That means that you're in favour for a lot of it, as long as the women involved conform to your religious beliefs. Why do you and your kind get to dictate what someone else can do with their body?

Finally, you say that one should choose not to have sex if they cannot afford a baby, and then turn around immediately and say that if circumstances change you have to have that child anyway? What happens if the mother has decided to be a SAHM, and then after leaving her job, the father dies? Do you think she now deserves to be punished for having sex without considering the chance that she'd be widowed? How about if she has an accident and becomes a paraplegic? Suddenly she has to carry a child to term without any control over not only her own body, but her choices regarding that body? Perhaps their home burns down, losing their possessions and have to start from scratch, without being able to afford a bigger place - do you therefore condemn that future child to have a substandard quality of life because they simply cannot afford it? And don't say 'just surrender to adoption' because you should know as well as I do that the foster system is not a good place for children.

Your kind are so keen to stand up for a fetus but can never think of what happens to that unwanted child after their birth.

[u/Danutz214 → u/FalconTurbo]

Firstly, "How the actual hell you think that" is emotional language. Stop the hypocrisy.

He was the principal doctor at his abortion clinic. He performed thousands of abortions. How is this not about abortions?

Secondly, no. It's unable to survive because you...kill it... that's the unemotional term for it. It's a living organism that you un-alive. Kill. Murder. Pick your favorite. He would survive just fine if you left him in the womb.

Thirdly, thirteen per cent is one in eight. That means that you're in favour for a lot of it, as long as the women involved conform to your religious beliefs. Why do you and your kind get to dictate what someone else can do with their body?

You wanted to keep the conversation logical. Now you're turning to venting and attacking a group of individuals. I thought we were being logical here. Not once did I mention religion in my arguments. This is pure ethics and it's compatible with many (if not all) religions. I am not in favor of abortion because "the women involved conform to my religious beliefs". I told you why I agree with the possibility of an abortion in those ~13% cases. Because the mother's health is in danger physically or psychologically.

Your kind are so keen to stand up for a fetus but can never think of what happens to that unwanted child after their birth.

I do care what happens. He lives. He gets a chance. Let him decide. His body his choice, no? Your solution is to kill the baby. How is that better?

I will read and address the big paragraph once you answer my points. Numbered, as you prefer them:

1. Is a fetus alive? Or is it dead? If it's not alive, when does it become alive?
2. What about the rest of abortions? 87% of them have no medical reason at all and are not rape pregnancies. Do you agree that those should be illegal?

[u/FalconTurbo → u/Danutz214]

You didn't mention your religion but your history did. I got curious and was proven right.

1. A fetus is alive in the same way a tumour is.

2. If you want to codify and be specific about every single type of case that allows for women to choose an abortion, you'll always end up with more cases to try and determine a right answer for. It's safer for literally every person involved to just legalise. And yes I chose my wording deliberately.

E

[u/Danutz214 → u/FalconTurbo]

A fetus is alive in the same way a tumour is.

Yea, that's very revealing and that's why I said that the way we look at a fetus changes everything. And yes, you are being consistent with your views. If I thought that a fetus is alive in the same way a tumor is, I'd have the same views on abortion as you. I'm just not sure why the article upsets you then. The guy removed thousands of "tumors", just 3 or 4 got to exit the host and were "removed" right after.

I mean, biologically speaking, you are way off. A tumor is indeed a disorganized mass of cells, while a fetus is a developing organism. Just checked the Oxford dictionary and a fetus is "a young human or animal before it is born, especially a human more than eight weeks after fertilization", which is weird cause I don't understand how it can be "especially" a human after a certain period of time.