And I’d say his defense isn’t the defense he thinks it is. So now what?

Let’s say we could remove a fetus at conception and bring it to term, and it would be able to develop happily and healthily? Are abortions still okay? If so, being able to survive outside the host isn’t changing your stance, just your reasons. If not, then where does the obligation end? Who’s raising this child? Most abortions aren’t removed because the mother feels like she has a parasite, so what are we doing about those reasons? And why do you think those reasons only start once the fetus is viable?

Oh look, a stranger on the internet thinks he knows me!

I’ve been posing here for close to 2 years. Feel free to find one comment where I’ve said someone should not have access to abortions under any circumstances. I think having an abortion is a terrible choice, and the vast majority of people who choose to do so are putting in more thought and emotion than they do in choosing what to wear that day, and contraceptives are a better option if it is an option, but the person having an abortion and their care provider know far more about their circumstances than I do, and they’re in a far better position to make that choice than I am, and I’d rather they be able to have one in a proper facility than some sketchy place or means hidden from the authorities.

And just about none of us can survive alone. Even those who can were trained by others, all the way back to the start. If your threshold is needing someone else to help, where do you draw the line? Conception? 13 weeks? 27 weeks? Birth? Physical disability? Intellectual disability? Anencaphaly? Old age? When do people stop or start being people? What’s your cutoff line? Why?

If you’d gone with, say, the person no longer being obligated to care for the fetus, I would have kept scrolling. Perhaps you were implying that with your magical cutoff, but that cutoff changes all the time. This article puts the survival rate at 26 weeks at 89%, and the term extreme preterm refers to those born at less than 28 weeks. So why not 26 weeks? Why not 28?

My conclusion on your stance, with as much support as you had for your conclusion about mine, is that you picked a point that you feel comfortable with, where the easy answer lies. “Oh, this is when it could survive outside the mother, so she has options other than abortion at that point, so that’s where I’ll stop allowing it. I certainly won’t look at consciousness because then I might have to say it’s okay to kill people for the sake of convenience.” This smacks of the idea that hospitals will allow morphine administration to the point of relieving pain in terminal patients. Sure that might be higher than a fatal overdose in a healthy patient, but we didn’t assist in their death, we just helped with the pain. For the record, I’m perfectly fine with that if the patient wants it, I just don’t need to lie to myself and say the morphine isn’t making them die sooner than they would without it.

Edit: I swear I saw you say 27 weeks. The point still stands.

That’s suicide, which is illegal! Bake 'em away, toys!

Welcome to the undead legion, friend.

You’re no longer alive, legally and morally speaking.

and the actual designers are pro-choice but don’t have a choice.

They always have a choice. It’s not always easy.

I used to work in an advertising agency and I can attest to the fact that the people who work in that industry are not exactly intellectual titans.

Yeah, cause what else would they be advertising? Fingerprinting services for fetuses?

If it made more sense, it would suggest that the creator had enough sense to not be a pro-life fundamentalist