Can you kill someone if their life causes you inconvenience and their survival is predicated on your inconvenience?
It depends on the situation. Me and a guy in a lifeboat are adrift in the ocean. There is not a lot of water. I beat him to death with an oar, eat the meaty parts, and feed the rest to the sharks. Maybe make a parasol out of his skin to protect me from the sun. Yes, I may do that and it is legally supported.
Again I think in all of your brilliance you can deal with the fact that people use cant in place of ought frequently.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
I am sorry but I consider a human a human when brain is hooked to nervous system, when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival.
So, now you are changing your criteria? Revision is a fine and admirable in light of new, better data. But I just want to be clear that is what you are doing. Sentience is out and hardware is in? Is that what you are saying? And it does not matter how functional the brain or nervous system are?
What qualifies as a brain? As I pointed out, at birth a baby's brain is only 1/4 developed. So what qualifies as a brain? 10% of adult median? 5%? Any ol' lump of neural cells?
Are you really this dense.
No, you were sufficiently vague in the phrasing of your question that I had no idea what you were asking. It was a genuine question.
You seem to have no moral boundaries.
I have lots of moral boundaries.
Do you believe that an argument could be made to kill people post vagina to early 20’s? If so can you please detail the argument?
Sure, I believe an argument can be made. That does not me I find it to be a acceptable
or persuasive argument. I am not going to post it here because it would be off topic.
You seem to be missing the points being brought up against your positions or, rather than address them, attempt to counter less important topics.
Ok we have established you don’t like my opinion and since we are being personal here. I find you to be rude and belligerent.
No, that's not it. Not at all. You've missed the point (again). My point is not that your opinion is stupid. My point is your opinion is all you have posted. "I think blah blah blah" is boring, common and rather self centered. Your posts end up looking like "I, I, I. Me, me, me". On the other hand, "I think blah blah blah because of XYZ
..." is what I am looking for. It engages others. It shows effort. You've not done that and that was what I was pointing out.
I've put forth the effort. And rather than thinking about what I've said, you've focused on emotions, your own and what you perceive mine to be. So not only do I think you are being lazy with regards to your own posting, you are being lazy with regards to mine as well. I do not think that is very respectful.
I would think that some balance between the safety of abortion might be achieved by doing a c-section a week or 3 early and the life of the child who is able to survive outside the mother???
1. I don't see how that addresses the whole stack of ideas I brought up above this quote.For example, you've not addressed whose uterus it is and this reply does not inform.
2. Could you please rephrase that, because I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate? The same with the rest of the post
Look, I don't mind discussing this with you. But you are going to have to put in more effort. That includes spell check and proof reading along with better arguments. I am not going to keep putting in the effort and getting just uninformed opinion in return.