This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is.
Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person’s body be legally required to do so?
That’s stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive.
God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame.
even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE’s resources, right?
a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb?
A non-viable fetus is not equivalent to a baby.
define “non viable”
Nonviable:
”a nonviable fetus.”
“a nonviable idea.”
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition
Thanks for the definition
I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live
All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother’s bodily resources.
This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is.
Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person’s body be legally required to do so?
So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp
You can’t even force dead bodies to donate organs.
all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources
even the ones that are born
That’s stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive.
God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame.
even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE’s resources, right?
a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb?
I wish you had dribbled down your mother’s thigh
You’re so boring
Non viable: adjective: