Detailed market commentary at The Market Ticker and Ticker Classics
(The Year 2012 In Review)
Donations accepted; we offer GOLD ACCESS for enhanced privileges. T-Shirts, caps, coffee mugs? Click here.
BlogTalkRadio - Mondays at 3:30 Central - Yes, TickerGuy has a radio show (kinda)
RSS available You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|MarketTicker Forums Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||abortion; entered at 2011-07-13 13:44:32|
Registered: 2007-06-26 Philly P.a.
Fair enough, but I find that arbitrary and subjective, therefore open to gross manipulation.No it's not. You poll a large group of OBGYNs and ask what is the youngest age, in your opinion, that a baby survive outside it's mother and be reasonably expected to not only survive but live a normal, healthy life. You average all the answers and there's your age. Not arbitrary or subjective in any way.
If the people put it to a vote and determined that "when it can survive on its own" should be applied to any person of any age in need of critical care/feeding assistance, etc, what would be your defense?
Completely irrelevant to the discussion and I agree with Starvingartist its a strawman argument. Babies still need care and feeding, that's not in question. Take them out too soon and they simply lack the ability to stay alive with any amount of medical intervention.
Additionally to prove their not the same - the baby didn't have any say in its creation which would necessitate care and feeding. We all are going to age and die and it's likely near the end we may need assistance. If we fail to plan for our own mortality how is that anyone else's responsibility?