Of course you are and you have just done it again by attempting to attach the word viable to a pregnancy. All pregnancies are viable until something happens, either natural or deliberate that causes it to end. Taking a pill that creates a hostile environment for the embryo is deliberate and as such, is an abortion.
Again, I'm not playing "word games". Is it your contention that a fertilized egg can grow into a human being without being attached to the womans body? A simple yes or no will suffice for this point, and then we can continue on from there.
If that happens as a matter of natural course, it is a miscarriage. If it happens due to a deliberate assault via drugs that create a hostile uterine environment, then it is an abortion.
Again, until the egg is attached to the utereus, it cannot survive, and in the case of rape where the victim is immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, there simply isn't enough time for this to happen, ergo your point is still moot.
Sorry, not analogous unless you are saying that you first germinated the seed in a receptive environment and then laid it on the sidewalk, in which case, you have deliberately brought about the death of the immature plant.
Not so. In my primary business (construction), I've seen where plants have tried to grow on roofs, but lacking sufficient nutrition they have withered and died. There was no intentional germination of the seed from which they began growing, they were deposited there by the wind, birds, whatever.
Deliberately creating a hostile environment in which nourishment is denied, is abortion.
Your point was that pregnancy occurs at the moment of fertilization, but unless the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, whether or not a hostile environment was artificially introduced, it cannot grow.
I have no hostility to put into check. Do you perceve facts that run contrary to your beliefs hostile?
Your "fact" about pregnancy happening at the moment of fertilization is simply flawed, and has nothing to do with belief. I was simply pointing out that your 'tone' seemed to be getting a bit 'harsh' given that we are far more in agreement than not.
In this, we are not on the same side. You are advocating abortion. You are advocating that we suspend the right of one individual to live in favor of easing the emotional distress of another. You are in law enforcement, how often do you see judges sentence one indvidual to death to preserve the theoretical emotional health of another?
Then on this one small aspect of the subject we will have to agree to disagree, but I will not stand accused of "supporting abortion" simply because you cling to the belief that a victim should be further victimized. You also neglect to account for the fact that we're not talking about "theoretical emotional health", but I suspect that you've never known too many rape victims. What we're talking about here is very real emotional and physical harm, that in most cases lasts for the rest of their lives.
I didn't "just" claim that it is flawed. I provided reference to the most signifigant, and important medical dictionaries in use in the world today. Would you like more as there are others that say the same thing. I expect no one to accept anything based on nothing more than my "claim".
Your use of the medical definitions failed to account for the fact that until the egg is attached and receiving nourishment, it cannot grow beyond the point that it's own internal nourishment lasts. Once that internal nourishment is exhausted, and without replentishment it dies. Your definitions operate under the assumption that the egg will become attached to the utereus, and will then begin receiving nourishment from the mother, and that assumption is the flaw in your position.
I advocate death for violent rapists. I advocate very long prison terms without parole for non violent rapists. I advocate punishment for the guilty. The child, however, is not guilty and therefore I do not advocate killing it for the crime of its father.
The "child" as you call it, again assumes that the egg has become attached and is growing. As I said earlier, if you want to discuss that aspect I'll be more than happy to oblige, but for the moment we are discussing rape victims who are immediately taken to the hospital, and who receive proper medical care, which precludes a "child" from being.
Then you are the victim of an emotional response rather than an intellectual examination of your position. Perhaps that is why you are resisting the facts to the degree that you are. You strike me as one who deals in a world of facts but in this case, you reject them in favor of your emotional attachment to the issue. You suspend your knowledge that an unborn child has a right to live in this one instance because you feel for the woman. You disregard the child's life and the fact that the right to live outweighs a theoretical right to have emotional wrongs erased in favor of a position that makes you "feel" good. Is that a rational position to hold?
It is not emotion pale, it is fact, reason, and the law. What you have done is to confuse my position of
immediate care of a rape victim with that of someone who has become pregnant (the egg is attached to the utereus and receiving nourishment from the mother), and THEN seeks to have the pregnancy terminted, and those my friend are two entirely different subjects.
This is one of the reasons that highly complex issues must be handled very carefully, because it is so easy to become distracted and go off in all kinds of directions that may, or may not have anything to do with the primary investigation of the issue. It's one of the things you learn very early on as a Police Officer; don't become disctracted, simply follow the leads to their conclusion before going off in another direction.
