Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Definately, but mistakes can be made at that point, is what I'm saying. Let's say that they've got it right and that they've identified the point at which something is/isn't a human (can't be proved, so let's make it a hypothetical). Baby A might be underdeveloped, while baby B is not. You terminate the two pregnancies and you've killed a human in one case and not killed a human in the other by your own definition. So you've got two points working against you in this scenario: Where's the dividing line, and how do we make it accurate? When you're playing with lives, these things need to be 100% proven imo (hence my opposition to the death penalty).Kwayera said:But that's a stupid point to backtrack to. There's a general consensus in the medical community at which point abortion is no longer acceptable, and I like to think they're more qualified than you to make that distinction - as YOU know full well.
I'm pretty sure that any sane one child policy would allow for accidents, lol.So what happens when a couple with a child conceives again, even accidentally (tubal ligation isn't infallible, and neither is a vasectomy)? Have an abortion, which is morallly abhorrent to you, or give the child up for adoption, which adds to the very problem that a "one child policy" is supposed to control?