>

That’s for the court to decide beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then again, I’m not talking about legal implementation, only moral imperative.
/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does "if the fetus was a fully fledged person" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as "fully fledged"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even "fully fledged people"?
I guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define "fully fledged person" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything. >

hmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say "fully-fledged" should mean "equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth"

But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section

but since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. 
This is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb. >

I think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood? >

imo, yes.
and they kind of already do, since you'd be charged with manslaughter if they die. >

You’d be charged with manslaughter because hitting someone with your car is illegal. Not because you declined to give them your blood. >

right, and you'd be charged with manslaughter in the abortion case because forcing someone into existence without their consent and then starving them should be illegal. >

What you’re talking about making illegal is sex. You can’t “force someone into existence.” You can have sex, but sex only has a chance of conception. A chance that, I might add, is impossible to eliminate no matter how hard you try. 
Do you actually think sex should be illegal? >

no.
drunk driving is illegal, but driving is legal.
similarly, if you have sex without contraception, you should not be able to get an abortion. but if you have sex with contraception, you're golden. >

How would you go about determining who did or didn't use contraception before allowing them to get an abortion?