From earlier today

Yeah, confront them with science, good one. The people behind this massive back swing either don't know jack shit about women's reproductive organs and what's happening there (it's not in the bible, so nobody needs to know it), or they choose to ignore it to serve their agenda.

So what do you think is the agreed upon definition of a kid?

Oh, well, dictionary says that a kid is a child aka a young person and honestly I wouldn't title anything as a person that doesn't have a brain, so can't even think of it's own, neither being able to feel pain at all (which is said to only start at around 27 weeks).
The word personality isn't based on "person" for nothing. If you don't have a brain, you don't feel pain, you're not capable of emotions let alone thoughts, then you don't have a personality, which concludes that you're not a person.

If by "agreed upon" you mean consensus among scientists/medical professionals, up until the 11/12th week it's an embryo, and when the development of all inner organs is set (13th to 15th week), they're called a fetus. That's why in civilized countries abortions are legal up until the 12th week of pregnancy. "Kid" is too vague an expression to define it. Something like individual traits can only be found well after the third month of pregnancy, so the 3 months rule is well within a margin of variety.
If instead of that you refer to what "people" think, there's people who base their assumptions on science, and there's those who don't. Debating the latter is just a waste of time in my opinion. I mean,, we're in 20fucking19, I just don't speak pilgrimfatherish.

It’s kind of moot anyway what we want to define as “a kid” regardless. Do we pass laws saying that a person MUST keep a relative alive on assisted living, just because there is a heart beat? Or that so long as a heart can beat naturally, a person or hospital must pay to keep a person alive regardless of their brain function or ability to live unassisted? If the issue is the right to life and defending those who ant speak for themselves- surely one would include “vegetative” or “comatose” adults in the same lot? So if you don’t sell your gone and max out your loans to keep your brain dead relative alive you go to jail for murder right? That’s pretty “pro life” isn’t it?

So people want to get all technical about when a fetus is or isn’t “alive,” but that same logic would need to apply universally to all life. We cant legislate on “potential” of what something MIGHT become any more than we can arrest a person because it’s likely they will become a criminal. That’s foolish.

That for explaining how vague his first comment was for me, guys.

The funny thing with people wanting to control women's uteruses is they care soo much about the unborn "persons", but the very second that child is born, they couldn't care less what's happening to that born person, So an honest answer to your question would be that they'd drop the born baby like a hot potato.

My father never dropped me. The one time someone tried to take me from him bystanders had to stop him from beating the son of a bitch to death.

It's a thought experiment. There's no drop neither. That's what this experiment is all about. It's a moral dilemma.
It's like the dilemma of an abducted plane steering towards a big group (thousands) of people. Your only choices are shooting the plane, killing the 150 passengers, but saving thousands, or doing nothing and thus killing more than thousands. It's cowardly to not engage in thought provoking experiments like this. It's a hypothetical situation. Nothing more.

So the passengers of Flight 93 are cowards now? It's a non-scenario. As soon as the hostages have reason to believe the hostiles don't intend to spare anyone, they will fight.

Can you try to live in the real world for just a second and not in some fucking pathetic 1950 comic? Of course you can't and won't...

I am a Combat Medic. The only lives I will ever trade are the enemies' to preserve that of my people, my brothers, and the innocent, in that order.
I might've entertained this "moral dilemma" before I was trained, but now I see that in the real world there is never just one or two options.

Okay so you've never heard of a hypothetical, thought provoking moral dilemma before and are unwilling to participate in it simply because. I see.

You people mean no one can believe that it is a potential life people are aborting? I haven't reached a conclusion on the topic of abortion but I believe there are two valid sides to the conversation. If you just refuse to take other people's ideas into account, they will have to resort to stupid shit. However you talk about it, it is a child and it can grow to be a person. On the other hand, the mother is the one who is growing the child inside her body. Just don't be daft about it. If someone gave a pregnant woman a drug that abort her child, don't you want the responsible person to be tried in a court? Do you know what even the law says in that case?

You say just a bunch of cells, but if we find any of those cells on a moon of Jupiter, we will undoubtedly say we found life. But on earth, it isn't considered life? I don't know what the best option is but I am sure it is not saying to anti-abortion people you are stupid morons

We say the mother has the ultimate right to choose but suppose she has the child and refuses to give him/her any vaccination or milk? Is she allowed to make those choices too?

This issue is clearly related to who we are as humans. I don't know the answer but I think the answer must be a compromise or a tradeoff. I think these laws might be a way for reaching such a compromise. My idea is to allow abortion up to the point the pregnancy is half complete. Isn't that a good compromise and a sane one?

I'm not saying a bunch of cells aren't life. But even a mite or a blade of grass is life. Life is something entirely different to a person. Just saying.

I'm not playing the game because the game is bullshit.
I say the embryo? You say I'm a psychopath who shouldn't be trusted with children.
I say baby? You say I'm a hypocrite who doesn't have principles.
In all actuality? I do not have the resources or training to preserve an embryo that has been separated from it's life support system, be it the mother or something artificial, so I would focus my efforts on the baby I do have some idea of how to keep alive.
They gave us similar dilemmas in my training. Save the soldier with exposed and damaged brain tissue or the soldier with a sucking chest wound? The correct answer was to focus on the one you can help, but never to abandon any of your patients. You wanna know my opinions? I do not like any kind of abortion that is not a medical necessity or product of rape/incest, and I especially don't like people who believe it to be murder being forced to fund it while having their misgivings silenced.
Happy now?

" I do not have the resources or training to preserve an embryo that has been separated from it's life support system" - the point is: the only "resource" this lump of cells has is its default "life support system" - the womans body which the embryo (!) is a part of, like a cyst or her appendix.

So you'll have me pick between a baby and a pregnant woman? Now there's definitely no way in Hell I don't save both. I can rationalize prioritizing the baby over the embryo, because the embryo doesn't look human and I can't sustain it, but I'd never be able to live with myself sacrificing either a baby or an expectant mother.

"So you'll have me pick between a baby and a pregnant woman?" - No, and you know it. That's lame.

That's literally what you just said.

You're literally clueless about what "literally" means. I explained how there's no choice to be made,

"its default "life support system" - the womans body which the embryo (!) is a part".
Are you going to address my last relevant statement or are you, as usual, going to argue semantics?

When was your last relevant statement?

When I point out how loaded the hypothetical is and explain my rationale and view on the issue.

So nothing after that was relevant even from your POV?

It was you changing the parameters by pointing out the embryo only has it's mother (changing the scenario from embro and infant to pregnant woman and infant) and then me letting you pull me into a semantics dispute.
.
Unless you're trying to poke holes in the premise, in which case we're in accordance.

Actually it was you "changing parameters" by forcing your very limited personal imagination onto a simple, theoretical thought experiment. Since then you're constantly confusing yourself by answering questions nobody asked and fighting positions nobody took. You need help.

Pot, meet Kettle

Yeah, pot would explain it, though I never took you for a stoner.