That is because the living human cell is not a person, right? It may have unique DNA falling within the norm for homo sapiens, but it is not a person.
What if the person you discover on your plane was not invited... it was a mentally incompetent person fascinated by airplanes who wandered into your airplane and fell asleep in the back. He wakes up when you reach 20,000 feet and goes into a panic... fighting you (nearly knocking you out) and kicking at the control panel. You do not know if his presence on the plane will kill you but you are certainly concerned that he could kill you, or leave you injured, or maybe just cause you to crash and be responsible for damage and lost lives on the ground. Your options are ride it out and hope for the best, or evict this unwanted intruder. Would you insist that the pilot must ride it out (even if he is feeling dizzy) because that is a person he is about to evict from the plane. Or maybe you would say the pilot could defend himself unless he had invited the guy up for a ride (not realizing he was emotionally unstable)? But... Let's go back to that first premise of yours... that a person is on the plane. I would agree that a person is on the plane in the scenario you described, but you did not prove that a person is inside the womb when a woman decides to get an abortion at (for example) 4 weeks into the pregnancy, or 8 weeks into the pregnancy. What is your evidence that the developing human body is any more a person than the sperm cell?
Duh, a human fetus is(1) human, it isn't (2) A human and it isn't a (3) person until it's born and that is a fact and you can't change it in relation t abortion ... Notice above : THREE separate things marked 1,2, and 3.... I post: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings I never stated all pregnancies end in death but it is a fact that every pregnancy carries the risk of death""" and you answer with an asinine response. ""Life carries a 100% risk of death." ...as if that's clever or has any relevancy, it doesn't...it's just weird.... Your "placing someone in a position of vulnerability " has been shown to be inaccurate with no relation to pregnancy or abortion... but because of your obvious lack of knowledge of self defense, biology, physiology, law science , the facts of life, abortion or pregnancy I doubt you'll ever be able to understand. Now, if you think abortion is murder, DO call the police and start reporting it....see where it gets ya
Wrong, because that implies an intent to do harm .. tell me what intent a woman has when she has sex, is her intent to become pregnant or just to have sex?
Great .. now if only the majority of pro-life people didn't oppose free at source contraception or even contraception at all it might actually make a difference .. but sadly, like comprehensive sex education, it is another issue the majority of them stand against. Furthermore, can you cite where in law it is required that contraception is used if you don't want to get pregnant, you could of course cite a moral responsibility .. but then you would have to justify that your moral ideology should be absolute for everyone else.
Absolute rubbish, the female (and male) have not placed the fetus into anywhere, unless of course you are suggesting that the female (or male) has control over the ova and sperm, and as such can will them to join, does the woman then exert control over that fertilized ovum instructing it to implant and as such make her pregnant, and lets continue with your idea, if I take someone up in my plane and during the journey they start to injure me, do I have the right to defend myself up to an including deadly force if required (ie throw them out of the plane) or should I just accept responsibility that it is my fault they are in the plane in the first place and as such cannot do anything that may result in their death, but means I am seriously injured. Your responsibility for a person does not extend to the point where it does not allow you to defend yourself if they injure you without your consent, and as a person, the fetus MUST gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto a woman, her consent to sexual intercourse cannot be seen as proxy consent for a separate person (which is what you claim the fetus is) to impose injuries onto her and EVERY pregnancy causes injuries to the female.
The only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that successfully implants into the uterine wall (basic biology), what you are trying to imply is contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others, consent to sexual intercourse merely causes the risk that pregnancy will occur, consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite. consent to jog alone at night in central park does not stand as a proxy for consent to be mugged and/or raped, should others attack you. The law instead recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 Wrong, see above. wrong, the use if deadly force in self-defence is not just justified in the case of life threats, it is also justified for serious injury and loss of liberty, pregnancy more than meets the requirement of serious injury and is in fact already deemed as such in some cases. Again you need to research what justifies the use of deadly force in self-defence. By pro-lifers wanting to place the fetus as a person they themselves take pregnancy out of the natural element, the word natural refers to processes that occur without human intervention, like hurricanes, earthquakes and death. If a person becomes involved in these processes they are no longer legally considered natural but are caused, at least in part, by human agency, It is ironic therefore that the pro-life forces and others that say the fetus must be considered to be a person that contradicts any depiction of pregnancy as natural. To the extent that pregnancy is initiated and maintained by an entity that is a person, it is a product of human agency, not the product of a force of nature. A fetus cannot be a person and a force of nature at the same time, to the extent that when a fetus attains human status it loses its status as a natural force. When it causes pregnancy it acts more like a mentally incompetent person than like a natural force
It is not my responsibility to educate people about sex or to pay for other peoples contraception. It is also not my duty to impose my moral views on anyone. It is also not my responsibility to pay for someone else's abortion. I am simply saying birth control seems a lot less expensive than abortion. It is also less messy. If free choice is what you want fine. Don't expect me to help pay for your choice in any way. A women's choice is not my problem and not my responsibility.
No that would be part of the states duty of care. and yet here you are doing so. You don't most of the time, only if the abortion is required to save the females life, foetal disability incompatible with life, rape or incest . .are you saying you don't want to help fund those? and abortion is a lot less expensive than welfare .. so you point is what? Surely the amount of mess involved is up to the person concerned? Great. No problem, don't expect others to pay for your roads, wars, etc etc etc. Then why are you questioning it?
Why? are they not, according to you, all things that the tax payer funds .. now you may run away as much as you like that doesn't change the reality of it.
You put abortion in the same bucket with roads and bridges when you try to object to abortion based on the fear that some of your tax money might be involved.
That's very enlightening as to where your "argument" comes from..... Do you really need the tax system explained to you.......how we pay taxes and can't indicate where they'll go. Peace-niks pay for wars, Repubs pay for government regulations, child free people pay for education of other people's kids....see how that works??
Oh... was that somebody else who introduced the idea that we should only be taxed for things that we might personally want?
Abortion and birth control is not the same as roads and bridges. It is not my responsibility to fund another persons poor choices. It isn't even about the money. People should be held responsible for their own actions. I didn't get the female pregnant. I do not have the responsibility for the womb. As y'all have said "it is the woman's body". Let her be responsible for it. I ain't asking anyone to pay for a hysterectomy.
There's the problem. Notably the right in particular has over the years degenerated to the lowly position of opposing society, opposing the social contract, opposing the long-held views of the value and importance of cooperatively living and functioning withy others, --even while living in society in which they benefit from being there. Europeans have evolved beyond such selfish antisocial foolishness paraded about in the guise of "individualism". They regard the importance of participation in society and care for others and providing for the welfare of everyone as critical and indispensable to a well-functioning society in which all benefit and all flourish. And their methods of expressing this shared interest in the whole have proven to be much less expensive than ours. How, then, do we get past this immature, insensitive, anti-social ideology of "me and mine"? Sanity awaits us as does the rest of humanity.
Do you realize that part of your tax money goes to pay for people who made the poor choice to smoke, or eat too much junk food? Are you one of those liberals who thinks the government should be our nanny and force people to make what you consider to be the "right" decisions?
Actually we just understand it way better than you do. By eradicating, on the diabolical pretext of promoting unselfishness, every last vestige of liberty from the face of the Earth, obviously.
Idealism...The society you envision is the most selfish society on the planet. It is all about the government providing for the every need of every individual in the society. I will state that people who support this ideology wants the State to support them. Without resistance there is no progress.
I believe we all agree that the pregnant woman is a person and abortion (like any medical procedure) may benefit her. Now that we agree a fetus is not a person, we should be able to agree that the behavior of the fetus is like that of a parasitic organism. Would you deny medical treatment to a person who found that they had been invaded by a Guinea worm because they were so foolish as to take the risk of visiting a region where they might possibly ingest the eggs of a Guinea worm??
Just as it is not my responsibility to fund the poor decisions to wage war on other countries, nor is it my responsibility to fund building a bridge in another state . .yet I don't get a choice as to where my tax money is spent so why should you, after all that war isn't my fault, that ravine that needs bridging isn't my fault. - - - Updated - - - Great then if it's not a person it doesn't have any rights and as such the female can do what ever she wishes . .glad you agree.
Quite ironic that you deride the state providing for the needs of others when you want to increase the states influence over pregnant women purely to suit your own ideology. seems to me you only want the state to be involved when it restricts other people and to butt out when it could help people.
I in now way implied the State to have control over pregnant women. I said a woman should be responsible for her own actions. I need a new pickup truck, but I don't expect the State to pay for it.
