Oh, so it's an individual then... The fetus and mother are one. Like conjoined twins. Did you see that other thread on the conjoined twin analogy as it relates to abortion?
It's only not related if you believe the fetus is a non-person. You stated that there is one individual, so if the fetus did exist in the sense of a person, you'd agree the conjoined twin analogy would be appropriate, correct? Maybe I was totally misunderstanding you. Let's take a look back at the conversation:
Follow the law. I am not for abortion, but I am for freedom of rights, guaranteed by the constitution. I am not female, so I will never be physically affected. Are you female? Does the laws of abortion affect you physically? You know, you have the choice of carrying or aborting. There is not force one way or the other.
Are the cojoined twins born and considered human beings by the law? And I am no expert on cojoined twins, but I bet there may be special laws for them. But I don't know that for sure.
No, it's not. But human rights are. As of now, the unborn only have the rights the mother affords. As I've told you, and I'm sure you've been informed hundreds and hundreds of times. You seem to be very very emotional about the lives of others that have no impact on you. I noticed the dodge of the rest of my post. Why is that?
As Ronald Reagan once quipped: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"
No idea, quote the entire post. So I can put the post in context. To alter quotes is against the TOS. Do you do that often to muddle things up? Perhaps its from my edited post, to correct my meaning.
I only quoted the relevent parts of your post for clarity. If I quoted lots of things that weren't relevant, that would be muddling things up. Maybe you'd prefer I modify your text to put the less important parts into a lighter grey color? Like this: Anyway, the post I quoted of yours was the one right above (posts #35 and #36 ), so it shouldn't have been that difficult. Although I can see how it might have been confusing for you.
So what you're saying is abortion is simultaneously both ethically wrong and right ? Like Schrödinger's cat?
It doesn't have to be....there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Do you think NO one should have a right to their own body? You don't want the right to your own body? You want government or nosy busybodies to control you??? Force you to give up say, body parts, to sustain the life of whomever they choose?
no one has the right to use another human as a host to keep themselves alive, they can offer their fluids, you can't take them without consent
dairyair said: ↑ Human nature, as well as most every other living creature on earth has sex. It's inbred into the species, including humans. NO, that's your skewed interpretation of what was posted. It certainly and definitely wasn't what was posted. No, women shouldn't be forced to gestate like livestock.
NO, it has NEVER been debunked. One's body , and everything in it , belongs to them. If your liver doesn't belong to you then I guess anyone can force you to give it to them...right? Now here is YET ANOTHER unanswered question: If the fetus is not the woman's, whose is it? Yours? The governments? WHOSE IS IT ?