A human fetus is human. It is not a human BEING as in legal person UNTIL IT IS BORN ....as you have been told a thousand times...it is true whether you accept it or not..
NO, the disabled have been BORN so they have rights.....why are you saying silly things?? There is a BIG difference between needing a, say, wheel chair and being in a womb needing that womb to live off of......most people get it.
No, they are independent beings who can interact with the world and pursue their values. Independent means not physically attached to another person's body. Great strawman though. Never heard it before.
No, abortion is not evil. This is a terrible way of framing it used by those who wish to find a common ground without realising that they are directing the debate rigbt where anti-abortionists want it. Abortion rights are part of individual rights. Abortion is not evil.
So you don't believe that banning cancer treatment would mean that people would loose bodily autonomy.
Oh, so independent beings who can interact with the world is the standard. I guess that we can kill people in a coma then!
Nope. Nature would take its course. And people would also be free to travel to another country to get treatment.
Uh, you couldn't read the whole post ? """Independent means not physically attached to another person's body.""
I've heard it before...about a dozen times by that poster….why he persists in this silly line is a mystery...
Comatosed patients are very much like children in that they require someone to take the responsibility to look after them. As long as someone is paying for the plug that keeps them alive, they do have the right to life. Independent is not the same as self-supporting. A child and a person in coma are perceptually independent in that they are not physically attached within another person, they are separate individuals.
Oh, so you are one of those Christians who do not believe in medical treatment of any kind? As someone who has actually undergone cytostatics treatment I take offense from this. By denying a person access to an available service or good for no other reason that "because God said so" or "bacteria/virus/cancer cells have rights too", you are indeed limiting their bodily autonomy in the most monstrous way imagineble. If you cannot see how this is you need to educate yourself on what rights are.
I was being sarcastic, of course I have heard it before. More than a dozen times. I do not mind the silly game he is playing. Usually he is so predictable that I prepare my answer before he even posts.
So I guess all of those non-religious people on the left who opposes late term abortion, do so exclusively on the basis of religion! There's a slight difference between the skin cells on my fingers and an unborn life in the womb. It has something to do with only one has the potential to develop into a PERSON! I've only replied to you about one million times already!
Not in the US. States are involved too. Just because most abortions are performed very early on in the pregnancy, doesn't mean that it should be perfectly legal to have a late term abortion. You contend that, A happens most of the time, therefore B is not important! I'm sure that this is a fallacy! If not, then I have just created it! I call it the RITTER fallacy!
Nope. By denying a person access to an available service or good? What does that have to do with medical treatment?
The problem that you have is that you didn't stop at your "independent" standard. You also added being able to "interact with the world." Why?
So then you are against someone being charged for killing an unborn baby after physically attacking a woman?
The part about "who can interact with the world" seemed like a different point. Comatose people cannot interact with the world.