Matthewthf said: ↑ Over 60 million babies aborted. More deaths than Jews during WW2. That's genocide. ...Yes, ridiculous, and ignorant to boot! Obviously poster doesn't know what "genocide" means....just needs DRAMA to attempt to make a point. I agree that comparing the suffering, terror, horrific deaths of Jews to the quick painless death of a fetus is disgusting, deplorable, and quite sick...
No. Since it is still in the developmental stages, it is de facto only a potential human being. It is not even possible to perceptually categorise it as a human being, just take a look at a zygote yourself. The only one buying used arguments here is you and the salesman is not selling cars since his product predates cars and even buggies -- You have swallowed 2000 year old nonsense and now want to modify society after it.
This is what a "fetus" looks like at 21 weeks gestation Warning, story includes picture of baby which did not survive Tribute to Micro Preemies (handtohold.org) Here's one the same age that did survive Baby Born at 21 Weeks Defies the Odds, Becomes One of the Youngest Babies to Survive (theepochtimes.com)
Who's right to bodily autonomy for 9 month? Obviously not the ZEF's since the ZEF would be the one violating bodily autonomy. As to anyone else, the right to bodily autonomy is life long, not in 9 month stints. Once again, I will point out that in deciding that bodily autonomy is overridden by right to life, we therefore open up that we can take blood, marrow or organs (as available without killing) against a person's will in order to save another's life. For that matter, we can then even force an abortion upon a woman in order to save her life, assuming a case where her life is threatened, even if she wants to take the risk of having the child. Clearly it is you not thinking. I have presented numerous arguments as to why and when bodily autonomy trumps right to life, and what the results would be if we changed that around. You haven't even made a sound argument as to why that isn't so, save for repeating "right to life" as if it were an absolute, which has been shown not to be. No right is absolute. Hell, if you were at least to say that you agreed that we should take blood and organs from people against their will to save a life, then at least you would be consistent in your position. But you have been avoiding that very point, which tells me that you realize it destroys your position, so you don't address it.
First of all, there is no child in the uterus and secondly, a fetus has no "basic right to life". This is nothing but emotinalist hogwash. Of course she has. Since the fetus is not physically individuated from the pregnant woman, it is not an individual. Do you even know what words mean? And you just caused death to the skin cells you killed typing this piece of nonsense on your keyboard. Is a child a single cell organism?
Sorry, but I have to call you on this one. Not a single recorded abortion in history, natural or induced, has ever been of a single cell nature. The zygote begins dividing almost immediately upon fertilization. Not knocking the argument that until it gets to a certain stage of cell specialization, there really isn't any physical resemblance to the typical human body. But no human offspring has ever been single cell for any significant time.
If it is a child at conception (which anti-abortionists claim), it means a child is a single cell organism.
Just to be completely fair, a zygote is about four hundred times bigger in size than a normal human body cell.
What rights , that don't interfere in anyone else's , do you want the fetus to have? Why do you want to force your opinion on others? You don't seem to like it when you think someone is doing that to you even when it doesn't affect any of YOUR rights..... NOW, for BIG change, show proof that "" "Democrats" lied about RvW ""…...
What rights , that don't interfere in anyone else's , do you want the fetus to have? Why do you want to force your opinion on others? You don't seem to like it when you think someone is doing that to you even when it doesn't affect any of YOUR rights..... NOW, for BIG change, show proof that "" "Democrats" lied about RvW ""…...
Um... maybe for a similar reason that the woman wants to force hers on others? (She is forcing her values on another if she chooses to kill) What rights, that don't interfere with anyone else's , do you think women should have?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why do you want to force your opinion on others? As you've been told several hundred times a pregnant woman having an abortion is NOT forcing her opinion on anyone else....there is no "anyone else". There are no "others", she is the ONLY person involved in the pregnancy. Just like anyone else ( IF you are referring to her killing a person) The same as everyone else's... See, how I answered YOUR questions but you couldn't answer mine: What rights , that don't interfere in anyone else's , do you want the fetus to have?
Calling yourself Pro-Life is a great sham. You might be Pro-Tissue, but you sure do not love and value life.
How about pro-justice. just being against killing innocent life... when doing so is not justified, and is completely intentional and not just incidental
Really???? How could Pro-Lifers have got it so wrong, when there's no one in there?? I guess you win the debate...
What TF does that have to do with anything?....except pointing out you have no argument whatsoever...
Easy, they deny facts and science.... It's about time you admitted that. See, how I answered YOUR questions but you couldn't answer mine: What rights , that don't interfere in anyone else's , do you want the fetus to have? Is that the question that finally made you realize your error?
