So your position is that killing a thief is wrong because the thief has rights, but killing a fetus is not wrong because the fetus doesn't have rights. Correct?
I agree until you got to " So even pro-life people admit that an adult has more of a right to life than a fetus" I have never seen or heard a "pro-lifer" EVER say an adult has more rights than a fetus. THEY are the ones that say a fetus has more rights than the woman it's in !!
I think I answered that. Theft is not sufficient reason to kill and the woman has a right to decide what grows in her body until viability and then there are restrictions. If there is a choice between who lives or dies the woman is chosen therefore she has more of a right to life. If you think it is okay to kill a thief and abortions should be without restrictions then your respect for life is pretty low.
They don't admit it but even the most radical agrees in order to save the life of the mother the fetus should be sacrificed therefore the woman life is more valued than the fetus. She has more of a right to life than the fetus.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I agree until you got to " So even pro-life people admit that an adult has more of a right to life than a fetus" I have never seen or heard a "pro-lifer" EVER say an adult has more rights than a fetus. THEY are the ones that say a fetus has more rights than the woman it's in !! Then, as usual, they aren't thinking clearly...rights can't waver and float around like shape shifters....molded to fit different situations.... A woman needs to be dying to have more rights than her fetus!!!!! That's hilarious and pathetic at the same time..
I suggest we revise this "Rights" issue into what it actually is at the core. Do individuals have the RIGHT to impose their opinion onto the life and body of someone else? THAT is what is happening here.
The Gov't indeed has the obligation to protect Americans - The "unborn" are not Americans. 1) There are 5 different Scientific perspectives on when human life begins - only one maintains this point is at conception. None however claim defacto that a living human exists (as you state in your second sentence so good you understand this distinction). 2) Your third sentence contradicts the second. It either is a human or it is not. 3) While interruption of a process that has the potential to create a human may present moral issues - the legal question is something completely different. Since your claim is that Gov't involvement is warrented = this is a legal issue - you are way off base and without an argument supporting this claim.
I disagree with just about everything you just said. But worst of all, the question of when life begins. It's the dumbest insinuating that it's unknown and that there are 5 different scientific perspectives. I've seen this argument before and it's just ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
Look - It is not my fault that you contradicted yourself. Either the zygote is a human or it is not - claiming both is what is ludicrous. I did not make up the 5 different scientific perspectives - you claiming that these do not exist is what is ludicrous - and anyone who has studied this debate in any detail knows of these different perspectives. Current law in many states for example is based on the Neurological Perspective. The 5 perspectives are - Metabololic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. Look them up. Then you have the problem that the question of "when human life begins" has little bearing on the legal question of abortion because even if one could get to a defacto answer - this is not stating that a living human exists at this point. It merely states that life that can be defined as human exists. The problem obviously is that not all entities that are classified as "human life" are humans.
I didn't say anything about life or death. I specified both situations being about financial reasons. This is why Im also not talking about rights. Im asking whether you think its immoral to terminate a pregnancy that, if allowed to be born, will be a financial problem. To be clear, Im not asking whether anything should be banned or restricted or whether someone has any right to do anything. Im asking your opinion about the morality of the decision, and if (or why) its morally different than killing someone who would create that same situation by stealing your resources.
Repeating a claim - regardless of how many times you do it - is not proof of claim. "The moon is made of Green Cheese" because "The moon is made of green cheese" - is circular logical fallacy. Not does repeating a claim followed but running off the debate stage crying "DEBATE OVER" make that claim true. The fact of the matter is that there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins. What is somewhat humorous is that you have now shortened your claim to "Life begins at conception" which is demonstrably false. This is the problem with many Pro-Life Platitudes. Obviously life comes from life - animate does not come from inanimate. That is a demonstrable scientific fact = obviously life existed prior to conception. The sperm is alive - as is the egg - as were the humans that produced the sperm and egg. Aside from the above fact - you then completely ignore the fact that just because human life exists - does not mean a human exists. A heart cell is human life - this is not a human - nor is any other single cell in the human body. You have already stated that the zygote is not a human .. Your "its an American" legal argument is sunk on this basis as all Americans individual humans.
You are wasting my time. You can't even say when life begins. If you can't make a decision then you can't criticize me for mine. At what point in a pregnancy is it too late to have an abortion? At what point does a human embryo become a fetus become a person who deserves to be protected against a homicidal mother?
Its not my fault that that Science does not defacto claim when human life begins. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding of Biology, Science and the abortion issue in general - the various perspectives on "when Human life begins". I am not the one contradicting myself and making claims with respect to Science that I can not back up - that would be you. I am not the one making demonstrably false claims with respect to Science. You cant even get the terminology right - even though I already corrected you in a previous post - its not - "When Life begins but when Human life begins" This is not a big deal as I know what you mean but, if you want to talk about "Science" then at least make some attempt to use technically correct terminology. You then completely ignore the difference between the legal issue and the moral issue. My telling you what my expert opinion is with respect to what point a living human exists does not resolve the legal question. My "opinion" is that a Person exists when significant brain function is achieved- the Neurological perspective. I would go further in claiming that this is the consensus opinion among subject matter experts - which is part of the reason why many States ban abortion after this point. What I believe to be preposterous is the defacto claim that a living human exists at conception - given that no one - and certainly not Science - has ever proved this claim to be true.
What you have proposed is about life and death. If you knew that a "right" is "what is morally justified" I have answered your question. It is not the same situation and each of the participants have a different set of priorities and rights.
Life begins at conception. There is literally no serious scientist that can dispute that. Whether it's a human conception or a litter of puppies, that is the point at which life begins. There's nothing else to debate except the philosophical and morality of killing innocent life by interfering or interrupting the pregnancy.
I am a serious Serious Scientist - so that is "literally one" and work with a whole bunch of other Serious Scientists - and and associate with a bunch more - and can literally tell you that you would not be more wrong. In addition I have taken a Philosophy class on the subject - where the Prof is obviously a "subject matter expert" - a Jewish Professor with Ph. D from Oxford (who also happens to be a friend of mine) - and he would just smile and chuckle at such an obviously absurd and false statement - never mind the obvious fallacy. Then you keep showing your lack of understanding of the topic by saying things like "Life begins at conception" despite my correcting you twice before already. Saying "Life begins" means that non life existed prior to conception - which is obviously nonsense. The Metabolic Perspective claims that "Human Life" exists prior to conception ... that it is a continuum. The question "when does a human exist" is related but is a different question so even if you could claim "Human life begins at conception" - you still have to show that a human exists in order to make the legal argument you were trying to make. The fact if the matter is that you can not claim this defacto because "Experts Disagree". This is the best place you can get to ... "Experts Disagree" - now stop with this nonsense and come up with a coherent argument that is either fallacious or false rubbish.
Talk about rubbish! All you've trying to accomplish is to dehumanize preborn human life in an attempt to justify extinguishing it. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single human ever born who did not first begin at the point of conception. To interfere in the natural course of development just because of its proximity in a woman's womb is a disregard for the life of that developing person. You cannot argue that is not fact.
So far it is you that has been spewing Rubbish - now after being proven wrong you get mad and try to demonize the messenger. If you want to believe that a single human cell is a living human - you are welcome to this belief. It is one thing to have a belief - quite another to be able to justify that belief - a further bar still to make a legal argument. If no human exists - there is no "developing life of a human". You are imagining things - pretending something exists that does not.
Yes I can One does not equal the other Not all fertilised cells develop to be human Some (up to 50%) fail to implant, some develop into masses so abnormal that they miscarry some miscarry for multiple other reasons and some are never viable
You must believe in the magic vagina theory. It's not a human until it passes through the magic vagina. Before that, it's not a human.
As I said, "To interfere in the natural course of development just because of its proximity in a woman's womb is a disregard for the life of that developing person."
Why ask? Everyone's "morals" vary....what difference would it make what ONE person's "moral" view on abortion is?????
