Yes, scientific evidence may say life starts at conception(and some disagree) but LAW says it isn't a "person with rights" until it's born. YOU want it to have MORE rights than any other person......
I love how people with no knowledge of human biology and embryogenesis can lecture me about what will or wont work in bringing life into this world. The scientific name of a human embryo is "fetus". The fact remains that it is still human. And since words mean things, let's pull out a dictionary, shall we? Fetus n. The offspring of a mammalian species, e.g. a human fetus after the eighth week of pregnancy. Synonyms include but are not limited to: unborn child, unborn baby, embryo. My goodness, this discussion is the same no matter what board I'm on. @FoxHastings
Because as anyone can see plainly by an ultrasound or the 3D rendering thereof, we subconsciously recognize that fetus as human. We know what that fetus has the potential to be: LIFE. Not only are your arguments not based on scientific fact, they are based in preconceived political/ideological biases.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, scientific evidence may say life starts at conception(and some disagree) but LAW says it isn't a "person with rights" until it's born. YOU want it to have MORE rights than any other person...... Nope, didn't say that at all.....They are quite compatible, the fetus cannot grow on it's own so doesn't become a person with rights until born and becomes separate from the woman.. IF it had rights from conception it would ALSO have the same RESTRICTIONS...But YOU want it to have MORE rights than any other person......
So you think I have a right to FORCE another person to give me a new heart....you think we all have the right to use another's body to sustain our own life? Well, then IF I need a new heart or liver or kidney I'll send for you..
Being human is not the same as a protected individual. It's only human DNA. It's not a functioning being with awareness. If you dislike it then go back to those other forums. The less big government tyranny endorsing social conservative control freaks on here the better.
Potential. You and yours are ok with demolishing the already extant life of the woman for no real reason. Serious question. Are you male or female and yes, it matters.
Etherion said: ↑ WRONG. I want it to have the SAME rights as any other person. Big difference."""""" FoxHastings: So you think I have a right to FORCE another person to give me a new heart....you think we all have the right to use another's body to sustain our own life? Well, then IF I need a new heart or liver or kidney I'll send for you..
That's a red herring. I said nothing about forcing anyone to do anything. Unlike you with your pro-choice stances, I can balance my pro-life beliefs with reason. In the case of rape, it's the woman's choice. Just don't be surprised if she chooses to keep the child. Incest the same. If childbirth is a risk to health, preserve the life of the mother. If both the mother and child are healthy and are projected to remain healthy through the course of the pregnancy, then that's where the line is drawn.
And you are content with destroying life in any of its forms, whether it be embryo or fetus. My gender has no reflection on this discussion, so I will kindly decline to answer your question. I have a right to speak on this topic regardless of what gender I am. How incredibly sexist. I'll say this, however. Both the male and female contribute half of the genetic material. And when a well meaning couple wants to have a child and suddenly the woman changes her mind, the man has just as much say in what happens to the unborn child. In the human species, we rely on sexual reproduction. Without the man's genes, the egg gets discarded by the woman's body during the next menstrual cycle. No fetus, no rights, no argument.
. Pro-CHOICE is reason. FORCE is when YOU think YOU decide when it's OK for someone else to be forced to sustain the life of another. It is ALWAYS the woman's choice....you have the attitude that if it wasn't consensual sex then you "allow" her to have a choiice....just shows that PUNISHING women for HAVING CONSENSUAL sex is what Anti-Choicers are all about. Why should I be, or even care, as long as it's HER choice. Yup, you draw the line and FORCE the woman to give birth, to sustain the life of another which NO one else has to do. Question: What is the difference between the procedure and outcome of an abortion done due to rape or incest and the procedure and outcome of an abortion done due to consensual sex?
No. I said a fetus isn't by law a "person with rights" until it's born. I didn't mention "human" or "humanity", YOU added those words. Is this too deep for you?
No. It isn't. Not unless you're willing to apply that mindset to other aspects of life, and to those whom you disagree. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you, but exterminating life at any point during gestation is a method of force. Because as I see it, the woman made her choice the moment she chose to have unprotected sex. Sorry. If that offends your sensibilities then by all means, break off this discussion. Huh?
Then by the standard of law, the fetus is not human until it is born. Hardly. You told me words mean things, so, when you use the law as a premise for your pro choice argument, you are also implying that the law has the power to dictate what is or isn't human. Is this too deep for you?
Yes, but not against a person with rights which you think it is fine to do. Why is YOUR "force" against a person with rights Ok ? So if it's consensual sex you think she shouldn't have rights. I don't think the Constitution supports that... FoxHastings: Question: What is the difference between the procedure and outcome of an abortion done due to rape or incest and the procedure and outcome of an abortion done due to consensual sex? Ya, I expected a "huh" ... What's the difference? There isn't any. So why are you against one but not the other? To PUNISH women for having consensual sex NOT because you care about that bit of "humanity".
Completely untrue. By law a fetus is not a person with rights until born. No, I did not...YOU brought in the word "human" as a scapegoat for your failing argument. I said the law says the fetus isn't a PERSON WITH RIGHTS UNTIL IT'S BORN....did you , through some fog, see the word "human" in that sentence??? Is this too deep for you? See, "person " is one word and "human" is another different word.......got it yet?
This thread made me feel ill. Edit: By the way, I wasn't taunting you. All I did was quote most of your posts that made me feel ill. I was serious about asking you to do that. You know what I'm talking about. You know you should, too. I'm sorry I offended you with your own posts.
