Ok answering your posts on rights, your argument is that rights are not natural but rather that rights are given to us by society and that society has every right to take away our rights, and to that I say bullshit. Without rights, there are no laws, and without laws there is no civil order. So what you are suggesting logically, is that why don't we just get rid of both. After all, we don't naturally have the right to not be murdered, or raped, or swindled, or robbed. So **** it all, anarchy. What you are suggesting is absolute ridiculousness. Also, how is my suggestion that killing a fetus as a right is the same as murdering you as a right. Your both human, your both living, and in both scenarios your both getting killed. So please explain to me how it is a false equivalency.
I could be wrong, but I believe that gills and the tail on the fetus of a human, are directly because of the evolutionary past of our species. I could be wrong.
When I said "I said human beings", I meant my overall argument, and this piece of my argument that you are quoting was one part of it. I was stating that there is an argument that a fetus is not a living thing, and I thought it was absurd. Nice straw man fallacy by the way. Come at me with logic and a reasonable argument next time.
Woah you really convinced me with that one Umm, no. There are no rights to intellectual property yet that means torrenting music should be made legal. Laws create stability and civil order, there is no need to rely on "rights" as a metric of justifying laws. No, I'm not, I value national stability and civil order, I'm just not basing my view that the existence of laws must rely upon the existence of "rights" Just because you don't have rights, that doesn't mean you don't have preferences. I prefer not to be raped, murdered, swindled etc, but that doesn't mean I value the state attacking these issues. To different degrees. A clump of cells is only genetically human, rather than psychologically. Again, to different degrees, the foetus is alive, but it's no more alive than the skin on my cheek, but you don't see me banning exfoliation.
per·son1 [ˈpərs(ə)n] NOUN people (plural noun) · persons (plural noun) a human being regarded as an individual hu·man be·ing NOUN human beings (plural noun) · humanbeing (noun) · humanbeings (plural noun) · humanbeing (noun) · humanbeings (plural noun) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance Now if you take both these definitions, then yes a fetus is a person and it is a human being. Now I think I know what you will say, " but it says,...superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You would be correct, but don't babies out of the womb also develop these traits just the same as babies inside the womb. A fetus starts developing from the moment of conception.
Baloney! LEGALLY consenting to one act is NOT consenting to any other act. Baloney! No babies are murdered in abortion. And women DO have the right to kill their fetus for any reason they choose. .
. With all due respect, logic doesn't work that way. See in logic there is this thing called the 'if then' statement. For example, "If I decide to have sex, then I am willingly taking the risk of getting pregnant." This is what's known as a logically valid argument, because if yo decide to have sex, then you actually are taking the risk of getting pregnant. So, please try to prove me wrong on this, I dare you. And also, if something is living and you snuff it out, last time I checked that is what is called killing something or murdering something. Also, so by your logic I have the right to kill you hypothetically. Great, I love how your illogical mind works.
Well, I'm nipping that in the bud.. ahuman fetus is human but it is NOT a human as in "person"....and until it is, it has no rights. NO one has EVER said that... a human fetus is living, it's human, it is NOT A human as in "person"..... ...and people who say such silly things like "people say a fetus is living" are IGNORING the fact that NO one said that. If it's own entity, unattached to the woman it's in.. then it should be able to be taken out, set on a shelf and left to grow on it's own. Can it !???? Sounds like you hate women when you call them murderers...when you call them careless ( HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING PREGNANT?) Yes, HORROR happens when abortions are illegal... did you read what you wrote??? . So abortion is murdering a "baby" but if the woman's life is in danger it isn't "murdering a "baby" ? What!!!
No strawman. Your words, your argument. If you're unhappy perhaps reconsider your argument. Speaking of which... You are ignoring the argument. A fetus is not a person. Anymore than an egg is a chicken or an acorn an oak. As such, it has no more rights than an omelet or a stack of firewood.
Actually, with all due respect, morality comes directly from religion, without religion there would be no morality, without morality, there would be no rights, without rights there would be no laws to justify enforcing morality or those rights. So for you to say "there is no need to rely on "rights" as a metric for justifying laws" is ridiculous, we already do that. So the problem with your argument is that you say that there is no reason to justify laws and civil order just because we have rights. But, we have laws to protect rights. So your argument is ridiculous.
Please. Even Stretch Armstrong can't make that reach. In NEITHER of your definitions is the word "fetus" even mentioned. But, for the sake of argument, let us look at your second definition: "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" Which of these is demonstrably displayed by a fetus. Yeah, that's right. None of them. Therefore and ipso-facto and e pluribus etc., even accepting your definitions as "true" they don't come close to supporting your claim. And finally, there are no babies in the womb. Only fetuses. Infant. ... The term infant is also used as formal/legal term for minor; that is, a child in general. A newborn infant is known as a neonate (neonatal, neonatus) after the final stage of gestation throughout the first three months. A human infant which is less than 28 days old is a newborn.
Morality was born the day Og decided not to bash Mook in the head with his club because he figured out that a group of people had better survival odds than a single individual. It ain't rocket science. And it ain't about religion - it's about survival.
Where are those 'old-fashioned Church run maternity Hospitals" where women were forced to give up their kids and were sometimes sterilized without their knowledge? Hopefully scrapped like the cesspits they were.
The [false] morality you possess may stem from whatever Holy Book you apparently think is right, but morality also doesn't exist. Assuming, of course, the religion is correct and you are following it in its original meaning, both of which are very unlikely. I mean, that's kinda true I guess, but given neither exist I don't see a problem here. Did you even read my post? There doesn't not have to be moral knowledge to justify laws, many laws nowadays stem from preference rather than religion. Only the most basic laws, just as those regarding murder and thievery, otherwise you don't do that. What? I've provided you with a justification for laws and civil order, if you actually read and paid attention to my point you would have realised that. Rights stem for the laws passed - laws create rights, rights are then justified by laws. haahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhshahahahhahahahahahahahahhaa irony
Babies have rights, fetuses do not. Sadly there are people who wouldn't want to be forced to give their heart or other organ or a blood transfusion to another person but expect pregnant women to.
. Thank you for admitting that punishing women for having consensual sex is what you really want. An abortion due to consensual sex is EXACTLY the same procedure and has the exact same outcome as an abortion due to rape. It's not in the Constitution and why do you want to deny pregnant women the right to their lives , liberty and pursuit of happiness?????
Interesting thought. I would think that anti-abortionists would also have to argue that a woman should be forced to give up an organ if her child needed a transplant in order for their arguments to remain consistent.
YOU: """ Anyone can make their life anyway they want as long as they don't infringe on the lives of others""" BUT YOU want the fetus to have the right to infringe on the life of pregnant women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't imagine a woman being forced to use her body to produce a kid she may not want or afford. I feel bad for the kid. I feel good for women who are relieved they had an abortion and had the right to choose for themselves what to do with their body just like YOU can..
