Two lives who will never become human.


Ofcourse this creates the question do non-humans have rights. I'd say so.


Human
Potential Human
Animals
Plants


Sperm/Eggs are not animals, they're more like plants. On the hierachy structure, humans are the pinnacle of class rank. Potential humans even surpass tangible animals.


Plants have a right not to be plowed to create a parking lot if it can be justified, but otherwise, plants are bassically how liberals see fetuses.


The reason is that tired old classless, communist society. Where we're all special. Which means noone is...

Not understood. Plants are as much "life" and any other organism.
I don't know how "liberals see fetuses", but no serious person doubts that plants are life.
Could you explain better?

A living thing is generally considered to be an actual organism. An egg or sperm is not an actual organism.

You are attempting to play on semantics by using a different definition of life. Your attempt has failed.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

If you could answer each of my questions, it might move our discussion along a bit faster.

You say an egg and a sperm are not an actual "organism". Do you mean they are not each life?

I did answer them. My opinion is the same as that of the scientific community on this issue.


There is more than one definition of life. Observe:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

That link lists 36 definitions. Not all definitions apply to either the Sperm/egg, or Zygote.

In this context, I am using the definition I posted from Wikipedia. That is what most pro-lifers mean when they say it is alive. You are using a different definition for the word. I dont agree with your definition, and neither do most other anti-abortionists.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

No, you did not answer each of my questions. Please do so now.
It would move our discussion along if you could just answer my simple questions.

You choose not to do so. Could you explain why this is so?

Sure, okay... so the prochoice don't see a fetus as a viable life.

By viable, I mean "it has rights, cause it thinks and feels" viable.


They see a fetus as a plant, a plant doesn't feel or think, it just is. That's bassicaly how a choicer sees a fetus.


Now, whether or not that is correct is irrelevant, sense unlike a plant, a fetus will become viable, even if it isn't viable right now.



By the same token, if choicers think people only have rights in the now, then an intoxciated woman should be able to be raped. Because she's at a less viable state, thus her basic rights are lowerd to a more suitable standard correct?


When she awakens, then she has a right not to be raped. But untill then, she is more like a doll. Completely unaware of her sorroundings. You would then have to argue if we had a right to put people into that state. (Such as roofies)

But that would not protect the woman from being raped now would it?


The question should be not when life begins, but when do rights begin, what kind of rights, and to what extent they have to practice these rights.


Do people have a right to create life?
Do people have right to destroy life?

What gives them these rights? How did they earn them? And if they are inherited, shouldn't a child, regardless of it's stage of development earn that most basic right which is life too?


Life is the first right, period. You cannot have rights unless you're alive to have them.


So we can pretty much say if a fetus can die, then a fetus has no rights.


What grants women such a right to have an abortion? And when you can define where that right is, shouldn't then her right be based on circumstance?


I'm told all the time about how I think in absolutes, and yet all I ever hear is "my body; my choice". How immature and reactionary...


Because if it wasn't your choice to have sex, then what makes it your choice to have an abortion? (Thus the rape case is debunked)

If it is your choice to have an abortion, then why don't we get to abort other non-viable people? Why stop at fetuses? Why not disabled people or the elderly?


Most importantly, what do you think is the worst that could happen if abortion was banned?

All I ever hear is clothshanger deaths. How many deaths? Considering if abortion remains legal the death ratio is 1:1+X IE: the tradeoff is the mother vs whatever offspring she feels like aborting.

I couldn't tell you how large the sum of X is, but I can tell you this: More people die from legal abortions then illegal abortions. Your only argument is that more viable people die from illegal abortions.


But by that time all those inviables are now viable. Making the argument null and void. A fetus is not a thing, it's a person, and a person has a right to grow and develop inside the mother's womb. The mother made a binding contract with her child the moment she had sex, that she would take on the natural responsibilities asscosiated with motherhood.


If she cannot take on these responsibilities, then she's apparently not a human being. Dogs are the ones we spaye and neuder because we cannot rely on them to control themselves. Are the prochoice telling me they have no control over their actions and need to be treated like pets?

More importantly, do you see a sperm or an egg as life? If not, is a zygote a miraculous creation of life from non-life?
"Viable" usually just means "capable of living".
A plant doesn't think or feel as far as we know, but it is very much alive. Do you think otherwise`
No idea what you mean. Could you try and explain better?
I don't understand what you are trying to get6 at. A woman is never in some state where it is alright to rape her.
The question is indeed when should rights be given to a given lump of cells.
It is always a woman's right to kill or not kilto l the offspring currently in her body.

This is why I don't talk to choicers.

Fine, you want to be stubborn, I will be too.


Screw what the psychopathic sluts want. Abortion will be banned in my lifetime. I swear it.

Answer my questions.