No, even a 5 months fetus couldn't grow on it's own without help.... YOU seem to think that a 10-12 week fetus looks like a fully formed baby...it doesn't. DNA doesn't matter, a fetus is still a part of the woman it's in...it is not a person so has no rights no matter what it's DNA says or does...
The unborn do not have the rights of a slave in ANY WAY because they are NOT BORN! Until a human is Born they cannot have rights in any way at all without taking away rights from the individual they live within and depend on for life. You place yourself in a terrible position here.....Either eliminate a womans right to her own life and body (the only things she actually owns without question), or do not give rights to the unborn. Choose carefully because this will define your perceived and reality based nature of personality. Please make your choice here, unless you cannot do so without showing us the kind of person you are and feel embarrassed.
A baby, infant and child is dependent on his/her mother (or another) for a number of years. All part of the human development timeline. But does the unborn human child look like other unborn human children at this same stage of human development? Or is your position that the unborn aren't human? That they can't be human until they can survive, without the assistance of others, on their own? During a pregnancy there are two separate human beings, with distinct DNA, they are separate beings with one dependent on the other. Slaves had/have no rights not unlike the denial of those rights for the unborn now, maybe 'til the end of time. But the truth stands even when denied such as in the time of slavery, that human beings were designed to exercise free will and other liberties.
NO, once a baby is born it does NOT depend on it's mother, it depends on ANYONE ..MYGAWD, you haven't even heard of babysitters! Not to mention doctors, nurses, adoptive parents, fathers, sisters , brothers, teachers. BUT it CANNOT GROW ON IT"S OWN if taken out of the womb before viability and placed on a shelf ...it will die because it is NOT attached to the woman it's in.. Yes, most fetuses look like other fetuses at the same stage of gestation and none look like the Gerber baby no matter what you think. Answer this: WHERE DID I SAY THE FETUS WASN'T HUMAN. If you can't show where I said that then you shouldn't really comment....mentioning the stages of gestation is not saying that a fetus isn't human, that is a totally illogical conclusion for you to reach....and sure doesn't do a thing for what credibility you may have had. Uh, NO, the woman is NOT in anyway dependent on the fetus ! WHERE do you get this crap!? """that human beings were designed to exercise free will and other liberties""....and INCLUDES WOMEN!!!!!
Does having an appendectomy kill the patient? Does having a tooth pulled? BTW, there is no "baby" involved in abortion. And you missed: """ "" what right do you have to dictate to another person what they must do with their own body."" ?????????? You said slavery is illegal and it is so what right do you have to dictate to another person what they must do with their own body ?
you're right the baby remains dependent exactly. The point I am making is the relationship is one of dependency. In fact if the baby isn't provided for or taken care of he or she would die. Prior to birth and post birth the child is still dependent on mother or others for his or her needs. Just as the unborn is dependent upon his or her mother. Because you are for aborting the unborn, I thought perhaps you didn't see them as human beings moving along their developmental timeline. In my signature the word fetus (human being, developing) is defined by a common dictionary. We as humans are, by the greatest of societal percentages, adverse to taking human life. In military service a very common technique is to dehumanize your enemy. In the short term it is easier to take life when your enemy is something other than human or less than human. Do you see the Fetus as a human being? Of course we all have free will. The exercise of it can be to our and society's benefit or detriment.
MY whole point about dependency is that some posters think that a fetus floats totally unattached in the woman. I responded that IF that were true it could be taken out and set on a shelf (at 10 weeks) and it would grow. It can't. I see human fetuses as HUMAN FETUSES, they are NOT persons, not babies, they are what they are no matter what Anti-Choicers think....
Ok, you've told me what you see (HUMAN FETUSES) and who they are, that "they are what they are no matter what Anti-Choicers think." I must ask, in your life do you see yourself as sharing the DNA with the fetus/baby your mother delivered on the day of your birth or was it then and has it always been exclusively you (moving along a developmental timeline) and your unique DNA, even to this day? And if it is you and you had been selected for termination and given a voice in the matter, would you object?
DNA does not "Object" nor does a Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus. This line you are following has been sniffed out many times before and always returns to the same point. Do you actually believe this unthinking and undeveloped human should be allowed to control the life and body of an adult U.S. citizen? And by extension, should YOUR opinion?
That was answered well in Tecoyah's post#409....about as well as anybody could answer such a silly question. I believe DNA has nothing to do with women's right to choose child birth or abortion. I believe my mother should have had a choice....she didn't.
That still holds true five months after it's born. Where have I stated such? And again, how is looks relevant to the topic at hand? And this, fellow members, is a textbook example of mantra, denial, and all around cognitive dissidence.
And this , fellow members (harrumpf)is a textbook example of how some can't read: FoxHastings said: ↑ Science does NOT say it is a separate entity....if it was a separate entity , Unattached to the woman, it could be set on a shelf and left to grow on it's own....."" Maccabee replied : ""Then an unborn at five months is a separate entity since as you put you can put it on a shelf and grow on its own."" Which, of course , I NEVER said ..... a 20 week fetus cannot grow on it's own.. Fox: ""DNA doesn't matter, a fetus is still a part of the woman it's in...it is not a person so has no rights no matter what it's DNA says or does..."" Total inability to refute what I posted :"""And this, fellow members, is a textbook example of mantra, denial, and all around cognitive dissidence."""
Why are you continuing to claim that a single human cell is a human when you have not shown this claim is true ? As per our previous discussion - there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins. One puts he beginning at conception. 3 of these perspectives claim that "human life" does not begin until after conception. To prove your claim you must first refute these other 3 perspectives ( Embryological, Neurological, Ecological) Once you have done this then you need to show that a human actually exists (at the beginning). If you can not do this then, your claim is logical fallacy - naked claim.
Tell that to Andrea Bocelli, famous blind tenor, whose mother was advised to have him aborted for her own health reasons. She cherished the life of her unborn son too much, as any real MOTHER should. There are many happy, productive adults alive today with similar stories, who were either saved from abortion, or had their terminations botched by incompetent butchers. Draw a vertical line and determine the very second between conception at the far left and first breath at the far right when YOU say an unborn baby can be properly and lawfully murdered, and justify your reasoning... if you can. BIRTH |________________________________________|FIRST BREATH 9 MONTH TIME LINE
Ironic coming from those who care more about a fetus than they do about a living child. Where is the outcry from the so called "pro-lifers" about the denial of healthcare to 23 million Americans? How many of them will die as a result of no longer being able to afford healthcare? 20,000 to 30,000 each and every year? But the silence is literally deafening from the alleged "pro-lifers" and that says volumes about their selective use of the term "life".
How many human lives are being sustained in hospitals by others at this very moment? Are there rights also suspended? I seem to remember the Third Reich thought in those terms. They eliminated all who were viewed as a burden on society. Abortion for convenience does exactly that. When abortion saves the life of a mother....it's a different case. We all practice" choice" when we take actions where conception is a possibility.
BZZZT Wrong! Never mentioned you at all! My criticism was directed entirely at those who allege to be "pro-life" but who don't practice it in reality. However if the shoe fits... Now if you would like to prove me wrong by linking me to all of the "pro-life" condemnation of the TrumpDon'tCare legislation making it's way behind closed doors in utmost secrecy I would have no problem admitting that I am wrong. So let's see what you have, m'kay?
Absolutely NONE that are physically attached to another person. NO one is forced to use their body to sustain the life of another. NO one is forced to give blood, give their heart, lungs, kidneys to another. Yes, they got rid of PERSONS that they deemed unacceptable. Your denigration of the horrors that those people went through by comparing them to the quick death of a fetus is disgusting. There is NO other reason for an abortion. The woman thinks a pregnancy is inconvenient. They do not have abortions just for fun....as you seem to indicate. . NO, "we" do not. Only women get pregnant. Women practice true choice when they decide what to do in their situation......just like everyone else..... NO woman is under any obligation to use birth control.
Easy, at 23 weeks the fetus is viable and can no longer be aborted unless there's a threat to the life/health of woman or fetus.
