Would it really be that different if (hypothetically) it were outside her body and attached? If not, then the issue of being inside is not really the issue.
FoxHastings said: ↑ No , but it IS logical and factual to say the fetus is inside the woman and ATTACHED to her body... LOL, ANOTHER meaningless "hypothetical" when you are at a loss for facts.....
You want to just conflate everything together and overwhelm the other side with different issues, which is why you don't want to look at hypotheticals that specifically only examine one of your arguments at a time.
The "facts" are it's complicated, and you want to use that complication to your advantage. I notice that when debating with you, you keep churning around the issues. Like we're arguing about one thing, and when that argument isn't going so good for you, you say "That doesn't matter because this...", switching the issue and topic of debate to something completely different. Everytime I start a topic about whether it's a person, you always inevitably say that doesn't matter because a woman still has the right to kill it. And every thread about whether a woman has the right to kill it, you inevitably always bring up that the whole argument doesn't matter because it isn't a person.
Yup, facts sure seem to muddy the waters for YOU.... YUP, using FACTS IS an advantage......sorry ,you have none.. Nope, just poking holes in all your ideas and "hypotheticals".... Uh, no, that would be you when faced with facts... LOL, and YOU are frustrated because I keep slamming you with these facts which you never could refute...and they destroy all your sci-fi nonsense...
Can we instead say the fetus is within the watery space that lies in a position geometrically located within the woman's body? I know that may seem silly but there is a subtle distinction. Much like Vatican City is located inside the country of Italy, but Vatican City is actually not "in" Italy in the sense of being officially under its jurisdiction.
A newborn baby is also "attached", until they cut the umbilical cord. And then there's conjoined twins. So it does seem possible that a person can be attached to another person.
Well the central question of the abortion debate, and perhaps the only relevant one is, is it a life? And laws such as the one we are discussing would suggest that it IS a life, at least according to the jurisdictions which have such laws on the books.
Those performing abortions WOULD be prosecuted! Oh I see. Well this is an argument AGAINST prosecuting women, it's not an argument FOR prosecuting women. There's nothing natural about getting beaten by someone. Terrible analogy! Plus, being beaten has the very real consequences of brain damage or even death, and SECONDS count! The victim can go from totally normal, to totally permanently damaged in the space of one second. You sure do love the legal argument don't you! Plus, we've already discussed how fetuses of a certain age have protections against being killed, including in the majority of the US. Oh, there's a MASSIVE difference! So much so that perfectly sane people are happy to have their unborn kid killed, but not their born kid. However, everyone can agree that there is ZERO difference between the kid as they travel down the birth canal, and birth! That was covered in an earlier reply:
That still punishes the ubwillingly pregnant. Line-drawing fallacy. Has been covered 50 times already.
Well no. Not is it life? but rather is it a human being? Life is not what grants you rights, there are a lot of living organisms that do not have rights. Of course, the answer to the question above is a very firm no. Embryos and fetuses do not - and should not - have rights. Terminating a pregnancy is not murder.
How exactly? What line am I asking you to draw? YOU'RE the one drawing a line by saying that the fetus becomes a life only once born, even going as far as to say that it's when the cord is cut!
If all preachers are thrown in prison, all churches are purnt and anyone who sells the Bible is punished, wouldn't you say that too punishes those who are religious? "But, oooh, we are not punishing Christians!" Look up what that fallacy is. And yes, it could not be any more clear cut (pun intended) than that.
Yes, that's what is implied in the question, "is it a life?" With the hidden part included it is, is it a life which is equal to born lives. Or to put more simply, as you say, is it a human being. And yet fetuses still have protection from being deliberately killed in many parts of the world including the majority of the US. In this respect, they have no less protection in law from being deliberately killed than people WITH rights!
Ridiculous analogy. Where the hell would Christians go if their churches were burned down and they couldn't even be visited by their preacher because they are in prison? THAT'S a line!
FoxHastings said: ↑ it IS logical and factual to say the fetus is inside the woman Why does this "we" want to say anything so stupid and meaningless? Whether there is a distinction or not....this claptrap DOESN'T MATTER..
FoxHastings said: ↑ it IS logical and factual to say the fetus is inside the woman and ATTACHED to her body...It isn't born therefore it has no rights. Uh, DUH, the umbilical cord is cut at birth....didn't you know that? Did you think it stayed for days and months???!!!! Ya, conjoined twins are born so they have rights.
I didn't say they wouldn't. But the woman would also have to be prosecuted as I explained to you in the "hitman" analogy.....if one hires someone to commit a crime they are just as guilty. Why would you NOT want to prosecute someone who committed a crime? Physical damage is physical damage....IF abortion is illegal that would probably be based on the fetus being a legal person....persons canNOT cause others physical harm without consent. Irrelevant, harm is harm ...doesn't matter if it was seconds or 9 months. That was in reply to : ""Because BORN persons have rights, like the right not to be killed."" Ya, legal helps protect us from being killed.....too bad that's meaningless to you. Protections not rights.....sorry , you don't know the difference but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes, there is a difference That is NOT an answer to : """"cd8ed said: ↑ Do you think it would be wrong for the government to deny medical treatment for something that can cause life long bodily damage, psychological trauma, crippling medical debt, or even death?""""" You ignored """ life long bodily damage, psychological trauma, crippling medical debt,"""" Why?
Yes, they have protections NOT rights. See, "protections" and "rights" are two different words because they have different meanings...that's how words work ! They DO have less protection than born people because they CAN be killed during the time of "protection". Explained this several times to you....
Gee, you forgot to respond this post( among so many others ) No , but it IS logical and factual to say the fetus is inside the woman and ATTACHED to her body...It isn't born therefore it has no rights. Did you really think a fetus just floats around inside a woman for no reason !!!!!???
So if abortion is banned you contend that nothing will change for women....then what would be the purpose of banning abortions?????????????????????????