You want to put a zygote in a cute sailor suit or tutu ? .. and put it up for adoption. You do realize that a zygote is a single human cell .... yes/no ?
I said it was "human life" - same as every other human cell. What does this have to do with you wanting to dress this human cell up in a cute sailor suit or tutu and put it up for adoption ?
If we are going to be pedantic about terminology then the zygote stage only lasts 24 hours which is insufficient time to extract it and put it up for adoption. Since it then becomes an embryo that is rapidly dividing the outfits would need to be made of spandex to accommodate the growth. Just saying!
Maybe in a few deep red states. If your typical abortion is murder, is an abortion to save the mothers life self defense?
Good question but I doubt Anti-Choicers would allow an abortion to save the life of a mere woman. That said, EVERY abortion could be viewed as self defense. The growing fetus does harm the woman it's in and if Anti-Choicers want to give it rights with those rights comes restrictions that WE ALL HAVE.. We cannot harm others without their consent. So if a woman doesn't consent to the fetus harming her then out it goes ...
I think you're a bit cynical about the motives of the pro-life crowd. This isn't an obvious issue, it takes some thought. Your position is by no means the only feasible one. What percentage of the pro-life crowd, male or female, simply hate women?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Good question but I doubt Anti-Choicers would allow an abortion to save the life of a mere woman. That said, EVERY abortion could be viewed as self defense. The growing fetus does harm the woman it's in and if Anti-Choicers want to give it rights with those rights comes restrictions that WE ALL HAVE.. We cannot harm others without their consent. So if a woman doesn't consent to the fetus harming her then out it goes ... It doesn't really matter and numbers would be hard to come by since they'd never be honest and admit it. IF a person wants to take away another's rights it is a form of hate since what could be worse than losing the right to your own body? An example, some slave owners probably didn't consciously hate their slaves...but did it make any difference to the slaves? No. Care to address the rest of my post ? Please don't try to avoid these facts like Anti-Choicers do. """""That said, EVERY abortion could be viewed as self defense. The growing fetus does harm the woman it's in and if Anti-Choicers want to give it rights with those rights comes restrictions that WE ALL HAVE.. We cannot harm others without their consent. So if a woman doesn't consent to the fetus harming her then out it goes …"""""
Tell it to Renee - I was not the one suggesting outfitting the zygote in a tutu and putting it up for adoption
Its actually not. Its the only case where unjustified killing of a human isn't homicide. I get your meaning, but its important for clarity to use precise terminology. Abortion isn't homicide because its not unlawful.
You really disingenuous...you know I made a mistake and apologized to you because I thought you said a zygote is a life....
Funny, Hitler also considered Jews and other non-Aryan Germans to be non persons. And lest we forget, Old Maggie Sanger was herself a devout Eugenics supporter and admirer of Adolf himself.
Ya, just like Anti-Choicers consider women to be non-persons... BTW, your trite and oft debunked crap about Hitler sure denigrates what Jews suffered , makes light of it by comparing it to the quick painless death of a fetus....that's sick.
Yes, as you have been shown many times, when a fetus is aborted it can't feel pain and it is quick. What you think has nothing to do with the reality of an abortion or the growth stages of a fetus. Contrary to what Anti-Choicers want you to believe the fetus is not tortured to death because they have no actual facts to back up their little argument....... Here's the entire post you cherry picked/ wriggled out of: Ya, just like Anti-Choicers consider women to be non-persons... BTW, your trite and oft debunked crap about Hitler sure denigrates what Jews suffered , makes light of it by comparing it to the quick painless death of a fetus....that's sick.
I am not disingenuous ... the guy was hammering on me for the tutu comment .. I merely directed him to the person that made the comment. I did miss that your apology was sincere (and not being sarcastic) though.. reread and am not on the same page.
You seem to have a problem differentiating between a ZEF AND A person. M “Maggie” was in 1924 wei rhetoric was a lot different. Educated people knew what she was trying to do and Martin Luther King gave an award in her honor. Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy. As she framed it, birth control was the fundamental women’s rights issue. “Enforced motherhood,” she wrote in 1914, “is the most complete denial of a woman’s right to life and liberty.”
There is no differentiation here. God created life, and for us to play God in the wanton slaughter of our most defenseless is appalling.
I was not "hammering on you"! I was just having a little fun at the expense of those who emote about ZEF's by calling them "babies".
