And you are going to have to accept it anti-choicers. Abortion is perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable for any reason the woman wishes, which includes using it as a form of BC. Though I would find such behavior irresponsible and dangerous (to the woman) that is her choice and non of your or my business. Its absolutely hilarious to listen to the anti-choice crowd preach their holier than thou rhetoric while championing "states rights" (code word for state sanctioned bigotry) small government, and of course "freedom". But of course this comes with a disclaimer in fine print which reads "Only if you agree with us 100% with no questions asked". Face it anti-choicers abortion is not going to be criminalized and even if such a thing were to happen how would you enforce it? What would be the penalties? Execution? Life? How very "pro-life" of you. Bottom line anti-choicers are the apitamy of hypocrisy. These people "care" more about the nonexistent than they do real living people. I guess thats why they are conservatives, it fits right in in the right wing bubble.
It is not my opinion, I actually like you. But one must tell the truth when they feel compelled to do so.
Punishing women for trying to have the fetus inside them killed is perfectly acceptable. Women are going to have to accept that they do not have free reign to dispense with another human life however they see fit. Women are going to have to accept that their actions have consequences, and that it is too late for them to try to turn back the clock when the price is the life of their own little child. It's absolutely hilarious to hear American liberals try to make their "think of the children" pleas in their bid to get guns banned, yet do a 360 when it comes to the issue of abortion. I find it unbelievably hypocritical that pro-aborts try to manipulate the notion of "freedom" to defend abortion. The would seek to deny the freedom of the fetus, a fetus who cannot yet give his consent. The fetus is not "nonexistent", however much pro-abort feminists may wish it were so. At the very core of government is the idea that one individuals liberties end when they encroach on the liberties of another. Unless your life is being imminently threatened, you do not have the right to abduct and tie up another human being, because the freedom to carry out your actions would be denying the freedom of another individual. It is not enough just to feel like your life is being threated. You do not have the right to shoot someone just because you are in a dark alley and you think someone may be following you. Your life has to be in imminent and immediate danger. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." "Pro-choicers" are hypocrital for demanding "a woman's right" in order that the rights of the fetus be denied. If there are any conflicting rights, the rights of the fetus to the rest of his life must clearly be held above the right of the woman to escape a temporary burden. Choicers who claim that abortion is acceptable for any reason are no more reasonable than lifers who claim that abortion should be banned in every situation, no exceptions. When a choicer demands abortion for any reason, what they are really supporting is abortion as just another form of contraception, no matter how advanced the human life is. This is nothing less than murder. Murder for convenience, Murder for money.
and all of this is based on the presumption that that bundle of cells is a "person", which as we all know the pro-life cannot show to be true in any way, shape or form . the argument is irrelevant until you can show conclusive proof that the bundle of cells or even a fetus is a independent sentient person anything other than that is just hot air.
no, when they can be shown to be independent and sentient. and before you jump on the bandwagon of well a baby isn't independent, the independent in this case means the ability to intake air to oxygenate its blood, to ingest food to fuel its body .. without the life support of the mothers womb the fetus is not independent. Sentient means the FULL extent of brain wave activity, this does not occur in the fetus until the latter part of the pregnancy, around weeks 24-29. If we were sentient before this time, explain how no person can remember the moment of conception, people under hypnosis do have some "memories" of being in the womb, but no one remembers the moment of conception .. why?
Your criteria for human life--is simply based on your personal opinion of when human life is important---to you. Its not in anyway a scientific assumption of human life. Meaning---the same people in India that convince mothers to poison their newborn baby girls---use the same standard of using a criteria that justifies their position---not a true definition of human life. I think a truer definition would be that at conception an individual life is formed. Something that can never be replaced---ever. Just like you can't replace a person murdered on the street. That person will never come back in any form. And such it the same for the fetus. The fact is---the fetus is a burden and inconvenience and vulnerable. Its not cuddly, doesn't look cute (cause you can't see it really) and it causes a mother to change her life. Lot of things going against this human life. It can be denoted to "non-person" legally.....but you can't denote it as non-human scientifically. The same type of attitude towards the fetus can easily translate towards newborns, the disabled and the elderly. A criteria is presented that justifies them to die. It just takes a little evolution of society.
The very clear difference between neonates, the disabled, the elderly and fetuses, is that the first three have all been born and do not require the physical life support system of another human being. The fetus can only survive within the body of the woman until viability (and even then it may still need mechanical life support until further development). Also the first three are not causing physical danger to anyone else by being inside their bodies because they are not inside anyone else's body! This is the reason a woman will always have the choice to abort, because she is putting her own health and life at risk to bring a new human into the world.
and your opinion is no different to mine . .except mine is backed up by scientific knowledge, what do you have to back yours up? Your disagreements as to my position are purely personal and have no credence. It is my personal opinion that all guns should be banned regardless, but it doesn't have any credence in a debate about gun control, all debates are based on opinion supported by evidence, which in the case of abortion is what constitutes a sentient human life and the medical knowledge supports the pro-choice opinion, should that knowledge change then the debate position changes. Also I can assure you there are people out there who do not agree with your analogy that once a life is ended it never comes back, you only have to look at the number of religions who believe in reincarnation to dispute your opinion. Again you are placing your own preconceived ideas onto others, in truth you have no idea why woman choose to abort, to label all with your "the fetus is a burden and inconvenience and vulnerable" isn't a fact its a personal opinion, you have nothing to back it up .. and in the end while abortion is not illegal it really isn't anything to do with you or me or anyone else why a woman chooses to abort. Why not put your efforts into something you can influence, like better sex education and more freely available contraception for any person of a sexual active age .. this would have a far greater impact on abortion than your current stance.
I don't know if you have children---but if not please use your imagination. If you gave birth to a child, raised a child to adulthood---could you gaze at your 20 year old and say---if I aborted that person at the zygote stage--he or she could still exist? Scientists know--that an individual is formed at conception--simple embryology. Science you ignore to justify your opinion. So you aren't working from a scientific view of when human life begins. You are justifying your individual opinion of when human life is worth protecting and when it is considered disposable. Just be honest with that at least.
I do have 2 sons .. so no need to use imagination Irrelevant because it was never an issue when my wife became pregnant, however if my wife would have chosen to have an abortion then I would have supported her decision, it is her body not mine and as an answer to the latter part It would depend on my religious thinking, if I was a Hindu then I may very well think that. No scientists know that an potential individual life is formed at conception, just as a cat has potential kittens at conception . .doesn't mean it will happen. but I am, I have never said that life doesn't begin at conception, the whole pro-life, pro-choice debate isn't about when the life begins, it is about when does it become an independent sentient life. I admit nothing that isn't true, do you admit that your opinion is based upon your own personal feelings? when you can show me scientific proof that sentience begins at conception I will happily review my stance.
Has it ever occurred to you that if your wife chose to abort--your sons would never exist? So are your sons worth less then your wife's right to abort? Can you really look them in the eye and say that? A zygote's dna is an individual --with hair color, personality traits, intelligence, talents put in place. Are disputing that? Do you think that if you aborted one child---you could get some sort of replica when allowing another to live? Like I said---your criteria of sentience is your own personal justification of when human life is disposable. I do have an opinion---based on scientific fact---that at conception we have an individual that can not protect itself and is easy to kill. http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html The goal of the fertilization cascade is thus achieved: The fabrication of a diploid set of chromosomes The determination of the chromosomal gender of the new individual The induction of normal "cleavage division" for embryogenesis.
Once again you are spouting the same fallacy even though your fallacy has been shown to you numerous times. Once again - You have presented no valid support for your claim that the single human cell at conception is a "living human" yet you continue to state this as fact = Logical Fallacy (Assumed Premise) Making a mistakes is human. Continuing to make the same mistake after being shown its error is the mark of a fool.
What are you talking about. Scientists with subject matter expertise in the relevent field of biology (which is not "embryology" or medicine by the way) do not claim that a living human exists at conception. Perhaps you have some knowledge of science but it is not shown by your post. Scientists do not make rediculous claims about science using obfuscative and non technical language. "individual is formed at conception" An individual what ? Correct scientific answer = an individual human cell. An individual human cell is not a living human according to the Subject Matter Experts. "Human Life" does not "begin" at conception. Again your apparent lack of understanding of basic scientific terminology is shown by your lack of understanding of the term "human life" and its beginning. Even a high school Biology teaches that animate does not come from inanimate. Human life exists long before the single cell at conception.
Your opinion is based not on scientific fact but on lack of scientific understanding. Your link shows the formation of a "human cell" .. not a living human. The statement The Goal of the fertilization cascade: "determination of the chromosomal gender of the new individual" does not mean that a living human exists. It simply means that we know what the gender of the eventual born human will be. (This statment is not technically correct however because it assumes that monozygotic twinning does not occur resulting in "twins"/ individuals as opposed to indivudual and that a mutation does not occur during this process whereby a boy and a girl results from this twinning .. in which case you would not know the sex of the eventual born human at conception) Embryology is "NOT" the domain science for determination of what is a "homo sapien" and what is not and so it is not suprising to find technically incorrect and/or obfuscative language. Regardless .. the statment (dispite being technically incorrect) in no way claims that a living human is present at conception. You are trying to read in meaning that does not exist.
We can see the little baby-shaped life through ultrasound, moving around in the womb. We have even stuck in-utero cameras up there to see the baby. Obviously this will never be enough for choicers. If this is not enough to convince you, I would counter your point by asking you how we know whether the pregnant mother is really a human life? Here we can see baby moving around and sucking his thumb through ultrasound: 16-week fetus: Maybe the mother is not really a human life, in which case it shouldn't matter whether we punish her for killing the "non-life" inside her.
Of course the mother is a human life, she is sentient, unlike the fetus pictures you show .. also the one showing the sucking thumb is a reflex action with no conscience thought behind it. How about showing us some pictures of a zygote and then try preaching that is a sentient human life as well
Of course it has occurred to me, but it also wouldn't make anything different .. I wouldn't have known my sons if my wife had chosen to abort would I, your point is irrelevant. A Zygotes DNA is no different from any other cell in the body, all our cells contain the same DNA. All the physical aspects of what the zygote MAY become are encoded at conception, however intelligence, personality traits and talents (what ever that means) are not .. if that were true then Identical twins would be exactly the same not only in their physical appearance but in everything else as well. You seem to know little about the subject. You can think what you like, the fact still remains that a fetus before a point in the gestation period does not display any sentience, which is the ability to "feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences." until this point the fetus is nothing more than a non-destructive parasite.
What a stupid thing to say. This is the most idiotic triped I've ever encountered. Yes my snot is a person too. Idiot pro life morons.
