And infant is an independent human life form. It cannot "fend for itself", but that is immaterial. it is self aware but because its senses have yet to develop it doesn't know it. Like I said, the moment the transition is made from umbiliacal cord to lungs human being is born.
There is a reason I am okay with RvW....science has proven there is no viable (as in thought) activity in any form until nearly 7 months. Though this is general and we should most certainly err on the side of humanity, I personally feel this creature has no idea, cannot possibly feel, and has yet to become more than a bloody egg in the frying pan. Pretending this is more than the mechanical beginnings of what we are is not supported by biology, neurology, or any basic science we rely on. I do not think your god is real. I doubt the soul is real. This is not yet a human being.
being self aware is not the same as having sentience and if you read what I put I said "not fully aware"
The last thing a rape victim is thinking is to get an abortion. She is most likely thinking that she has to get home and scrub herself clean.
For the same reason a sperm is not a "living precursor of a human being". <<< MODERATOR EDIT: INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR THIS FORUM >>> There is no possible way it's self aware until at least the time that it's brain forms and is active. If you want to debate restricting abortion after that point, I'll entertain that discussion, but you don't. You want to restrict abortion far before that point is reached. Because you are an extremist who won't compromise. Fortunately for the rest of us, your side has already lost. 40 years ago, not to belabor the point.
Well it might be legal...but in many states they are making it almost impossible for women to abort. State laws are becoming tougher and tougher. More and more doctors and nurses are refusing to do them....and clinics are closing all over the country.
Sperm is living...BUT ALONE IT IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BABY. AND EGG....IS LIVING....BUT IT IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BABY. ONLY TOGETHER DO THEY FORM A NEW LIVING HUMAN CHILD. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: REMOVED REPLY TO DELETED QUOTE AND OFF TOPIC >>> - - - Updated - - - Yes scrub herself clean before she goes in to kill a living human life. - - - Updated - - - And some people never become aware......and get it. Boy are there a lot like that here.
No, it's not. 5 minutes after sperm meets egg, there is no human. 10 hours later when there is 128 cells, it's still not a human being. Only until it has a brain that exists, is working, and self aware does a human exist. Until then, it's just a lump of cells.
Clinics are not closing all over the country ....and why would you like that? <<< REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE NAME AND OFF TOPIC >>>
Emergency contraception does not kill a living human life. In fact, it reduces the need for abortion. If the pro-life movement were sincere about "saving a human life," it would embrace Plan B.
Because an infant has all the characteristics required to get into the club "homo Sapien' - - - Updated - - - The single cell at conception is not a living human baby either. Why do you persist in claiming that it is ?
They simply don't care. They are just that selfish. And quite adept at rationalizing moral wrongness to their conscience. That's really all there is to it. In their minds, nothing outweighs the sanctity of their own convenience. And apparently the law agrees. The same law that once saw farm work as more important than freedom.
It is legal because criminalizing it doesn't reduce the abortion rate, it only increases the maternal death rate. "Where abortion is illegal, it is equally if not more prevalent than in jurisdictions where it is legal. And where abortion is illegal, it is much more likely to be unsafe. So, policy-wise, abortion is easy." Marianne Mollmann, Women's Rights Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch
No woman aborts at conception. They don't even know they are pregnant. ...88% of all abortions that we can guess (Guttmaucher is a biased site...) happen within the first 12 weeks. Look up fetal gestation and see what the fetus is doing throughout this trimester. Amazing. Now it is small...it does not look like a newborn..but it has all it needs in order to live. It is human...it has the same DNA as a full grown human. What doesn't it have that it needs? NOTHING but a place to grow. You are wrong however it is living....or it would not be able to grow. Can a rock grow? Can an inanimate object grow?
It makes no sense to say that making abortion illegal....would not save lives. It is not logical...not logical at all. How many maternal deaths were there pre-Roe? The facts blow your statement out of the water. "Mary Calderone, who was then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, reported on a conference studying abortion in America. She indicated that in 1957, there were 260 abortion deaths nationwide. That number included all abortions: legal, illegal, and spontaneous. The caluclations based on state maternal mortality investigations are fairly close to Calderone's numbers based on national data. These numbers were based on alerting doctors, law enforcement, coroners, and hospital administrators, along with public records officials, of their responsiblity to report these deaths." Mary Calderone, "Illegal abortion as a public health issue," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/century/aahxpt2prn.htm You will say this site is biased...but look at the sources. 1. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, "Induced termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity of Women," Journal of the American Medical Association, December 9, 1992 2. Rachel Benson Gold, Abortion and Women's Health, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1990 3. Cates, et al, "Legalized abortion: Effect on national trends of maternal and abortion-related mortality (1940 through 1976)", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 132:211, 1978 4. Alex Barno, "Criminal abortion deaths, illegitimate pregnancy deaths, and suicides in pregnancy: Minnesota, 1950-1965," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, June 1, 1967. 5. Mary Calderone, "Illegal abortion as a public health issue," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 6. Leon Fox, "Abortion deaths in California," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, July 1, 1967 7. Frederick Taussig, Abortion, Spontaneous and Induced, 1936 8. "The Abortion Problem," Proceedings of the conference held under the auspices of the national Committee on Maternal Health, Inc., June 19-20, 1944. 9. Brief for Petitioners and Cross-Respondents, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) You are so wrong it is laughable.
Then explain why countries in Latin America with illegal abortion have such high abortion and maternal death rates. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/31/common-sense-abortion-policy
MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>> I did not claim that a fetus is not living. That would be retarded. What I say is that the single cell at conception is not a living human. Of course the cell at conception is alive. It is a living cell. It is those that claim that "life" begins at conception that are guilty of the fallacy stated above for the exact reasons you state. Animate does not come from inanimate. Both the egg and sperm are living entities. Many women use the abortion pill which prevents the fertilize egg from implanting in a time period shortly after conception. It is important to understand the status of the entity at conception. Once this is understood the conversation can proceed logically to later dates. I would agree that as the fetus grows it gains more and more of the characteristics required to legitimately be classified as a living human. Certainly it does not have many of these characteristics in the early stages of pregnancy. Recently some states have tried to pass abortion laws based on the "fetal heartbeat" ND says 6 months Arkansas says 12 months. (obviously one of these states is ignoring the science of what a heartbeat is - and both ignoring the science of what a living human is) As is usual in these things we hear the most idiotic of arguments. “The state has a compelling duty to find what is the potential life of a fetus,” she said. “What is more compelling and proof of life than a heartbeat? It meets the criteria of Roe v. Wade.” Duty to find what is the potential life of a fetus ? What does this statement even mean ? "what is more compelling proof of life than a heartbeat" ? No one questions that the fetus is alive. Finding a heartbeat on mars would certainly be compelling "proof of life" but life of what ? These people are far to woefully ignorant to be taken seriously never-mind to be forcing their ignorant beliefs on others though force of law.
Women who have irresponsible sex and have multiple abortions IS wrong. Women who are raped should at least have the option to abort. They didn't ask for the kid. Also, don't Republicans want less kids being born to single mothers who can't afford them so they don't suck up the welfare money? When you say a raped women should be forced to give birth to the child, you're supporting the possibility that she can't afford the baby and has to give it up for adoption or foster care, therefore using the state's money. Do you see the contradiction your position creates?
No, they don't and Republican congressmen have cut funding for anything that aids poor children......they ONLY SAY they are against abortion to get the votes of the terminally STUPID.
This is something that has been put forward a number of times .. however the usual stock reply is that it isn't the fetuses fault he/she is the product of rape and therefore should not be aborted. what I find really amazing is that they fight tooth and nail to ban abortion unless the pregnancy will cause the death of the mother, then its ok to abort .. so the actual "right to life" they keep on about only exists on their terms, in some cases the "rights" of the mother out weigh the "rights" of the fetus .. question is why is that? Most of them also don't give two figs for it once it is born, its not their responsibility then, funny how it is their responsibility before the birth though. To me pro-life is just a back door method of trying to create a religiously run country in much the same vein as sharia law.
Having respect for HUMAN LIFE is sharia law? One of my friends and I are both pro lifers, and he is non religious, and I was pro life even before I became a christian. Banning gay marriage would make America a theocracy, yes. But since it's possible to have respect for HUMAN LIFE without having any religous beliefs, your arguement is invalid with abortion.
I don't believe in the government enforcing Christianity at all. That's why I'm against restrictions on gay marriage, even though I'm a Christian (and I personally think homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong) But since it's totally possible to have a pro life stance without religion (just like how it's possible to have laws against stealing and lying in court, without being religious, even though many religions would agree with those laws), making abortion illegal wouldn't violate the Separation of Church and State.
It would violate separation of church and state because it's based on a BELIEF. There would be no SECULAR reason for such law. Just because many non-Christians endorse such law, doesn't mean it is non-religious. Many Christians endorse pro-choice. Other religions also have members who may be either pro-life or pro-choice. Please show how abortion disrupts order in society to justify your BELIEF that it should be illegal.
Swell. So how in Hell do you figure the refusal to recognize SSM constitutes enforcement of Christianity? Hmmmm?
