Are you trying to say that being inside her body, by itself, doesn't mean anything; and being attached to her body, by itself doesn't really mean anything, but that somehow together, when those two things are combined, somehow it becomes much more significant? Because you're really not making yourself clear.
FoxHastings said: ↑ 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. OH FFS.....the fetus canNOT be in her body without being attached and it cannot be attached to her inside if it isn't in her body.. no matter what your little SciFi TV show "hypotheticals" tell you... NO MATTER WHAT, the fetus does not become a legal person until birth.....and no TV show, no "hypothetical CRAP can change that. Women still have all the power
... and that's what such people will always attempt to deflect to: life of mother, rape, incest, laws, rights, the word "person", other species, other determinations of life, etc... The words 'living human' scare the living hell out of "pro-choice" people, so they will divert, duck, dodge, dip, and deflect away from those words and attempt to insert other words into the discussion to shift the focus away from their own approval of the choice to kill a living human who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die.
That was supposed to say "morally reprehensible", not apprehensible. It appears that I mistyped there. Thanks for catching that.
My post was supposed to say "morally reprehensible"; I'm not sure how the word apprehensible got in there instead. This discussion has nothing to do with the Bible.
My question does. It is a very straightforward, yes-or-no-question. I thought you loved those kind of questions.
So you agree that the "undeveloped fetus" has committed no crime. We're good there. I'm not going to address your mentioning of "souls", since that is irrelevant to my overarching question. I will also assume that by "undeveloped", you actually mean 'not fully developed', since a fetus is a name given to a particular developmental stage of a mammal (such as a human), so a fetus is at least somewhat developed. The particular developmental stage is also irrelevant to my overarching question. What is relevant to it is the particular species being discussed and how one would determine that species to be "alive". With regard to humans, one first checks for a pulse (a heartbeat). Any human that has a pulse (a heartbeat) is considered to be "alive".
Laws address issues where the behavior of a person can affect other persons. Your insistance that an embryo is a person is a purely personal religious belief. I'm not opposed to your direction of wanting to reduce the number of abortions. But, writing laws against women is just not an acceptable approach. There ARE other approaches. Pick one and stop pretending that laws against women is a legitimate direction. It is not.
You are WAY off base here. In countries with extreme laws against abortion the reason for those laws is invariably religious. Plus, first world nations with majorities holding to anti-abortion religions have law allowing abortion. For example, Ireland is ~90% Catholic or Islamic, and both both religions are stronly opposed to abortion. Yet, abortion is legal in Ireland. The idea that you can use the government to force your religious views on others is just plain NOT acceptable.
Ya, those darn people imposing all those facts...they must be such a bother to you Why would it? . It doesn't scare me. I know a fetus is living and if it's in a human it's a human fetus but it isn't a legal person.... You never did answer as to why fetuses can't be claimed as dependents? Simple: a fetus is not A living human as in legal person... Anti-Choicers approve punishing an actual a living human who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die.
I thought those on the Left say "Nobody is illegal" ? Not true any longer once it interferes with women's rights?
Fetuses of a certain age 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!
FoxHastings said: ↑ Simple: a fetus is not A living human as in legal person... What TF are you going on about?? Sounds like desperation because you have nothing else
Your last sentence is total BS, obviously. And, your claim of laws in other countries is selective listening. Canada is an example of one of the "many parts of the world". How about following their lead - which has a proven track record of resulting in fewer abortions per thouand pregnancies that our own record?
Hmm, wasn't it already explained to you that the Abortion rate of white women in the US is not that much higher than the abortion rate of white women in Canada? seems like an unfair comparison to me...
Not to mention the laws in the US actually in force concerning abortion are not that much different than in Canada. Indeed, there are a few US states with abortion laws even more lax and liberal than Canada. This whole thing seems like a dishonest (or at least highly ill-informed) pro-choice talking point.
Absolutely. There is no evidence of causal relationship. It's fine to find stats that show differences based on specific criteria, but that does NOT mean that one has found a valid causal relationship.
