Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

That’s the point, immoral decisions justified by law. You know, like slavery used to be.

 

You claiming abortion - at any point from conception forward - is an "Immoral decision" ?

Like to hear you defend that position

 

False analogy, pregnancy is a natural gestation process of the female to produce a child, pregnancy does not break anything or in anyway disable the females body.

 

Im waiting for your scientific citation stating that a fetus is in fact a parasite. Im not going to ask again, but I will write your claim off as bullshit since you clearly cannot support it.

 

We are talking about an infestation of a few cells .. not necessarily a "Fetus" .. but either way .. as stated by the scientific citation given .. a parasitic infection can be microscopic or large .. like a Fetus. They don't list every possible example of parasitic infection ..as this would be moronic .. and only a moron would expect such a thing.

Any organism that feeds off the host and has potential to causes infection can be classed a a parasitic infection .. either microscopic - a single cell or virus .. or many cells on a macroscopic scale.

You have no clue what you are talking about - have no understanding of what a parasitic infection is -- so quit pretending otherwise.

 

Simply walking runs a risk of a broken ankle or leg or even an arm if one falls wrong. Risk is everywhere, and we make our decisions based on that risk. If there is too much ice out we can choose not to take that increased risk of falling regardless of how natural ice and walking are.

It's really no different with pregnancy. Pregnancy comes with risks. Some of those risks could result in death, even before aid can be gotten. Getting pregnant is a risk of sex. Remaining pregnant has it's own set of risks. Why should not a woman get to choose whether or not she takes those risks? Especially when abortion hold less risk than remaining pregnant does.

 

It is the killing of an innocent human life. There can be medical reasons to justify it, but I see no other circumstance where killing a baby in the womb would not be immoral.

 

I'm not directly referring to your personal beliefs on abortion. I'm stating that slaves were once property and fetuses are property (but may be deemed humans). There is a correlation between the image of slaves in the law and the image of fetuses in the law.

 

I disagree with the concept of a fetus being property, and it is in the exceptions that we can see how the principle of it being property fails. Right now, I can think of only two exceptions to where the genetic mother cannot simply have the offspring terminated (assuming we are talking pre-birth), with one looking at future, but feasible technology. That would be artificial wombs, a technology currently being worked on, although I doubt truly workable in my lifetime. The other is the use of a surrogate for gestation, especially in context of it being an IVF pregnancy. In both cases, there is no justification in having the offspring terminated. If the offspring were strictly property prior to birth, then the genetic mother could have it terminated. But such is not the case. That is why only bodily autonomy can be looked at for her right to an abortion. And in the end it's not so much of a right to an abortion, as abortion is the only available procedure, pre viability, available to satisfy the right of bodily autonomy.

 

You are referring to fairly recent changes in law made for the purpose of creating an argument for you to come along and use. Before that law, there were serious additional penalties. However, the religious right demanded that it be CALLED murder, because it suited their political purposes.

There is no question that a serious harm has been done when a woman is attacked in that way.

 

First and foremost, a healthy woman does not reject her child because it's a hostile being in her body. Your collision of rights seems to be somewhat artificial to me.

Usually, a woman loves her baby and the baby is deeply aware of this love.
The unborn child's rights should only be exercised when his life is seriously threatened. Abortion, for example.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What rights do you want the unborn to have that DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN IT IS IN ?

To you it may but there IS a collision of rights IF the fetus is granted rights.
YOU did NOT answer the question : What rights do you want the unborn to have that DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN IT IS IN ?

Totally irrelevant and we are not talking about babies.

A fetus has no rights.

And YOU did NOT answer the question : "What rights do you want the unborn to have that DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN IT IS IN ?

 

Slaves were people who had their right to bodily autonomy taken away....the exact same thing Anti-Choicers want to do to women.

 

There is no "Baby" that can be shown to exist at conception -- so this is assumed premise fallacy not morality

 

First and foremost, who are you responding to? There are several posts on this page alone your post might be in response to.

That would be a Matt of her opinion on the issue. Even when it can be medically shown that the pregnancy is having a detrimental effect on the woman's body, she might not see it as negative.

Whose "collision of rights"?

When does it become aware of such? How do you prove that? Is there a point, such as when the cells haven't specialized yet, where it can't be aware of the love?

But the woman's rights should not be exercised when her's is threatened? Keep in mind that the mere existence of the risk of death is a threat to her life. Should not she be the one to choose whether to take that risk or not? Even at a 1% risk of death, death is pretty damn permanent.

 

There was never a human life lost when slave owners killed their slaves either. They were by definition just property, just a big clump of cells to be disposed of at will by people who controlled their existence.

 

Of course there was a human life lost .. this has nothing to do with slaves or born humans, . .. and everything to do with your inability to show that a person exists at conception.

 

It’s been shown long ago, you just don’t like the answer. Human life begins at conception.

 

It has never been shown that human life begins at conception - the reverse is true but it matters not as this is not about "Human life" .. this is about whether or not a Person exists ... not whether human life exists.

You are confusing your lack of understanding between a noun and descriptive adjective with morality. Is a sperm not "human life" ? is a human heart cell not "Human life"

I doubt you cry "Bloody Murder" every time you take a dump .... shedding tears over the "human life" you just killed.

Perhaps you need to try a religious argument - the Catholic conception of ensoulment or some such thing - somethign that is not word fallacy.

 

Your desperation is showing.

 

The above non response is the only desperation here - lacking any material to respond coherently .. you default to name calling because you had not figured out that a sperm is "human life" - showing that your claim "Human life begins at conception" is false and that you have no idea what the difference between "Human life" and " A Human" is.

Turns out that your morality is fallacy mate ?!

 

I know, I know, life is a lot simpler for people once they decide there is no such thing as moral responsibility.

 

Speaking for yourself mate ? You are the one lacking in moral responsibility .. conflating fallacy with morality followed by running away from your mistake rather than doing the morally responsible thing by correcting your moral compass.

How is conflating fallacy with morality not moral irresponsibility ?

 

There is no fallacy in my argument. Life begins at conception, and human life is sacred. The instant a human egg and a human sperm unite and create a unique human DNA life for that baby begins. It is at exactly what a human being looks like at that stage of development.

 

The right to become fully human and all other rights that result from it.
Hence, abortion is murder!

Not yet in the form of a lawful code, but morally since mankind exists.