Woman dies after declining cancer treatments to save the life of her unborn child

so?...................

 

No in fact it will not

It needs to be sustained by what is basically a form of parasitism off of another person

 

Sorry your point is........................

You stated that the age of viability was decreasing I proved it was not. And there is no way in the foreseeable future of changing the point of viability. We seem to have hit a wall and there are no "miracle advancements" on the horizon

 

What is it then, if it is not the womans' body part and not human being?

 

Tell me is 3 year old a parasite?.
A 3 year old child would not survive without being cared for.
When do you believe children are no longer parasites?.

 

Non Sequitur

People who try false entrapment of others end up looking very very foolish

 

A child needs the help of an adult normally the mother to survive, right from conception up until the age of being able to were they can feed and dress themselves. Now tell me do you believe at anytime in those developing stages when the child needs assitance we should be able to kill them?.

You excuse seems to be because of the stage of develoment a person is at. Should people be entitled to kill 4 year old because they cannot do long division?.
We should not base the worth of someone upon their productivity, on what they are able and unable to do, that is exactly what people who support abortion think.

 

I only asked when do you believe a child is no longer a form of parasite?.
It was you that stated they were. How can it be false entrapment?.

 

Because we were not talking about children. You shifted the goal posts - not falling for that sad attempt to entrap

But let me make MY point - do you think that a 6 week old foetus is capable of independent life?

 

Well what are you talking about then?.

No, I do not think a 6 week old feteus is capable of independant life, nor is a 1 year old baby, or a 2 year old, etc.
Your point being?.

 

Call it ignorance, then, rather than stupidity. Her decision was still a bad one. Thanks for that story btw,

 

So?

Yes, we can.

Yes, there is.

See here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/250963-my-argument-against-pro-lifers.html

 

It's a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Your question is like asking, "What is a seed in the ground, if not part of the soil or a tree?"

 

So SOME unborn children are killed and it isn't murder, SOME unborn children are not innocent persons, and SOME unborn children are not people. And YOU want to be the one who decides which unborn children are which.

 

Normally as so called civilised societies we do not tolerate innocent people being killed. So why should we in cases of abortion.

So we can justifiy killing people just because of where they are?. So if you do not like people living in France below the age of 18 do you think you would be justified in killing them?. This I think is complete anarchy you are proposing.

So it is an excuse then to take innocent life?.

I have heard your argument and is more or less base on the age of the human person. Just because a person is not as developed we should not be permitted to kill the person.

 

No, a person is a person. A baby is a young person, a childof 8 is a young person, etc, etc. Tell, me then at exactly what point is it a person?.
I believe it to be at conception. I would like though to hear when you think it is a person.

 

When it acquires consciousness, self-awareness and a general interest in being alive/the capacity to do so.

Why?

For me, see above.

 

Your view elevates a mindless microscopic zygote to a kind of demigod, and reduces a woman to a gestating/birthing slave.

 

too bad you didnt answer the question.

 

interesting how a question of such enormous consequences has a very fixed, and easy to determine point if you agree conception is when it becomes a person, whereas

ALL others, viability, self awareness, etc, have subjective, no verifiable, non constant points which are impossible to pinpoint on a consistent basis from being to being.

you still have failed to show why your proposistion of self interest in being alive is required for a person to have a right to life dfoesnt give all people a license to kill suicidal people. yea, yea, yea, I know, you are going to claim you answered it, but you didnt

just keep on claiming a self wareness leading to a self interest is what gives a human a right to life, nobody is being persuaded by your arguement though, just keep wasting your time on it, I appreciate it.

oh, and by the way, I have determined that without a self interest in reproducing, one cannot have a right to life (sarcasm)

 

I'm not here to dance to anyone's tune. It was more important to make this point: the belief that personhood begins at conception elevates a mindless microscopic zygote to a kind of demigod, and reduces a woman to a gestating/birthing slave.

 

you still didnt answer the question. I doubt if many here want to read posts of your erroneous opinions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
and you still didnt answer the question

 

And your post does?

 

That is how it works. That's what nature intended.

 

All abortions are killing someone.

All aborted fetuses are innocent.

All aborted fetuses are Humans.

Some abortions are accepted, but that does not change the facts.

That is the woman's decision and out of my control.