how would you know you never use any not in the slightest, I just happen to believe that using words incorrectly is dishonest. Are you dishonest? Not claiming that in the slightest ... however .. that really has nothing to do with what consent is. No one disagrees that life starts at conception - well, in reality life started some 4.8 billion years ago - what you have to prove is that there is A human(noun) being at conception, if you can do that then you have managed to do something that even the subject matter specialist cannot agree upon. and as I keep telling you consent to sexually intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, if you think otherwise then argue your case with the cited evidence to support it. If you truly believe what you say then by all means you are more than entitled to live your life adhering to those principles, what it does not entitle you to do is to force those beliefs onto others. I'd suggest you actually look up the medical issues involved with pregnancy .. but I know you won't as that would cause you to question your own rhetoric spiel, and if my rationalization is illogical then you should have no problem refuting it .. please do so, and as with all rebuttals I expect to see your legal, biologically evidence to support it .. anything else is just your opinion which really means less than nothing to me.
Of course you miss the elephant in the room .. do you know what the BIG difference is between a pregnancy and what you have written is .. I bet you don't. does the person you are taking the heart away from reside inside of the person having the heart attack, using their resources in order to survive and causing injury to them in the process? That is simply a load of crap. Abortion has been practised throughout written history and is even alluded to in the bible. Even the Catholic church did not believe that a fetus has a soul until 'quickening' and penalties for having an abortion before the soul had entered the fetus was not considered murder .. it was still a sin, but not murder. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE Throughout history abortion has only been seen as a crime IF the woman had one without the man's consent .. but then this was when a woman was considered property of a man, something pro-lifers would, no doubt, want to see a return to. On a personal level I agree with you, men should have the right to revoke any and all parental responsibility if they do not consent to being a father . .though the financial consequences of this would have most right-wingers crying into their morning coffee. Fully agree, which is why pro-choice people support and promote comprehensive sex education and free contraception .. funny thing is the majority of pro-lifers stand against the ONLY things that have been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions. Why is that?
You seem to be under the impression that the goal of an abortion is to kill .. it isn't .. it is the termination of a human pregnancy, which unfortunately usually results in the death of the fetus. No different from separating chimera twins which unfortunately usually results in the death of the submissive twin. I have to ask, do you believe in the right to protect yourself from unconsented injury up to and including deadly force? What the fetus is isn't really relevant, it is what it does that is relevant, and just as you can protect yourself from unconsented injury up to and including deadly force so can a woman. A fetus as a person MUST adhere to the restrictions that apply to all other people, if it does not then it becomes a 'super'-person with rights above and beyond what anyone else has.
Why doesn't this same logic apply when the anti-abortionist says "I do not believe a man can force a woman to carry and birth a child. The law can force "women" not to kill their unborn children?" You can't have it both ways. If you're not dodging, then neither was he. I think you're both dodging truths you don't want to acknowledge for the sake of argument. Abortion of a pregnancy. Abortion of a human life. Abortion of a legal parenthood. These are all different issues, but they intersect with each other and are inextricably linked, since the decision of whether or not to do the first will currently have a direct effect on the other two. I agree. Were you actually trying to make a point with these statements, or were you just going out of your way to undermine your own arguments (again)? These are the same type of nonsense insults that others use against women and minorities who object to discrimination and "whine" about their liberties being infringed, according to the defenders of the status quo.
In cases of unplanned pregnancy where the father never intended to conceive a child or become a parent, effectively yes, under the current laws.
Not a good analogy, since the development of the submissive twin has already been arrested and unlike a pregnancy it will won't separate from the dominant one "naturally" without medical intervention.
Under the pro-life mandate, location, development and sentience are irrelevant and as such cannot be used in argument in separation of chimera twins, in other words I am using the same arguments that pro-lifers use in debate of abortion in the case of chimera twin separation. Pro-lifers claim that the location of the fetus is irrelevant, therefore I claim that the location of the submissive twin is irrelevant. Pro-lifers claim that the development stage of the fetus is irrelevant, therefore I claim that the development stage of the submissive chimera twin is irrelevant. Pro-lifers claim that the sentient level of the fetus is irrelevant, therefore I claim the sentient level of the submissive chimera twin is irrelevant. At the point that pro-lifers want to declare personhood (fertilisation) there are two distinct separate zefs, and as such under that ideology there are two persons present. If the arguments of location, development and sentience are irrelevant then what is the argument for the submissive twin to no longer be seen as a person and as such have all the protections associated with personhood?
AIUI in most cases of human chimera the submissive twin is completely absorbed by the dominant one. Even in cases of partial absorption, their nervous systems are fused into one. This doesn't contradict the view that the life of a human being begins at conception. They were two separate human beings, but the life and development of the submissive one ended when the dominant one killed it.
however that is not the case, the life of the submissive twin in the picture of the young boy had not ended until the submissive twin was surgically removed and killed in the process. Can you tell me what is the difference between the following chimera twins, and can you do it without using the "irrelevant" arguments of location, development and sentience? ie under the same restrictions that pro-lifers try to place on pro-choice people when debating abortion.
The same restrictions of which pro-lifers? The ones that don't allow any exceptions ever, or the ones who allow abortion in cases of severe deformity (like not ever being able to develop a head and brain)? The sub in the first photo looks like it doesn't have or will ever have a head or functioning brain or any chance at having any sort of quality of life. The one in the second photo does. How often do chimeric twin surgical separations occur?
Also, if those are the Hensel twins in the second photo, then they're not chimeric. They're identical conjoined twins.
Men should not have any rights over a woman's body under any circumstances. Pregnancy has nothing to do with a man's rights to bodily sovereignty. As men cannot do anything to their bodies to end a pregnancy, then they should understand there is a possibility they will become fathers unless they insist on using a condom, which are very reliable when used properly. Being careful when choosing their partners is also helpful.
It's always been a pattern in history for those who have unequal power over others' lives to either deny they have it, or claim that it's justified by their biological traits.
It is totally defined by individual biological traits. Men can take no action to end a pregnancy. No law can give it to them. It is physically impossible.
Right, just keep pretending the issue is only about physical pregnancy and isn't in any way related or has any effect on 18 years of slavery.
It doesn't have anything to do with slavery. The issue is entirely about women having birth control options that men't can't be given by law.
Right, just keep pretending. I believe I've illustrated clearly the causal relationships between the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy and the indenturing of both parents into legal parenthood. I would even go as far to say that most women don't have abortions because they simply don't want to be pregnant. The fact they don't want to become a legal parent at the time is usually a much larger factor.
Pregnancy is only one part of human reproduction. Men do have choices, but none of them involve ending a pregnancy.
Good posts but I think a very sly not-so-secretly Anti-Choice person is trying to say that if men don't have the equal right to abortion, abortion should be made illegal. Mod edit,,,flounder,,2
Doesn't address the argument (as usual.) I've been consistently arguing the pro-choice position, as far as unplanned pregnancies go.
You don't have an argument and neither do I.. It addresses the point You haven't argued anything. You've just asked questions, the main one being why can only women abort a pregnancy? I and other people have told you why umpteen times, but you still can't get it.
Yep those that want no exceptions (except when the females live is in imminent danger) TBH I have no idea how many surgical separations occur
My mistake, there are conjoined twins and not chimera twins. It is interesting though that conjoined twins are the result of the incomplete splitting of a single fertilized ovum - one person or two? - and chimera twins are the combining of two separate fertilized ovum - one person or two? In my mind what makes the difference to pro-lifers (the ones who want virtually no abortions) between the two pictures shown is that in one case there is only one brain in the other there are two distinct brains, and this only adds weight to the argument that no person exists until the brain has reached a sentient level ie when consistent brain wave activity can be measured. It is one of those subjects that it appears science cannot truly answer, there a number of theories as to the 'moment' a person becomes - Preconception The earliest stopping point is held by many members of the Catholic Church, with their proclamation that every sperm is sacred. The held rationale is that every sperm has the possibility to fertilize an egg, become implanted, and eventually grow into a human being. Since Gods charge is to go forth and procreate, any type of hindrance to that process such as the use of condoms or birth control pills are interfering with Gods plan and therefore not allowed. Conception The greater religious community generally view the moment of conception as the standard for when life begins. However, the definition of conception is subject to variability. Some take the word conception to actually mean the act of ejaculation. Others consider conception to be the process of fertilization. Still others consider the fusion of genetic material into a new set of chromosomes to be meant by conception. The problem with any of these definitions is that the process is not instantaneous. From the time of ejaculation, sperm take 7 hours before they become active and able to fertilize an egg. Once the sperm meets the egg, a chemical cascade begins and the sperm begins to bore its way through the egg, which may take up to an hour. Once the sperm actually enters the egg, its another 12 hours before the sperm DNA makes its way to the eggs DNA, and then another 24 hours for the restructuring and packaging process of new chromosomes. All told, the moment of conception could take anywhere from 2-3 days to complete. Gastrulation Another argument that is raised against the moment of conception line of thinking is the twinning argument. Once the genetic material is completely packaged together, a new individual is created. However, for as long as 12-14 days afterward, the embryo can split into twins or more multiples. That process would create more than one individual with identical genetic material from the same moment of conception. To account for this discrepancy, some argue that life begins at gastrulation, which is when the window has closed, the embryo has implanted in the uterus, and is now committed to grow into one human being. Supporters of this theory would therefore support stem cell research, which harvests embryos that have neither the intention nor ability to be implanted into a uterus. Week 8 The eighth week of pregnancy is a special one, because at this point the precursors to all organs have been formed. Philosophers therefore argue that with the beginnings of a brain, the fetus now has the ability to think and react, and that marks the onset of life. Opponents argue that the rudimentary nervous system is not functional at 8 weeks, and the fetus cannot process information or move in response to a stimulus, therefore not making the fetus alive. Quickening Those same groups which argue against the week 8 model suggest that life begins with the quickening, which is when the fetus begins to exhibit voluntary movement inside the womb, usually around 14-16 weeks. At this point the fetus is able to react to external stimuli, which is held as the standard for life. Week 20 Although the fetus can move at week 14, the movements are little more than jerky reflexes. They are not driven by higher cortical functioning. Therefore, another school of thought is that life begins at week 20, when the thalamus is completely formed. The thalamus is the relay center of the brain, and helps to connect the cerebral cortex to the spinal cord and peripheral nerves. Week 25 A sizable contingent would assert that life begins at 25 weeks. The rationale for this starting point is based on our definition of death. The definition of death is not disputed, and is considered the time when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. EEG measures brain activity and must demonstrate regular wave patterns to be considered valid. Therefore, by this rule the onset of life would be the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, which occurs fairly consistently around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons. Birth Perhaps the second-most frequently held conviction is that life begins at the time of child birth. In Jewish Talmudic Law, for example, the writing states that once the head of the child is delivered it cannot be touched and is granted equal rights to life as the mother. Other religious groups maintain that the soul is delivered to the newborn with their first breath of air. Self-consciousness A minor group of philosophers maintain that the criterion for human life is self-consciousness, or self-awareness, which does not occur until well into childhood. This group believes that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, and that both are condonable under certain circumstances. Their viewpoint is extreme, and has generally been rejected by mainstream ethicists and theologians. I've highlighted the one that is my own theory as to when a fetus becomes a 'person'
