FoxHastings said: ↑ A human fetus is human. But it isn't a legal person. ""A completely different stage of human development" A human fetus is as human as a human heart or kidney.
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, but if abortion is illegal your gender is what loses your rights. I never said you were...
That's pretty lame logic. What you would call the "fetus of Ritter" had the same dna, same life as the Ritter that now claims "I've got my life, yours isn't all that important!
No. A fetus cannot be granted the status of personhood since it is not a person. It is part of the pregnant woman's body and completely lacks its own judgement and agency. When the mother eats, the fetus eats and when the mother is in the livingroom, the fetus is too. They are one and the same until it is born and that is why the woman has the full right to abort it if she pleases. You cannot chain yourself to another human and force them to take care of you. In such a situation, the person you have chained yourself to has the right to shoot you.
What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere with the rights of the woman it's in?
I'm sure they thought the same thing during slavery: "What rights do you want the slaves to have that does not interfere with the rights of the slave master who owns them?" The point is, the woman isn't entirely immune in this situation from having to put up with some diminishment of her otherwise normal rights. The same way that slave owners weren't entirely immune from having their property rights diminished. You might argue "The woman owns her body", but Abraham Lincoln famously wrote: "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
I am not a sexist, so I do not care about the fact that it happens to be women who get pregnant. My position would have been the same had it been men who got pregnant since my argument is founded on the basis of individualism. Neither am I an altruist. I do not think the woman ever has to sacrifice her own life for the fetus - That is just insane. Furthermore, I am not too fond at all of the idea to hand over the control of our sex life and happiness to the government, I am not a Statist and on top of this I do not think religion (which, let's be real, is the only reason anyone would oppose abortion) should ever be introduced into government.
Your choices are incomplete. Abortion during the first and trimester should be regulated as any other medical procedure for safety and effect. Beyond that it is no one's business but the doctor and the patient. Abortion during the third trimester should be regulated with such regulation revolving around the health of the mother and the survivability of the fetus. Beyond that it's still no one's business but the patient and doctor.
FoxHastings said: ↑ What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere with the rights of the woman it's in? WHY? She didn't commit a crime...why would you take away, or diminish, her rights? Yes, human rights, the right to bodily autonomy, must prevail...hence abortion must remain legal.. AND you AS USUAL did NOT answer the question you quoted :"What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere with the rights of the woman it's in?" Funny how NO Anti-Choicer has EVER been able to answer that question...
The fetus and the mother are not one entity. The fetus has it’s own DNA, different from the mother and the father. When the fetus dies the mother doesn’t die along with it.
No? Are patients at hospitals physically attached to other human beings? No, they aren't. Stop playing stupid games and either address my actual points or just keep your piehole shut.
The fetus cannot under any rational circumstances be considered a life since it is physically attached to the mother and not even able of surviving outside the womb if it was extracted.
When the woman dies the fetus dies...the woman is not dependent (DUHHHHHHH) on the fetus for life ...but the fetus is dependent on the woman.. If they are not one entity, if they are separate beings then the fetus should be able to be taken out of the woman, set on a shelf , and grow on it's own...can it?
No, for the four thousandth time, people in hospice care are PEOPLE, BORN people with rights....they are not inside other human beings... OK, now do you believe that if someone needs a new kidney to keep them alive they should be able to point to you and say, "I'll take theirs" ? And you are FORCED to give them your body part to sustain their life ? Or would you rather be able to give consent?
It is actually rather pointless to talk with these people since they are not even being honest. They know how much their actual argument of "because God says so" sucks, so they are trying to hide it and cover it up under "science" and "facts", but they just end up making fools out of themselves. If you are religious and therefore oppose abortion, that is fine. But, please, do not pretend as if it is "science" that drives your views on the matter because it is not and God does not like liars, does he?
Of course they are. They require others to live. You cannot shut my piehole. I am a unique human being as are the unborn you seem to take gratification in seeing them slaughtered.
Science shows life in the womb. It shows the developing fetus sucking it's thumb and expressions of life. The ignorant turn their backs on the innocent and deny what science reveals. Babies resist the surgeons knife and that is evident through science but you deny that science.
For the love of God..... A patient at a hospital has already been born. (S)he no longer lives inside and of their mother. (S)he is not physically attached to their mother. Now, please, stop playing stupid games and address the actual arguments or just keep quiet because you are only hurting your own reputation. You have no idea how stupid you look. "The unborn" is the most pathetic term that does not make any sense whatsoever as it is completely detached from reality. An "unborn" is nothingness and it is metaphysocally impossible to care for that which is not. You live in a world of contradictions, sir and need to sort yourself out. "The unborn", lmao. Give me a break.
Life, sure. But, if your standard is "life" then you should oppose handwashing and showers as that removes skin cells and bacteria which are life too. You should oppose cancer-treatments since cancer cells are lives too. You should consider every sexual intercourse that does not result in pregnancy as murder, since sperm cells are lives too. You should be a vegan since animals are lives too. Or, actually, plants are lives too, so not sure there is anything you can eat. Please, do not pretend as if it is "life" that is your standard because had it been, you would have been on the side of the only life involved in the matter - The pregnant woman's. Why do you hate happiness so much? Why do you want women to sacrifice their own happiness for something that is not?
Well, in the eyes of the anti-abortionist, the woman did commit a crime -- She had sex! These people oppose abortion because God told them sex is bad. Anti-Lifer is a better term.
I agree that the whole Anti-Life/Choice thing is about punishing women.....talk to them long enough and it usually ends with them screaming, " She should have kept her legs together!" Note how they never answer those inconvenient questions...
I really do not think it about women. For some, it might very much be. But, for most it is just about a general contempt for the individual acting in their own self-interest rather that in in the interests of "society", "God" and for "the common good". I don't understand why they are so ashamed to just say that "I oppose it because I am religious." That would have at least been honest.
Well, ya, I see your point but think of this...how well has any religion treated women? Usually as something lesser than men.. So, to a certain extent I believe it has to do with the same theme, controlling a "lesser" being.... banning abortion is a way to control women....and keep them in line
