Scientifically, logically, and by any reasonable objective measure mentionable a human fetus is a human being and a child (event federal law recognizes this by referring to them as "children in utero"), so your argument here is actually hogwash. So you don't understand the difference between a distinct human organism and a skin cell, hmmmmmm....now that is sad. A zygote is the child's earliest stage of development. So the child exists at that point. Try some logic if you want to debate. "It don't look like no baby to me" is not a logical argument.
This position is irrational. The ZEF in in the woman's uterus through no choice of his/her own. So his/her existence cannot be in violation of anyone's rights. Killing him/her however clearly violates the rights of the child in utero. Your arguments are all based on a fatal flawed premise that the human being in utero is not a human being. See above for response to your latest irrational justification for a woman to commit homicide against her own child.
It's perfectly rational, it just doesn't fit your ideas of what should be. You have yet to prove any rights of an unborn to begin with especially within the law. Especially when the basis of that law, the Constitution, specifically notes that it applies to those who are born. With that said, one does not have to engage in an action of their own in order to be violating another's rights. For example, I can knock you out and leave you on someone else's property. You are now, through no fault of your own, in violation of their property rights, i.e. trespassing. Furthermore, anything that is given permission for, can have that permission withdrawn, and if the other does not cease, they are in violation of the person's rights. I could be providing you with bone marrow, that you need in order to live. Let's even go so far as to say there is no one else that is a match within the time frame in which you will die without that marrow; rare matching markers and such. We'll even go so far as to say you are in a coma and the decision to start you on the treatment came from a family member. So basically you are in a position through no choice of your own, in which if I withdrawn the permission of you to make use of my bodily resources, you will die. Is it your assertion that I am not allowed to stop providing that bone marrow simply because of your right to life and that you are in that position through no choice of your own? Incorrect. My argument is not based upon any premise of the ZEF not being a human being. While I may counter your own flawed arguments towards that point, my own argument is based upon which rights override other rights under what conditions. I earlier made the argument that if the ZEF could be removed alive from the woman, without any additional physical trauma to her body than an abortion would cause, then her right to end the pregnancy would be the only right she has. In fact that is the only right, in this matter, that she has currently. She cannot terminate any offspring of hers in utero that is not in her own body, so it is obvious that her right is not one of termination of the ZEF. That is a result of the exercise of her right, not a right in and of itself. Her right is to end the pregnancy and to halt the use of her bodily resources. If that ends in the death of another, so be it, whether they are internal to her or external to her. Their right to life does not override her bodily autonomy, whether they are growing within her without her permission, or engaging in sex with her without her permission.
The rights every human being has. The fetus is where he/she is because of a decision the woman made in 99.9% of the cases, so why allow this human being t be slaughtered simply because the woman regrets a risk she took?
Clearly your arguments are irrational and lack a logical basis. The child in utero should have a basic right to be protected from anyone who would intentionally try to harm or kill him/her.
FoxHastings said: ↑ What rights , that don't interfere in anyone else's , do you want the fetus to have? NO, you want the fetus to have the right to use the body of another to sustain it's life..... NO ONE ELSE HAS THAT RIGHT. With rights comes restrictions....one cannot harm another without their consent. Consent to have sex is NOT consent to be injured or harmed. A pregnant woman owes her fetus nothing.
But pregnant women shouldn't have that right???? "Intentionally" doesn't matter if you're harming someone you still can be stopped whether the harm is intentional or not....
And yet you can't show where they get this right from or why this supposed right is consistent across all cases, not just the one of the ZEF's. I have repeatedly shown through various examples where one's bodily autonomy right override another's right of life, when the other is in violation of the one's bodily autonomy rights. I even gave you a specific example of essentially the same situation of a person who is in a situation not of their own choice still not being able to have their right of life override bodily autonomy rights. You completely failed to counter it or even address it. Most likely because you can't. Show me what the difference is between the two situations. Don't just claim they are different, show how they are. Otherwise you are just irrationally claiming a right for the ZEF that you cannot support or draw equivalent parallels to.
And the woman should have the basic right not to be a forced incubator, wouldn’t you agree? Which is worse, forcing a fully aware adult to be a slave — risking health, life, finances, goals — for an unwanted pregnancy verses a bundle of unaware cells being stopped from developing? Doesn’t seem like a difficult question. Do you feel one has the right to another's body?
Let's have a little head-shake here and determine who's the real "dimwit." Science and logic say that human life begins at fertilization. ALL HUMANS go through all the stages of development! A human can't be a teen, or an adult, if he hasn't been a "zef!"........unless, maybe he's been "fathered" by something else? Lol - who'd admit to that? Anyone here? Unless you're implying that women are either not human - or they have been having sex with something NOT HUMAN - then, the unborn is definitely a human. When we say "LIVES" - we mean LIFE! If using the term "baby" is a problem with some folks when we refer to the unborn - then, let's just use the term, baby UNBORN instead. Same message applies.
Not unless if I'm paying for it! If taxpayers are shouldering the expenses, then taxpayers have a say-so how their money should be spent. Furthermore.....if a behaviour is detrimental to society, then it should be dealt with. You're right....it isn't a difficult question. Do you know how much STD/AIDS rate would've been lower.....if only women insist on men to use condoms? If they're not worried about getting pregnant - at least, worry about getting STDs. The woman has the power. She can insist on condoms. Society has already spent billions to provide education, campaign.....and science had come up with protective tools. The woman who doesn't use any protection is like someone playing the Russian roulette. She's the one who's putting her life at risk. Why should the unborn be the one to take the brunt for such stupidity?
How is it justice when we make the innocent unborn to be the one punished - killed - for his mother's negligence?
Imho - the comparison is not necessarily about the pain or the way they're killed. It's the way both groups were de-humanized (just to make their slaughter acceptable), and the fact that it still boils down to MURDER. MASS MURDERS. As for the scale of slaughter - it's not comparable to the Holocaust when it comes to numbers. This massive slaughter of the innocent is happening...... ....WORLDWIDE! It's been going on for years!
SINCE WHEN !?? LOLOLOL. AND IF you LEARNED about abortion you would know that the a law prohibits taxes from being used for abortion...even though it is a legal medical procedure.. ..now, isn't that UNfair enough to women for you???? Yes, taking away the right to bodily autonomy IS very detrimental to society.... so those who want abortion banned are very detrimental to society. Having sex is not a crime and shouldn't be punished...at least that's what normal healthy people think. You say , "if only women insist on men using condoms"...HOW ABOUT MEN insisting on using condoms.. Ya, MEN having responsibility or else THEY should be punished, too. What sort of punishment do you want men to have????? Did you read what you wrote ? "She's the one who's putting her life at risk" "HER LIFE"....not yours, not anyone else's…..so why do you want to butt in?? Because they have no rights ...and why you want children born to stupid people is a mystery....don't you like children?
1) Been a scientist most of my life and have been debating abortion for decades. The claim that there is some consensus in science that "human life" begins at conception is preposterously false. There are 5 different "Scientific" perspectives on "human life" begins. Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. 2) we are not talking about "human life" - do try and figure out the difference between a noun and descriptive adjective. Hint - there is one example of each in your post - we are talking about whether or not "A HUMAN" exists. Figuring out the difference will help you greatly 3) All living organisms go trough stages of development - that does not make that organism "A Human" 4) how about we use technically correct language - not claim that "A Human" exists until you have shown that this claim is true. The term "Unborn" is a nonsense term used to confuse. 5) Nowhere in your post have you defined what a human is - and shown how a zygote meets that definition .. 6) Nowhere in your post have you shown knowledge of - never mind refute - the 4 scientific perspectives that do not claim life begins at conception which one would need to do in order to claim defacto "human life begins at conception" - after which you would still need to show that this kind of human life = a human. 7) The nonsense claim -" it can't be anything else" - is just that - stemming from your lack of understanding of the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective.
Matthewthf said: ↑ Over 60 million babies aborted. More deaths than Jews during WW2. That's genocide. ...Yes, ridiculous, and ignorant to boot! Obviously poster doesn't know what "genocide" means....just needs DRAMA to attempt to make a point. I agree that comparing the suffering, terror, horrific deaths of Jews to the quick painless death of a fetus is disgusting, deplorable, and quite sick... I haven't seen anyone say a human fetus isn't human. There is no need to "de-humanize" a fetus. Abortion isn't murder or you would have done your civic and legal duty and reported them. FORCING a woman to gestate as if she's an animal IS DE-HUMANIZING... To compare the terror, horrific deaths of Jews to the quick painless death of a fetus is disgusting, deplorable, and quite sick... There is no "slaughter"...there is a medical procedure quite similar to a miscarriage.. ...and NO comparison should be made....numbers do NOT make a point … If you're referring t abortion, it's been happening for centuries....you really should do some research on the topic before commenting..
FoxHastings said: ↑ Justice? you want "justice" for fetuses but not for born people? Why do automatically assume a woman was negligent? Why do you want people you consider "negligent" to have children? Don't you like children? A fetus isn't "punished" , it's killed. Why do you want women punished for having sex and getting pregnant? Neither are crimes...
Offspring also works since that includes all stages of life. That said, very few are denying the beginning of life in and of itself. But life itself is not the issue, since we still can have life in people who have had the higher functions of their brain destroyed, and we allow them to be terminated. And at the time the the vast majority of abortions are done, the brain activity of the ZEF are pretty much the same. We also kill all kinds of other life. Life itself is not the issue. The real issue, is do right exists, when do they first apply, and under what conditions do one right override another one when they conflict? And no, right to life does not trump all others. We have wars, and death penalties, and even the right to kill to protect self and others. Given that it's illegal for government funds to be used for abortions, you have no problems. Subjective. There are people who still feel that women being allowed to vote is detrimental to society, and those who think anyone who is not white are detrimental to society. But let's give this a shot. What are some objective criteria to determine what is detrimental to society. A large number of abortions are due specifically to failed birth control, including condoms. So basically you are saying they should use condoms, but if it fails, too bad so sad.
Abortions were quite common as of the founding of the country as both colonies and after forming as an independent country. It wasn't until the 1860's that abortion bans swept through the states, with a few earlier laws being passed. So abortions have only been illegal in the US for a period just over a century. And given your reactions in the past, this is intended as an add on to your post, not a counter.
First you should fix your post so Mathew isn't quoted as saying my words. And second, herbal and other forms of abortion have been around longer...
Since when? If you live under a democratic system - it's every time you choose your leader! Don't you choose the platform that you like? You never heard of......"hocus-pocus?" Here. It's explained here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...axpayers-paying-for-abortion/?sh=223c2efd6a4b
Lol. Taxpayers need not have to shell out that money if the woman had used precaution in the first place. ....AND, we need not have to worry about any unwanted pregnancy or unborn! If you want to talk about unfairness - imho, it's utterly unfair to the taxpayers to pay for negligence.....and especially unfair to the unborn - to be created, only to be cruelly killed! Spreading disease - like AIDS/std - through sheer negligence is detrimental to society! Negligence that cause the death of another human, is! Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual. (b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm Hahahaha That's funny! The man can insist til he's blue in the face! Bottom-line: It's up to the woman if you'll gain entry, or not! ....because, there's another life involved! She's created another human - who's also entitled to the same protection that she - or any humans - are entitled to: regardless of AGE, gender, race, blah-blah-blah. The creation of another life changes the ball game. It's no longer just about her. Stupid people need not raise them. Just birth them. Instead of funding negligence - we should invest in foster care, orphanages and adoption centers. I'd rather we gamble on raising children than waste money on stupidity. Btw..... Surely, you're not suggesting we remedy the problem by.....eliminating STUPID women?
