You could say that a Zygote is a conception. And that a conception is therefore by nature a legally binding contract between two people to create a human life. Sure it can be destroyed. It can be destroyed anywhere along the path, even unto birth and on to adulthood. People die and are killed all the time. So while life is sacred and at the foundation of our entire judicial system as well as our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It stands to reason that killing is sometimes a necessity, such as in self defense. I ascribe to the Romney doctrine that abortion is only justified in instances of rape or if a complication places the womans/mothers life in danger. It all depends on what value we place on life.
Conception is defined by the Zygote - True - but it does not follow that a legaly binding contract to conceive exists between those having sex. The zygote is not a "People" - until such time that you can show it is a person .. and method of conception (rape) matters not to this question. That life is sacred is not the founding principle.
YUP, even women have a right to self defense ...and pregnancy harms women so they should be able to defend themselves against harm JUST AS YOU CAN. I don't know why you would make an exception for rape...why kill an innocent fetus for something someone else did? See, how all your talk has 'waffles" in it....all of a sudden that "life" loses value. But the only one with the right to place a value on the fetus is the woman carrying it. You want the right to place value on life for everyone...
IMO, A conception by two willing partners is a legally binding contract. When one is coerced as in a rape, then it is not legally binding. I do not make that distinction. That distinction is self evident and makes itself. I merely acknowledge it. Our government does not exist to clean up the mess made by promiscuous people or absolve them of the consequences of their conduct, thereby aiding and abetting the societal decay of virtue impinging on the sacredness of life and of our procreative capacities.
FoxHastings said: ↑ YUP, even women have a right to self defense ...and pregnancy harms women so they should be able to defend themselves against harm JUST AS YOU CAN. I don't know why you would make an exception for rape...why kill an innocent fetus for something someone else did? See, how all your talk has 'waffles" in it....all of a sudden that "life" loses value. But the only one with the right to place a value on the fetus is the woman carrying it. You want the right to place value on life for everyone... No, it isn't....maybe in your mind but no where else. No , it doesn't...that's just your way of saying, "I have no proof or facts to back that up" That's why conceiving is NOT a LEGAL contract... But a nice dodge on why you make exceptions for rape...all of a sudden life isn't sacred??????
Yes a zygote isn't a person, but neither is a contract between two people to build a house, a house. It is still a legally binding contract. You could argue that it might be voided or annulled.
There is no contract to build a zygote .. no contract to concieve a zygote ... so there is nothing to be voided or annulled.
That's rather undone by its existence. An egg is not a zygote. And a sperm is not a zygote. But the two together create a common bond, a handshake, a zygote. The zygote is the binding contract, already in motion.
So our founding Fathers declared independence, fought and won a war for freedom, gave birth to our nation, and established our government and constitution, so promiscuous people could use that government to abort their conceptions, thereby undermining the sacredness of life and the whole of our justice system, aiding and abetting the rot of societys virtue and squander the very cause of freedom which was for the dignity of man.
There is no soul. It is a religious concept and not even in all religions. There is no person until the zygote has been separated from the mother and survives on its own
Not if it was an agreement only to have sex and even if they did inted to conceive, it does not really change anything since they still have the right to change their minds. It is funny how you Conservatives always invoke the Declaration of Independence without understanding one word of it. The "Romney Doctrine" is a clear violation of said document and is only presented as a defence of it to cover up for the fact that it is nothing but religious mysticism aimed at completely banning it. If you want to oppose abortion at least be open with your religious motivations and stop pretemding it has anything at all to do with Indivodual Rights. Why do you make exceptions for rape and threats to the mother's life and health? A woman could just claim she was raped to get it or what if she was actually raped but the court does not find enough evidence to prove she was? Also, every pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and health. This is just more bs to cover up and sugarcoat the type of authoritarianism you actually preach.
Your defacto claim is what is "false" - as you can not prove your claim is true - lack of being able to prove it false not being proof of claim .. in case you wanted to wander down that fallacious road. You then make a second defacto claim that pershonood is not achieved until separated from mother - survive on its own. While this is one argument - there are a whole bunch of others .. you standing up and claiming "Im right" - offering zero support for this highly disputed an contentious claim.. is abject nonsense on steroids.
Telling a woman she must bear a child she has become impregnated with whether she want's to or not is an egregious violation of her fundamental human rights. Can you logically argue it is not?
We were debating the soul - you claiming defacto there is not one .. going further claiming personhood is not achieved until separation. Now you are making a legal argument w/r to a woman's right to choose - a warped into a different time zone - without connecting the two - you now have 3 claims 1) "No Soul" = Fallacy 2) Separation - claiming defacto = fallacy - you didn't even bother to attempt to support your defacto naked claim.. which is nonsense. 3) Agree that forcing a woman to continue an unintended pregnancy of fundamental human rights - and the founding principle - definition of constitutional republic .. So ... 1 out of 3 on the test so far .. vat is next question ?
Legality is determined by laws, and laws do not determine what is moral - though ideally the people who write them make them so. The law in the US does not currently call a conception a legal obligation, but you seem to think it should. As a completely non-religious person, to me immorality is defined broadly by causing harm to other beings. I don't think there's another logical foundation for it but the details are debatable (e.g. how much are various lives worth, and are non-human lives in any way comparable). So is life sacred? No. We eat living things. Animals have minds and suffer, but plants don't yet even plants are "alive." So simply being alive doesn't make something sacred. There's also the fact that we are comprised of cells which are in themselves, alive and human but do not, on their own, constitute a separate being. The crux of the issue, basically, is that only beings (alive with a mind) are morally relevant. If I have my appendix taken out, many living cells died, but the appendix was merely a part of the actual being, me, and so is mine to dispose of. So now we turn to a conception. The main difference between a conception and other tissues is that it represents a unique new combination of DNA from both parents. It has the potential to become a new being, but it isn't one. If I genetically engineered a new human dna code, would I be obligated to make sure it became a new person? No. That's ridiculous. It's similarly ridiculous to say every conception ought to become a baby. So when is it a person? Morally relevant things can feel, can suffer, have a mind. Doesn't have to be a sophisticated mind, just any mind. Before the brain is sufficiently developed, that can't happen. The exact moment of this isn't yet well-defined, but it's essentially impossible before about 20 weeks, and so abortions before that time are completely morally neutral. Banning such abortions, on the other hand, can be very harmful to women without protecting any actual persons, and so is immoral.
By calling an unborn child anything nonhuman the proabortionists are dehumanizing them. This is a sign of an atrocity being committed.
There is no such thing as "unborn child". It is just as confused a concept as "undead corpse" or "ungrown grown-up". A fetus is human in the same sense our fingernails or internal organs are also "human", but calling a fetus a human is humanising that which is not yet human. It is to conflate the potential with the actual and in doing so dehumanising the only acutal human (i.e. the woman) by demanding her to sacrifice her own life, liberty and pursuit of happoiness for something that does not even have rights. A proper pro-abortionist is not guilty of dehumanisation.
"Human traits" is not what gives us rights. Barbie dolls and monkies (and even other animals) have "human traits", but they do not have rights. Rights are moral prinicples that sanction man's freedom of action in a social context. It means freedom from physical force and coercion and one man's freedom does not impose any obligations on another man's freedom. Thus, if you are stranded on a desert island, you do not need any rights because you are not part of any social context. A fetus is not part of a social context either; It has no freedom of action and cannot act in accordance with its own judgement. But, it does impose physical force on the pregnant woman. A fetus does not need rights and can not have any rights and if it is to be seen as human, it would be wrong to argue it should have more rights than the pregnant woman carrying it and give it the special privilege to physically harm her because that is not how rights work.
