Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

Didn't say you should be embarassed about that -- better go back and read again .. albeit perhaps you should be embarassed about not realizing that a single human cell and a human are not the same.

Once again .. a single human cell is not "Female offspring" --- the zygote will never be one of the cells that make up the body of a potential human offspring.

There are no "extra" legal rights ? The question is not one of giving rights .. but of taking them away.. that is what making a law against abortion does .. you have it backwards.

but suppose we confer rights of some kind to this zygote creature --- now we have a conflict between two individuals and must proceed to the scales of justice .. balance the rights of one against another.

So even if I agree with the inane fallacious nonsense of the anti aborts -- that some rights to personhood should be given - your argument is still lost .. loses on judicial grounds ..

on one side of the scale you have the rights of the woman -- a heavy weight. On the other side you have what .. The zygote .. the best place we can come to on this entity is "Experts disagree" "We don't know"

How much weight on the scale should that be .. how to we value the rights of the zygote .. what is the value of "we don't know"

The rights of the woman win .. no contest.

 

Nope, it's capable of breathing on its own.

That is irrelevant.

 

It would be authoritarian, but that's not what I support. I just want to encourage a higher sense of morality.

 

Yes it is.

 

A zygote isn't a someone for a very long time, why obfuscate the medical terms?

 

Your guy does not represent that in any way at all.

 

Post #300 "Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death."

 

I'm not interested in the medical terms. I'm interested in objective morality, and that isn't determined by government or a medical community.

 

No such thing.

 

My guy?

 

Yes, people with imaginary friends are not big on science and medicine. No gov is in charge of morality that's for each person to decide for themselves and them alone. Keep obfuscating, it's a trademark of the Marvel world.

 

Not quite that simple. "Right to occupancy in the womb" -- some have argued that a Renter has no right to forcefully evict a tennant into sub zero temperatures.

 

You know, the guy you ask to remove the same sins over and over again?

 

You clearly don't understand what objective morality means.

 

I'm aware you' not a believer.

 

Here’s an idea…if you’re against abortion then don’t have one. You’re welcome.

 

That wasn't the point. The point is your guy is the farthest thing from "moral" by a long shot, it's in the book.

 

I'm certainly aware that you get to pick yours and not everyone else's. Neither the gov nor any faith org gets to park their obtuse version of any morality on anyone. Ethics is more important, which gets in the way of a lot of religions.

 

Let's see if your reply holds up to scrutiny. The religious right wants to ban most if not all abortions based on the belief a soul is created when an egg is fertilized. Leaving pregnant women, who don't want to bring their pregnancy to term, forced to do so. What did I get wrong?

 

If you're opposed to slavery don't own a slave. Your choice, but leave the slaveowners alone.

 

Except we are talking about a woman's body.

 

You're idea of "help" assumes folks with whom you disagree are stupid.

 

Are the slaves inhabiting the woman's body?

 

Wow, you really missed the point this time.

 

You find a slave analogous to a fetus? Hohhhh-Kayyyy...