"Breathes air" is just one result of the entity's own brain being developed enough to direct all bodily functions so that the entity is now an independent individual. Now independent in this case just means being independent of a physical connection to another human, we should all recognize that none of us, or at least very few of us, are ever totally independent of society's interactions. Birth, because of the independence acquired thereof, is the moment we recognize this entity as a member of society and worthy of the protection of society. Before birth only the pregnant woman can protect the fetus, society really cannot do anything other than frown upon disliked actions.
I just ask a question. You are the one that got all bent out of shape by the asking. So you seem to believe that terminating a foetus that is attached to an umbilical cord is justified. I find that interesting. But you consider terminating mental patients and others that will never be productive members of society morally reprehensible. Hmmm...
Yeah...the insulting one. Me? Bent out of shape? I am enjoying our conversation, Political. A lot! I think that if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be allowed to do so. You have a problem with that? Good. I like when people find what I have to say "interesting." Where did I say that...OR DID YOU JUST MAKE THAT UP? (HINT: You just made that up.)
Your comment (comparing fetus with mental patient) suggests that you believe a fetus would be terminated because it is mentally incompetent or is not a productive member of society. That is the pro-life propaganda view of the issue, designed to divert attention away from the fact that the fetus is not a person but the mental patient already became a person (albeit with defects). It is not immoral to terminate a fetus because a fetus has not yet started the journey of person-hood. It is a physical organism which has started constructing its life support system. When that physical organism is inhabited by a mind, then extreme measures are justified to protect that thread of person-hood. I personally believe that happens as part of the birthing process, but even if pro-life forces get their way (and declare the fertilized egg to be a person just like the rest of us) that would mean the mind of that new organism is acting on its own behalf, for its own selfish reasons, to implant itself in the womb and steal resources from the host. If she did not want to act as host for a new life, she would have the moral right to evict it from the premises.
That's like taking someone up in your plane and while you're 20,000 feet up in the air telling them to get out.
Yes it is. Let me explain the analogy. When you take someone up into the air in your private plane you place that person in a position of vulnerability and are therefore responsible for that person. So you can't say "I don't want to in my plane so get off now" because through your action you placed that person in a condition of vulnerability. You will be exploiting that vulnerability when you throw them off of your plane 20,000 feet in the air. Similarly a child in the womb has been placed in a condition of vulnerability by you. You can't yank them out of the plane or the womb after you put that person in a position of vulnerability. That's an exploitation by you of the vulnerability you placed that person in. The baby and the person are in a condition of dependence not through their own fault. You placed them in this condition when you got pregnant or when you took them up in the air. You can't then say this is my body so I want you out after having put the child in a position of vulnerability. You're exploiting the very vulnerability you put them in. This dependence extends outside of the womb. The child is still in a condition of dependence, not by any faultnof their own. You put them in that condition, you are responsible. So you are responsible for that child just as you would be for that person in your private plane.
There is no "person" that gets "put into a position" or "placed" in the womb. There is no putting in position. Women can't decide they'll get pregnant and get pregnant...NO one is invited in to their womb since there is no one to accept the invitation. Now, if a woman should invite someone onto her plane for a ride and that "person" starts beating her up , causing her harm , she certainly can throw that person off the plane....so can I, so can you. Why do you want to take that right away from pregnant women? And, yes, pregnancy IS harmful and NO ONE has to CONSENT to be harmed.....not you, not me, not pregnant women.
If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to do so without interference from people like you. That is something you ought to come to grips with, Poo.
Yes there is. What do you think the nature of the being in the womb is? Does it grow into a tree?, an ape?, a pig?, a Klingon? It is placed in that position by the actions of their bearers. Are you trying to imply that children will themselves into women of their own accord whether a woman wills it or not? No they do not. That depends on if various conditions are met. Certainly you do not need a lesson in how women get pregnant? Every child is put into a position of vulnerability by the actions of their parents. Whether the pregnancy was planned, or not the actions of the parents placed that child in a position of vulnvulnerability. Certainly I agree. When one's life is in jeopardy this is certainly a reasonable response. This is not what I'm talking about, however. I am talking about a non-life threatening context. Even were one to invite one onto the plane, or plan to get pregnant, this does not mean a life threatening situation will not ensue as you've pointed out. This is wear you go off of the rails. You mean to imply every pregnant women is bound to die as a result of her pregnancy. I do not believe this to be true. If a woman gets pregnant she has placed her child in a position of vulnerability. They are her responsibility. To exploit that vulnerability by tossing the child out when there is no threat to her life is an aggression on her part. Just as it would be an aggression if you were to throw a person out of your plane when you put them in a vulnerable condition. If that person were a threat to your life you can toss them off. If not, you are exploiting the vulnerability you have placed them in. Pregnancy is natural to human women. Without it you or I would not be. You seem to be against pregnany. People always get.pregnany, whether they plan it or not. In all cases they have put the child in a position of vulnerability by their actions. It is dependent on the woman. How many women will die when they get pregnant FoxHastings? Is it a death sentence as you imply? Why are you here if you were that death sentence you have been arguing?
Is there not a body in her own body? Why is her body defended but not the child's, especially if the child is not going to kill her? She has placed that child in a condition of vulnerability. Would you throw a person out of your plane if s/he were not agressing against you? The only poo I know of is Winnie and the excrement that comes out of my ass. You might want to consider the exploitation of people put in a position of vulnerability.
As a matter of FACT...NO. There is a fetus. Child??? There is a fetus. Try to get that straight. You keep making that mistake. There is no child. I had to think long and carefully before answering this question...because someone like you could be the passenger...and I might be tempted. I have piloted planes, however, and I have never thrown a passenger out of any plane I was flying. And??? You might want to consider the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body without interference from people like you.
No, it's "placed" in that position when the fertilized egg is I'm[plated in the uterine wall....no woman nor man can do that. What a silly conclusion... To make this clearer for you there is NO child involved in pregnancy or abortion, there is a fetus. It is not a person with rights until it is born. You can argue with that but it's a fact and what I operate from. . But we aren't discussing children and "parents " do not "place " a fetus anywhere... So? What has that got to do with a woman's right to her own body..... However , when parents place CHILDREN in a position of vulnerability that's called "CHILD Endangerment"" and has nothing to do with this. You can't agree because I never said that....One's life does not have to be in jeopardy to use lethal force against someone who is causing them harm. Again , using lethal force or self defense does NOT require a life threatening event....just harm.... NO, that is YOU being unable to know what the use of self defense entails and self defense can be used to prevent HARM NOT JUST DEATH. If someone was shooting off your fingers one at a time, since loss of fingers doesn't mean you'll die, you would do NOTHING???!!! Well, don't expect others to be so crazy .... I agree, you know nothing about self defense.... So? Does that make you the Ruler of it? No. Silly and irrelevant. Why would you assume that? I haven't said I'm against pregnancy....you are getting all emotional and that blurs reasoning ability. I am FOR women's right to their own bodies without interference from people like you. Yes, and it's good they can choose what to do about it....just like you can choose to what you want... . That's just more hysterical babble...I never said nor implied pregnancy is a death sentence, that arises from your total lack of knowledge of what pregnancy does to a woman's body...or you just don't care...
Birth control would kill the living human cell before it could be fertilized, and before it could attack the host, so that would be a preemptive strike. Are you saying you approve of killing a living human cell before you even know if it will try to attack the host?
Her body is defended because it is inhabited by a person (by an active mind). Even if she happens to be in a coma, her person-hood is already started and is still retained in her mind You spent a lot of lines talking about the human organism (all of which would apply to any organism that uses sexual reproduction). You said nothing to explain why you think person-hood might begin while the human organism is inside the womb. Do you have any idea what makes persons different from all the other beasts of the earth? (Remember that your definition of person-hood would have to be something that does not apply to mice and sea slugs because they are not persons) What do you think person-hood is and when do you think it begins?
You did not respond to my inquiry. I repeat "What do you think the nature of the being in the womb is? Does it grow into a tree?, an ape?, a pig?, a Klingon? By the actions of the bearers I mean intercourse and the ensuing processes that occur should fertilization take place. Let's try to stick to the argument rather than make a side issue of things I'm sure you are familiar with. Indeed, which is why I wonder that you are making such an implication. I disagree. Whether an hour before birth, or at the inception of one's being, the child is in nature a human being. It possess the human genome. It will grow into an adult. The difference between being in and out of the womb is the dependency in the womb and the dependency out of the womb. Sure we are. We have been discussing those placed in a position of vulnerability and how you on the one hand had no problem in expoiting that vulnerability they are put in and how I do have a problem with that. Again by placing the child in a position of vulnerability I do not mean to imply they actually manually place the fetus in the womb. I do mean that having engaged in sex and fertilization having taken place then the child is placed in such a position. The process of growth and gestation in the womb is not a manual process. Why are you making this an issue as if you or I are saying otherwise. I'm talking about the child being.placed in a position of vulnerability and the exploitation of that vulnerability when there is no imminent threat to the life of the woman. It has everything to do with it. I just did. Again you're making issues of things unnecessarily. Agreed. When one's liberties are in danger for instance. Again you are making an issue of something else. As I said, when you put one in a condition of vulnerability, you are responsible for them. Exploiting that vulnerability is an aggression on your part. You are trying to defend your pro-aggressive stance. Your stance is that every pregnancy equal harm, and therefore each harm must be dealt with accordingly. Thus I ask why are you here? Why am I here? It is not self defence when you or I exploit those put in a position of vulnerability by our actions. If such a person places our lives in danger and you kill them for it, that is self-defence. I was responsible for their position of vulnerability? You are off the rail again and arguing against something I did not say. But you sound that crazy. What do you expect me to do when you act that way? You think if a person is placed in a position of vulnerabilty by your actions you have a right to kill them on that account. So based on your view, for the simple fact of being on your plane 20,000 feet in the air you can kill that person. It makes one pregnant. I know you feel this way about life. Yet it is relevant to the discussion since you're defending this stance and I'm defending mine own which is contrary to it. I assume this because you think that since pregnancy puts one in harms way it also gives one leave to kill that which causes the harm. Since B causes harm to A in all cases, B must be eliminated. This is your stance. Yes you have. You believe that every case of pregnancy is harmful. That being the case, you believe every pregnancy also gives one leave to kill that which causes harm. So in every case where B causes harm to A, A can kill B according to you. I do not doubt you are 100% behind a women having a right to her body without interference. I am too. Where you and I differ is that I am against any woman killing someone they have put in a vulnerable position because of their actions. You on the other hand believe that any women who has put a child in a vulnerable position can exploit such a one and kill him or her. Pregnancy = Goo? Pray tell. Agreed. It is nonsense to think pregnancy is a death sentence. So why do you believe it is so? Sure you did. Why else would you promote the idea that preganancy being harmful is license to kill in every instance that harm is placednin the face of a woman? Okay....
I think a person is a human and I believe a human has his or her beginnings when the genetic material from male and female is successfully combined.
A human fetus is human, didn't think I'd have to explain....no one I know except you had to ask if ""Does it grow into a tree?, an ape?, a pig?, a Klingon?"" I never stated all pregnancies end in death but it is a fact that every pregnancy carries the risk of death and ALWAYS causes the woman temporary and permanent harm....read a biology/physiology book. The harm it causes is legally considered serious injury. One can defend themselves against seriouys injury. You want to take away women's right to self defense something YOU wouldn't give up. Nwo this "vulnerability" crap....it has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion. If a "vulnerable" person is harming you, you have every right to stop the harm. So if you insist the fetus is a person the woman has every right to use whatever means to stop the harm....and since abortion is the only way to stop the harm , that's what she'll use IF she decides to not consent to the harm. Yu want everyone but pregnant women to be able to use self defense. Of course the fetus ISN'T a person so the woman still has every right to end it's "life" since it has no rights. Women do NOT "PUT" a fetus inside themselves...get a biology book....intercourse does not "put" a fetus inside a woman, a separate act outside of her control does that.. You: """So based on your view, for the simple fact of being on your plane 20,000 feet in the air you can kill that person."" If that person is harming you YES! Did you give up your right to self defense? If someone started shooting off your fingers one by one would YOU just stand there and do nothing because you were still alive and not dead yet ???? REALLY ?!!! How bizzare!!!
Sure you do. You said it was not a person. What is a human if not a person? What's no one else asking got to do with my inquiry? Again you're going off on a tangent. I asked because you speak of the fetus as not a person and only just now admitted that it is human. So I'll ask again, "What is a human if not a person? Life carries a 100% risk of death. Let's go over your argument again. I will not let you off of the hook. You claim that pregnancy is harmful. You also claim that one may defend themselves against harm. You furthered your argument with the following analogy, "If someone was shooting off your fingers one at a time, since loss of fingers doesn't mean you'll die, you would do NOTHING???!!!" What you are saying is that any and every pregnancy is harmful and one must defend themselves against what is harmful whether it is life threatening or not. You defense against this harm is to toss the child out of the womb as you would someone out of your plane. For you B causes harm to A in all cases, therefore B must be eliminated. This is the self-defense you are referring to. You would exploit one in a vulnerable position because according to you there is no circumstance where B is not harmful to A and must therefore be eliminated. I'm sorry you did that to your mom. You're so evil. Agreed. It seems like you have a vagina/uterus issue. Her right to kill wantonly? The child is in a position of vulnerability. Again, why are you here then? According to you every pregnancy is harmful and therefore every women has a right to defend herself from this harm. If B (you) causes harm to A (your mom) in all cases then B (you) must be eliminated, i.e. "to stop the harm. Certainly if having the child is going to kill her. Your notion is that every pregnancy is harmful, therefore every child is harmful to the mother. She must defend herself against this child. Her defense against this harmful being is to eliminate them. This is the stance you have. She is responsible for the child due to her action. She or he is in a position of vulnerability due to its parent's action. You cannot exploit this vulnerability you placed the child in by being the aggressor unless your own life is in danger. You foster your murderous inclinations by saying every pregnancy is harmful anyway and places the mother in a position to defend herself. As you pointed out in your finger analogy this harm must be dealt with. How does one deal with it? By the elimination of the child in your view since the child is inherently harmful. She has placed the child in a position of vulnerability by her actions. For her to exploit the vulnerability she has put the child in is an aggression on her part. I want women to take responsibility for those placed in a vulnerable position. You cannot get high and mighty with me about self defense when you're sitting here promoting the death of children in a position of vulnerability. The mind of those with murderous inclinations is interesting, but your arguments in defense of your murderous inclinations violates the NAP. You said it is a human, "A human fetus is human", which is basically a no (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock statement. What is a human if not a person? I never said they did and when you implied that I did before I said to you, "I do not mean to imply they actually manually place the fetus in the womb. I do mean that having engaged in sex and fertilization having taken place then the child is placed in such a position. The process of growth and gestation in the womb is not a manual process". Again, and you've been won't to do this numerous times so far, you are going off the rail and arguing things contrary to anything said. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have murderous inclinations and to defend those inclinations, nor to make them seem palatable (the argument does not) you make the assumption that every pregnancy is harmful and hence the child is inherently asking to be killed. When you take a person onto your private plane into the air that person becomes your responsibility because they are in a position of vulnerabily. You cannot, without violating the NAP, toss them out of the plane if you do not want them on. If such a one were a threat to your life toss away. Likewise the child is in a position of vulnerability due to your actions. To exploit this vulnerability because you no longer want it is the same as tossing a person off of your private plane. You took a person in a position of vulnerability and ended his/her life. And you defend it by arguing every such person is harmful anyway and a woman having a right to defend herself against harm must do away with it, kill it. The pertinent question here is do you exploit one who you've placed in a vulnerable position? They'd probably be slicing them off, but in any case I'd certainly defend myself against an aggressor. Again you continue to avoid my inquis as well. I asked of you if "I was responsible for their position of vulnerability?" and are they going to kill me? - - - Updated - - - Yes it is. Let me explain the analogy. When you take someone up into the air in your private plane you place that person in a position of vulnerability and are therefore responsible for that person. So you can't say "I don't want to in my plane so get off now" because through your action you placed that person in a condition of vulnerability. You will be exploiting that vulnerability when you throw them off of your plane 20,000 feet in the air. Similarly a child in the womb has been placed in a condition of vulnerability by you. You can't yank them out of the plane or the womb after you put that person in a position of vulnerability. That's an exploitation by you of the vulnerability you placed that person in. The baby and the person are in a condition of dependence not through their own fault. You placed them in this condition when you got pregnant or when you took them up in the air. You can't then say this is my body so I want you out after having put the child in a position of vulnerability. You're exploiting the very vulnerability you put them in. This dependence extends outside of the womb. The child is still in a condition of dependence, not by any faultnof their own. You put them in that condition, you are responsible. So you are responsible for that child just as you would be for that person in your private plane.
Thank you for sharing that blind guess about when personhood begins. That guess...and $2.75 will get you a subway ride in NYC that takes you from the upper Bronx...to the easternmost point of Brooklyn. Or...you can just use the $2.75.
