Because it's not murder in the eyes of the law where I live. Women are told that it's just a bunch of cells. They don't have the required mens rea.
gfm7175 said: Yes, BUT you're trying to say that y is not yet y. (ie, "a human fetus is pre-human). That's the issue. You can't claim that a human (y) is "pre-human" (not y, or not yet y). A human is already a human. You have already agreed with me (and backpedaled, and agreed again, and backpedaled again, and etc...) that, so long as the fetus being discussed is of the homo sapien species, and has a heartbeat, that it is a living human. You are denying your own position. So are you. Are you now saying that YOU are not a human life? I'm only asking about living humans; I'm not asking about anything else. You continue to deny your own position. You've already agreed with me that it is. So are you. Are you now saying that YOU are not a human life? Why do you keep bringing the terms "human beings" and "rights" and "morals" into this? My question has nothing to do with any of those things. Same with the word "religion". Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the question that I have asked.
I didn't ask about 'persons'. I asked about 'living humans'. My question has nothing to do with USA law or any law for that matter. You keep getting distracted. No, it's not. It's about one's views on abortion. See the thread title and the OP. They are irrelevant to my question. You're getting distracted again... How would you determine whether or not something is a 'human'? How would you determine whether or not that 'human' is 'living'? How do you determine whether or not a family member of yours is 'living'? All you are doing is avoiding my question, since it exposes what you truly believe and you don't like that.
No, no I do not. I do not need to conform to your BS... I can think for myself and form my own arguments.
... not with regard to the specific question that I asked. Yes, the LORD is indeed good. PRAISE BE TO GOD!!! My specific question hones in on 'living humans'. Let's just stay focused on what constitutes a 'living human'. See above.
It seems to me that you do. True, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus is a separate human with a separate genetic makeup (and a separate identity).
A fetus is not a human. No. Enough of this crap already. No, I am not a bloody clump. Neither are you. We both once were, but not anymore. Stop asking. No. No. I have all limbs, organs, qualities and characteristics of a human Because that is what we are talking about, Darwin. Your question has nothing to do with anything. Go to the Science-sub if you wish to discuss cardiology and ecology,
So again , you think all women are stupid....I got that awhile back.....but keep repeating it, it makes you look so good (sarcasm)
No, a fetus can be killed after the time of viability if they have severe illness or are disfigured....BORN people can't be...
And you are avoiding my question: Why haven't you taken this "brilliant " "argument" to the Supreme Court and had RvW overturned.... it's still standing strong
Apparently YOU don't get it, since my question uses the word human as a NOUN, yet you keep attempting to use the word human as an adjective to the noun "being" or "person". In order to discuss my question intelligently, you need to realize and accept that the word human (in my question) is a NOUN and the word living is an ADJECTIVE. We agree here. A single cell may or may not be human. A single cell is what a human begins as, as you have agreed to above, so as long as that single cell is of the homo sapien species, it is a human (the NOUN). Now you are introducing a new noun ("cells") and wishing to refer to human as an adjective again, describing the cells... Yes, they are human (adjective) cells (noun). However, those cells (noun) are part of what constitutes a human (noun). No it doesn't. It is just a simple question... I'll put it here again: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has not expressed any desire to die? This question is a simple yes/no question, strictly about the choice to kill living (adjective) humans (noun), specifically humans who have not committed a crime and have not expressed any desire to die. What is important is what precisely constitutes a 'living human'. Thankfully, you have already agreed with me on that point, so now you are stuck in a paradox of your own making, simultaneously trying to accept and deny what you have said, all because you don't like the light that this question shines on your beliefs. No, the word 'human' in my question is a noun, not an adjective. At that stage, it IS a human (noun), as it is of the homo sapien species. I'll accept whatever position you wish here. This is irrelevant to my question. What premise? None of this has anything to do with my question that I asked... I said nothing about rights or any of that other stuff. Please stay focused strictly within the purview of my question.
'Fraid you need to get a book on English. Look up "adjective" and "noun"...they are two separate words with separate meanings, neither meaning do you seem to get...
The problem we have with health care distribution affects many millions. And, it is known to be a factor in abortion decisions.
There certainly are many who hold that view. And there are far more who don't. I don't believe this is a case where it is legitimate to use our system of laws and enforcement to force one view on all women. Besides, there ARE other directions on reducing the number of abortion. Canada has fewer abortions per 100,000 pregnancies than we do. And, they have NO laws. In fact they pay for abortions through their health care system. In the US there studies of why women choose to abort that point to factors that can be addressed. Also, our education concerning pregnancy and childbirth could certainly use some improvement. At the very least, we should be using these approaches first.
Your issue, not mine. No need to; I already know what they mean and how they function. That's what I said. Your issue, not mine. The meaning of 'human' (the noun) has already been presented and agreed to.
Your question is a trick-question. Are you seriously saying that an egg and a sperm (single cells) are human beings? And the fetus is part of the woman. No it doesn't. It is just a simple question... I'll put it here again: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has not expressed any desire to die?[/QUOTE] Stop spamming. I already told you I am not answering that again. I have answeted it more than twice. Precisely. I never agreed with you on anything. Why would I agree with someone who is wrong? The premise of your question is that a fetus is "a living human being who has committed no crime nor asked to die". It is not a human being and it has not committed a crime a crime or expressed desire to die because it lacks the capacity to do any of those things. If you are not interested in rights you are in the wrong sub.
No, it hasn't...you seem to equate A human with an adjective...A human is a noun. AND despite all your many repetitive posts asking the same silly question, the Supreme Court wouldn't let you in the building Abortion rights are still going strong and women have abortions whenever they want them And whether you want "human" to be BOTH a noun and an adjective in ALL circumstances you still have NO point.
Terminology already exists for this. A person has rights under our constitution. A fetus does not. That includes women who are pregnant. In fact, a person of less than 18 years of age is subject to the health care decisions of the parent or guardian. That even includes the withholding of life saving procedures, such as transfusions.
"Medical science" is about as politicized today, when it comes to the issue of abortion, as it was under the Nazis. I think the only neutral solution to this might be to bring in some Chinese doctors. Don't get me wrong - they STILL liberally do lots of abortions there - but it's more because human life - all human life - is very cheap there, not as much because they see the fetus as not being a child.
Two teenagers who are in love and deeply committed to each other will have their lives destroyed if they have a baby? Wow there, I think that statement says everything about your perspective on this.
The pro-aborts are gradually trying to change that, state by state. Just last year, several states passed laws allowing women to get abortions anytime in the pregnancy with no doctor needed to see her, diagnose anything, or even be in the room with her during the procedure, with very little accountability, and wording in the law that almost makes it sound like women have the green light to do this. Like a law intended to allow something without explicitly saying that it is allowed. (highly doubt they're going to arrest a $15 an hour worker for not knowing that the woman's "health reasons", which could be just about anything, were not legitimate health reasons, and she can just say it wasn't her job to know, and point the finger to someone else in the office who only filled out the entry form paperwork)
