The fetus is physically attached to the woman and lives inside her and is not yet an actualised human being. I think I already told you how they are different a few posts ago.
That's the most Baizuo response imaginable No bloody wonder it's so insanely easy to exploit the hell out of Westerners, when they have such infantile obsessions, and are disarmed further by the bizarrely solipsist notion that everyone on earth thinks sex is an achievement. I'm sorry for you if that's the case - but it's your problem, no one else's.
FoxHastings said: ↑ You forgot one type which I was recently reminded of: The type who is so insanely jealous of women who have all the fun (natural) sex they want Gosh, that must've hit a sore spot
Is that a serious question? One was born and has lived a life and has experienced consciousness. The other is a zygote.
A 20-week old fetus is not a zygote. So you have to have already had some life experience under your belt, to be worthy of life? (apparently according to you) Okay, suppose hypothetically this person suffered permanent amnesia. Then they are not a person? When we really break down what you just said, we see how disingenuous that statement really is.
That wasn’t the question. The question was regarding the qualities of a fetus and an unconscious person have. Nobody said anything about life experiences. Breaking down what you’ve said has resulted in realizing you don’t know a fetus from an actual person who has been born and lived outside a womb.
Then maybe we should continue this discussion in a different thread that focuses on whether the unborn constitute a person deserving of life, because that seems to be the direction you want to take this argument. Specific threads to better focus on specific arguments.
Fulfillment of possibility. For example, a raw egg holds the potency to become a fried egg and once you fry it, it has actualised this potential.
Interestingly, in all my other threads about why the fetus is a person, it seems pro-choicers ultimately don't want to talk about it and switch the argument to "Well that doesn't matter, because even if the fetus were a person, the woman would still have the right to abort it". That seems to be your strategy, switch the argument, keep moving those goal posts back and forth. It seems completely obvious and totally self-explanatory that any pro-life argument (okay, almost any) is going to based on the premise that the fetus is a "person" (or whatever you want to call it, not going to get bogged down in semantics here) and if that premise doesn't hold then none of the other pro-life arguments hold either. Seems disingenuous and in bad faith to keep trying to derail every pro-life thread into an argument about the fetus not being a person. We do have many threads focusing on that one issue. Now, how about in this thread, can we argue about whether the woman has an obligation to give birth if it is a person?
Uh, I 've talked and talked about it so that's another one of your many "imaginings"... Never saw anyone say that...I sure didn't.. Which is true. NO, that would be you when faced with facts. They don't. That's what the whole argument on abortion is based on... Why? If the fetus is a person with rights it also has the same RESTRICTIONS that persons with rights have....it canNOT harm another without their consent...
So is a newborn baby before they cut the umbelical cord. What does living inside someone else have to do with anything? That's almost as nonsensical as claiming the woman isn't an independent person because there is someone else inside of her.
Nice try, but any actions the fetus carries out from it's existence is a direct result of the woman's actions. It's like if a bank robber walks into a bank and tries to hold it up, and then shoots a bank security guard, claiming self defense. The woman can't act in "self defense" when she was the one that created that situation.
Yes, but this thread isn't about all aspects of abortion in its entirety. You're confusing threads with forum subsection topics. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy called "muddying the waters"? It's one thing if you want to quickly point something out, but another thing if you think the argument of the discussion is about something other than the specific issue raised in the first post.
"Muddying the waters" is when you claim I said something I never said because you have no facts or even a point...
I do not know who these particular Pro-Choicers you are referring to are or if they even exist, but from what you have shared it is obvious that they did not have the arguments to defend their position. Anyways, I do not identify with the label "Pro Choice" for reasons I could maybe elaborate on in another thread. Which is an argument tjat can only be backed up by religious superstitions such as "Thete's a soul at conception." Derail? That is the very core of this matter and the only reason it is a debate to begin with. If the fetus is a person, it deserves rights. If it isn't, it does not No, she does not.
Not for anything, but it’s quite dystopian when we are discussing why women should be obligated to give birth.
You and I may believe that is the very core of the issue and the only thing that really matters, but many other pro-choicers hold a different view. That is why we have to have these discussions. There are many pro-choicers who believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill fetuses in the womb who meet every quality of being a baby except being born.
