Where have I not? This shows that you cannot read, or don't bother to. I gave an example of her using multiple methods, simultaneously no less, and predicted that you would still claim it her fault if all of those precautions failed and she still got pregnant. And yet you somehow failed to address that one simple point. You seem to be the one stuck on only the one method only here. Why are you only relying on one contraception as what she uses? Your opinion on whether something is justifiable or not is irrelevant to rights. The unborn, the offspring, the ZEF has no rights to the woman's bodily functions. Its use of them, by its own volition or not, without her permission is a violation of those rights. She is justified to end that violation by any means necessary, just as a woman being raped is justified to end that violation by any means necessary. I already gave you an hypothetical by which a born might be in the same situation of using another's bodily functions and not by their own volition. You failed to address it.
Very well. Here is a scientific paper on the topic showing the 5 various theories on when life begins, and it is NOT one of the references in the RationalWiki article. Some sections have been cut to fit within the character limit, but you have the link to read the whole paper.
I would like to read the whole article myself - however I can't find the link to it. Can you please provide it. Until I do - there is nothing that contest the scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation. "The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings." http://www.physiciansforlife.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf pages 1-5 It was in the quote. An Anti-Choice site that promotes abstinence !!! Hilarious!
Oh boy, silly me! I need not have to read the whole thing. This clears it up. Your source says: The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Therefore, what you gave aren't scientific facts! They're nothing but............. PROPOSALS! Read it. It says so in your article! It doesn't in any way debunk what is scientifically accepted. "The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is UNCONTESTED, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)." http://www.physiciansforlife.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
Look at the very top of the quoted text in the darker green section, right where the user name of a person quoted usually goes.
The paper and its cited sources are other scientists and medical professionals contesting your site's conclusion. It is hardly uncontested if others experts are saying otherwise. This whole point has been that there is no one answer, and that it depends upon what it is you are trying to use as a measurement. What you are reading is from the textbook on developmental biology itself. Basic source material. The source of which comes from multiple scientific and medical professionals. I noted that your article has only one source, Dr Maureen Condic.
Even though they are scientists - what you've got listed in that article are still, just.............. PROPOSALS! Here. Read it again: Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Lol. Your source is clear in saying that! Furthermore - your article says when human life begins changes throughout history! Well - we can't really hold on to that can we? LIFE BEGINS AT FORTY may not be just an expression sometime in the future! Does that mean it's okay to kill anyone below 40 - and they can justify it by saying it's a justifiable means of alleviating the problems brought on by an over-populated earth?
That's the bloody point! Scientists CAN'T agree, there is no one person who can say for sure.... ...But keep that head in the sand....
Well duh! They are all proposals including that life begins at fertilization, during that multi hour period. Thus the issue is not UNCONTESTED as your source claims. One scientist claiming it uncontested in the face of others contesting her, is either isolating herself or is just plain lying. Your deliberate misuse of the multiple definitions of "life" does nothing to enhance your position. One can be living but not have a life. Further telling in your lack to uphold your position is your inability to remain within the same contextual situation. Do you know why a man can't choose to abort the ZEF, even though part of it is his, as well as the woman's? It is because the ZEF is not in his body. In the same manner, even if the ZEF is genetically the woman's, she does not have the right to terminate it if it is being gestated in the body of a surrogate, via IVF. And for the same reason, it's not in her body. So trying to offer up any situation in which one being is not using the the bodily resources of another is simply being dishonest. I note that you still can't answer the hypothetical I presented. Very telling.
Hahahaha, so eggs and sperms are human life too now? They have rights now? Every sexual intercourse is then, by that standard, a genocide because you do know that not every fertilised egg is successfully implanted in the uterus, right? Right? Oh no, of course you do not because if you did, you would not make such a stupid claim.
Wrong. Not a proposal. It's a scientific fact. Here are some of the science references. Life Begins at Fertilization The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html I'm not going to keep arguing with you. It's moot to argue if you don't know - or, don't want to accept - there's a huge difference between a proposal and a scientific fact. Just take it, or leave it.
To be fair, that is an improper comparison. That is like saying that dying in a rockslide is murder. If a zygote does not implant, that is not a direct or even indirect action by any human causing that event, save for the use of an IUD. Since you didn't mention the IUD, it can only be assumed that you meant the zygote not naturally implanting. The argument is over the death of a life due to human intervention, not natural (i.e. non-human) causes. Also strawman, because Tosca has never asserted that the sperm and egg are separate life worthy of rights, nor has any of his references made that claim. The closest reference to such an idea was in my link of the 5 views, under metabolic view.
First off, supplying a biased reference, especially one that blatantly has "prolife" in the URL, does nothing to support your assertion. All it does is show that the creator has selected references that support only one of the 5 views. In fact that which you are calling a "scientific fact", you turn around and call a "proposal" as well, proving that you never even read the paper. If you had you would have noted that your claim is listed among the 5, specifically genetic view. Here is an excerpt from that part: That alone right there shows the view is not only one among others but is also not uncontested, as you want to claim. And did you even read any of those quotes? Some of them do not actually do anything, either in or against support of the genetic view. That makes no claim whatsoever on the point of when does life begin. It's not the only statement like that. Many of the statements are simply noting a stage, not whether or not life begins at that moment. This is also a good one: Growing into, not is, another individual of the species. Right there is another different opinion on when the life begins, or at least of when it becomes a being, and not just of human cells/DNA Pot, kettle, achromatic. You haven't managed to start making an argument yet. Use of biased source material doesn't even begin to make an argument. Hell you'd be doing better if you cherry picked unbiased source material that supports your position. But even in cherry picking that source material, all you do is show that there is more than one view, and that your position is not an uncontested scientific "fact". And you especially cannot be so hypocritical as to dismiss the 5 views paper as all proposals and then turn around and claim one of those views is "fact". Not to mention that you keep flopping back and forth on whether it is life in and of itself, and only certain markers (such as brain developing vs non-functioning brain) as the indication of whether life needs to be preserved or not.
How are you forcing someone to be a slave by disallowing them to commit a homicide against a child? The child is there because of her actions, not the child's. Which is worse , a woman's losing partial control over of her body for 9 months, or a child being intentionally killed for another person's convenience? (save your breath if you want to try to perpetuate the lie that a child in utero is not a human being) Don't seem like difficult questions.
Just to be clear, this loss over bodily autonomy, you are alright with that happening for 9 months or less?
There is no homicide and there is no child..... YES, when one's right to bodily autonomy is taken away they are SLAVES.... ..and ANYTHING can be done to them including forced abortion, loss of voting rights, loss of right to earn their own living, loss of right to equal pay, loss of right to live../. So what? Losing the right to the basic right of bodily autonomy is the worst thing that anyone can lose. No "child" is killed no matter how dramatic you want to make it sound...."drama" doesn't make a point A human fetus is human, it is not A human as in legal person.
You cannot commit homicide against something that doesn’t have a heartbeat. You are forcing them by not allowing them to control their own body. If she is raped is that pregnancy due to her actions? What of the actions of the man? Maybe we should make all men have a reversible vasectomy if the life of an “innocent” is that important, agree? A woman being a forced incubator to the state is worse. If you want to force her to carry this child to term then feel free to pay for her medical care, the damage done to her body and the loss of income. Until you do that you have no right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.
Lol - the so-called "right of a person over her own body" goes out the window when someone sees a person committing suicide! You telling me no one should intervene? A witness to a suicide is likely to have legal problems if he doesn't do anything to intervene - not even call 911. Let me ask you: if you see your daughter shooting up heroin, or up on the roof about to jump...................... will you not intervene? If someone tries to stop her, are you just going to tell them: "leave her alone. She's got a right to her own body!" It's not that simple. You have to consider too, the mental or psychological state of a person. Many women are distraught and panicked upon learning they are pregnant.Compound that to the circumstance surrounding the pregnancy, like the one who fathered the child. Many women are also frightened by the prospect of being a single mother, especially when they have no family to provide support. There is usually not enough time for the woman to take a deep breath and ponder on her situation.....and usually, their state of mind is exploited by pro-choice people who endorse abortion as the "best" solution. That, "time is of the essence," adds to the pressure the woman already feels. Many women are coaxed and pressured to have an abortion by the current politicized environment surrounding this "woman's right" issue.
You showed a source from a prolife section of Princeton's website. It says it right in the URL. Your other source is from a website of an organization that openly claims to be against abortions. They are biased. Anything you present from them are suspect unless you can support it through an unbiased site. If @FoxHastings were to ever use a source from a site that was specifically pro-choice, I would call her out on bias source too. You are not even bothering to read the posts at this point, which means you know you have nothing to counter with. I have shown, as has another, that there are 5 different views, and there is no consensus as to which one is the correct. You furthermore continually avoid addressing the hypothetical, which also indicates that you are incapable of countering it. In the end, life itself isn't the basis of decision, but even so you have yet to prove any of your claims. They have all been shown wrong, via unbiased sources.
With a nod to mental issues, yes, a person should have the right to suicide. This is especially true for those who are terminal with chronic pain, but really the right should be extended to anyone. I foresee the need to ensure that the person in question is operating under a sound mind, but beyond that, when found that they are, left to their devices or allowed the assistance of a trained medical provider. I'll assume adult here. And yes, if any of my children want to do any type of drugs, then that is up to them. And they get to suffer the consequences. Besides possible loss of life, they could lose their family, their kids, become homeless, etc. If they violate others' rights because of their habit, I will be the first to call the authorities on them. This is where you need to provide repeated studies from non-biased sources that consistently show that the regret rate is higher than the satisfaction rate for women who have had abortions, and/or that more felt pressured to get the abortion than did not. But in all fairness, I can agree to ensuring that a women is acting rationally when she decides to get an abortion. However, the person who evaluates her needs to be an absolute pro-choice person. Not a pro-life (for obvious reasons), and not a pro-abortion (which sadly do exist, especially with regards to certain racial groups). A person who doesn't care whether the woman gets an abortion or not, but whose only concern is that the choice is made with all due consideration. Keep in mind that this would not apply to things like the "morning after pill".
No matter if the references were provided in a pro-life site - or, pro-choice site - it doesn't make any difference. What matters are........................................... THE REFERENCES FROM SCIENCE. The references given by the university provide information for anyone who would want to do a research on them. The title of the book, the author, the date of publication/publishers, page where the quoted statement is found. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2 If anyone provide scientific sources from a pro-choice site, why shouldn't I consider them as an argument? The material given from Rational Wiki isn't such kind that would be credible at all. Lol. Even the article itself gave a warning about it! There is nothing to answer with your post. What you gave are proposals, and not scientific facts. I've already explained that to you. If you keep insisting on and repeating the same faulty argument - of course, I'll just simply ignore them. There's nothing to discuss.
