mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

What? It's late, I can't think through this convoluted scenario.

 

The key here is what designates a Human "Being"...most consider a minimal level of capability as a requirement for this term to be used. Lacking this minimal, (a functional human brain) the fetus has less ability to think and be a being that the Cow does.

Regardless, to designate the fetus as a human being would provide it rights that would remove those of the human being it lives within.
Do You Think That To Be A Good Idea?

 

Can you take a person in a coma home and burp them? Nope same reason, they would die. Does not make the person in a coma any less of a human.
pregnancies cause harm, nobody disputes that. Most of those ailments are caused by the woman's own body. The unborn does not tell the body what to do, or how to react. Later in pregnancy ailments occur caused by the size of the unborn. not all pregnancies result in these ailments.

 

As other posters have told you over and over and over again IF the fetus is designated as a human being the woman has the right of self-defense to defend herself from this OTHER "human being" just like YOU have the right to self defense because you are a human being.

 

and yet you cannot give any logical reason for your assertion.

Yep starts developing, it is not the finished article and even Siamese twins where one does not have a fully developed brain are considered as a single person.

Definition of separate - Forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself: - by that definition Siamese twins are not separate, it is the legal system that has deemed them to be so.

There is no double standard.

Again no double standard.

Agreed, so what else do you say makes up humans?

 

Well, it is only temporary. And it is not like the woman's freedom is completely taken away. She's still free to walk around where she chooses.
This is really at the core of the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, because recognising the rights within potentially denies the rights outside, if the woman does not want to carry the fetus.

 

What rights are being denied? The womans till has the right to life liberty and happiness while pregnant. When those rights get compromised by a bad pregnancy where her life is in danger, then termination is ok. The right to her own body? she still has a right to her body

 

not an assertion it's a fact. 1 person with parts of a second person is a chimera twin
humans are made up of body parts and organs. The unborn has all of these by week 5. not functional, but it exists to include the brain.

 

If abortion is killing, pro-choicers have to answer why it's not okay to likewise dispense with the retarded and feeble-minded.

And please don't give me that "well it's not in the womb" nonsense.

 

and yet the chimera twin meets the requirements you state are enough for a fertilized ovum to be deemed a person, in fact the chimera twin has more of the requirements than the fertilized ovum, it at least has some body parts. Not forgetting of course that the chimera twins start off separate ie under your ideology they are two separate persons, and also according to your ideology where they are in their development has no bearing on whether they are separate persons, strange that you can flip-flop on this fundamental pro-life position and strange that you can arbitrarily remove personhood from something you have already deemed it has from fertilization .. how does something you claim to be a person lose their person status please?

Well no actually it doesn't have all the parts, for a start it does not have arms and legs, these do not appear until weeks 6 to 7, same goes for eyes and ears, spine and bones.
The lungs do not start to form until week 8
Nipples and hair follicles form in week 9

 

I never deem part of a human that will never develop into a completely developed human a person. Chimera twins do not meet the requirement of developing into two fully developed humans. One of the twins will always be just parts. So yes it is 1 person with parts of a second.
Ah you said will occur, meaning developing. Will the head of the second chimera twin develop arms and legs, or a spine?

 

When we actually start drawing analogies, it readily becomes apparent that most pro-choice arguments don't really hold any weight.
At least the ones I have read in this thread,

 

Mmmm.. well let us see shall we.

By your own ideology a fertilized ovum is a unique and separate person.
Chimera twins start out as separate fertilized ovum, so by your standard that makes them separate persons
You advocate that the developmental stage of the zef has no bearing on it personhood status
You can never know if the two fertilized ovum will fuse to become Chimera twins, so you cannot decide after the fact if they are both persons or not, that status has already been deemed theirs from conception .. unless of course you wish to arbitrarily declare a specific set of conditions that must apply to enable personhood, conditions that you have no way of knowing whether they will apply or not at fertilization.

Where in my post did I say "will occur" please, whether the head of the second chimera twin will develop arms and legs, or a spine is irrelevant or are you now placing conditions on the personhood status of the fertilized ovum, funny really you tell pro-choice people they cannot do that when they say personhood is a condition of birth and/or consistent brain wave activity.

so in reality you are advocating something that is little different to what pro-choice people advocate, that a specific set of conditions must apply before personhood can be given, if not then by your own logic of person at conception MUST apply to both sets of Chimera twins, anything else is making an arbitrary decision based on development.

 

person at conception does apply to both sets of chimera twins, until one of the twins essentially eats the other one and thus becomes 1 human with parts of two that will never develop into another person.
In the cases of twins that are developing into two people, they are two humans.
the unborn loses human status when it stops developing into a person, the same way born people lose human status when they die.
as long as the unborn is developing into a person it is a human. Now survivability is another, like if it does not develop bones, or skin or lungs.
I place the same conditions on unborn as I do born

 

first of all the chimera twin doesn't meet the scientific criteria to be considered an alive human yes it has the DNA of a separate individual human disguisable from the mother and father, but it doesn't have the brain activity to be considered alive
so once again you present yet another failed analogy
science can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

So you are setting conditions on the personhood status, conditions that you have no knowledge of at the time you deem personhood starts.
Hang on here, how can you say will "never develop into another person" when it is already a person from conception according to your ideology, so is it a person from conception or not?
If it is then how can it develop into another person, if it is not then you have just contradicted your own ideology.

but this is irrelevant, you are on record as stating that development has no bearing on personhood.

Except that the submissive Chimeria isn't dead, and how can something that contains human DNA lose human status, does it become a dog or cat.
You need to make your mind up, either it is developing into a person or it is a person from conception, which is it please?

You need to make your mind up, either it is developing into a person or it is a person from conception, which is it please?

Well obviously you do not, even children born with anencephaly are persons, and yet according to you the submissive chimera in the picture I posted is not a person .. both the child with anencephaly and the submissive chimera have the same issue .. no brain.

 

Yup. I predicted you'd change your tune and you did.......

I still haven't seen YOUR PROOF of how little harm pregnancy causes or when it does ....WHERE IS IT?

 

no both chimeras will not develop into people. takes mroe then dna to make a human. arms have dna.

 

nope tune is still the same.

 

Yes, what would it take, exactly, to provide the sufficient proof that the unborn are human and deserving of life?
What would the evidence look like?

"It's not a person", "It hasn't been born yet so it's not a person"
What exactly do these mean?

 

Oh Yeah...I guess your correct, it's only temporary, no big deal.

" Sorry lady, but we need to use your body for awhile....hope you don't mind. Oh, and after we're done you get to also deal with the result of our use....but hey, don't worry it's only for a couple decades....just temporary."

I'm sure you guys have a compensation plan figured out to help her get along while you borrow her life, and perhaps a pension plan when you retire her to pasture.

 

Well....most of it anyway. I'm sure you wouldn't mind someone telling you what you had to do with just a "Part" of your own body.

" We're sorry sir, but your penis is no longer under your control. We will be borrowing it for a few months, but we'll take good care of it....it might be a bit stretchy and slightly damaged, but it will probably still work."

 

Yup, same tune, you have no proof.