Question to pro-choicers: what traits does a fetus need to be considered a person?

Question to pro-choicers: what traits does a fetus need to be considered a person?

A fetus cannot have the traits of a person, because it is a fetus. Being born would be a very good start as it will then be a baby which could be referred to as an extremely young or newly born person. Until that happens a fetus is...well.....a fetus.

 

"Question to pro-choicers: what traits does a fetus need to be considered a person?"

a mother that wants to risk her health\life to have a baby

if you believe in the bible, when did adam and eve become people, when they took their first breath?

I personally believe a spirit will just move to the next opportunity for life, I would think a God that decides who lives and who dies and it's all part of his plan would do the same and not deny them a chance at life, do you think God is great like that?

 

As they say, with great power comes great responsibility...

 

Then what's so terrible about making a woman give life?
Won't her spirit eventually move on too?

Sure glad I'm not inside a womb.

How about you? would your perspective be different if you were inside someone else's womb, and you just needed a little more time until you could come out and survive?

 

I would have no idea about anything, let alone where I was.

 

Well I was going to use a synonym 'awareness', but how else can it be defined other than 'to be cognizant of what's happening to you'?

 

Ah, but you fail to understand: You already live in such a culture. It's called Western civilization. One set of morals for one person does not translate to the next. Whether you like it or not, moral relativism is a fact of life. No one have the moral high ground here.

It's called freedom of thought, and having human garbage like NAMBLA(and other groups, but to stay on-topic I won't mention them) running around is the price we pay for being allowed to think on our own. They are morally disgusting obviously.

As for NAMBLA and Larry Flynt: What did I just say about moral equivalency fallacies?

Mate. What are you even talking about?

Responsibility comes in many ways. It is not as simple as "taking care of a child". Stop thinking black and white, this or that.

 

Oh for pete's askes, now you're in your "panda bears have something to do with abortion space out time"

It is so ignorant and childish to think there's a fully functioning adult mind inside that fetus....but then again you are the one who uses cartoons and panda bears as your "proof" of something that never is proof of anything...

Does your teddy bear talk to you ???

 

you can't force someone to rich their health and life for another, if she chooses too, that is her choice

what did you think about God killing all the first born, or killing everything on earth but a boat load - is that mass murder?

if you believe only God decides who lives and dies, then if God wanted a baby to be born, it would be born - unless you believe that is beyond God's abilities

 

If a person has another person as part of their body then they cannot really be a person in their own right, now can they?

 

Weak argument, the same type of argument could also apply to rape, murder, and all number of other painful conditions.

This is a theological dilemma, not one that has to do with abortion.

If you think Abortion is OK because God didn't stop it...

How about "Abortion is ok becase if god didn't want me to get an abortion he wouldn't have let me get pregnant"?

 

of course your right, God either can't or wont stop those acts of evil

as for the fetus, God kills fetus's per the bible against the parents will, so why not save them?

fact is, a fetus is not born into this life yet, once they take that first breath, they are a person, at least that is my opinion, the bible says they have to be older then a month before they should be counted

before that first breath of life, they are a potential person and only the mother can decide if they want to risk life and limb to bring a child into this world or not

 

Also I would add.....at least 50% of abortions are female. What about the rights to their lives?????

 

I have been called "black and white" and I intend to stay that way as our culture digresses. Abortion is akin to human sacrifice practiced in Ancient Babylon and the Incas in Mexico. Of course we burn the candle at both ends with the "emerging Hemlock Society". No I do not want to throw in with the morals of a digressing society. You can.....that is until it steps on your toes. We can think on our own but as a culture eventuallyy we must take a stand.

 

So let me get this straight: you would make youself a god and exert your powers over life & death?

 

Yes, they can because they've been born and so have rights...

 

I've noticed you sure don't like to address posts that are uncomfortable for you....and you have no answer to Like:


"""... isn't it a good thing no one forces their morals on you?"""



That's OK, lots of Anti-Choicer hate having to face facts...



BTW, I believe incest is immoral... do you?

 

If the fetus is merely a part of the woman's body, like you claim, then naturally, in some sense, it has already been born.

Something to think about.

 

No, like most of your posts there's nothing serious here to think about....your panda bear thread had more to think about and that was pretty near zero...

 

""Fathers (men) need to love and cherish their daughters. They need to be protectors and teachers. They need to model love for their daughters so daughters will know what it really is. Then they will understand the responsibility that goes with their ability to bring life into the world."



Does anyone else find this to be a disturbing advocacy for incest?

 

The point was the past doesn't really matter (the condition of having been prior born or not). It's the present condition that matters.

If some aliens from another planet with advanced technology had a magical teleporter and beamed the fetus outside the womb (giving it born status) and then beamed it back inside the womb, so that everything was just the way it was before, it wouldn't change anything.

It wouldn't alter any of the pro-choice abortion arguments. Can we presumably agree on that?

 

Did the aliens look like Panda bears?


Make believe, fairly tales, and cartoons do not alter any human rights.

 

Neither does having been born, particularly if it is not accompanied by present existence outside the womb like it usually is.

Hopefully we can agree on this, and you can stop using the phrase "born people" within the context of abortion rights, or at least we can agree that you're using that phrase to refer to current existence outside a woman.
Hate to be a stickler for semantics, but some of these subtle points are important if we're trying to have a logical debate and get down to the nitty gritty.

 

Yes, being born means one goes from a fetus with no rights to a born person with rights and space aliens and panda bears and TV shows will never change that, in fact, nothing will.



Your "" particularly if it is not accompanied by present existence outside the womb like it usually is. :...is gobeldegoop...

We agree on nothing.

Why do facts bother you so much ?

Uh, duh, ya, born means "outside the woman...see, duh, if it's still inside the woman it hasn't been born...

For a logical debate you need some logic..... Where is yours? Panda bears and Star Trek episodes don't count …

 

Even if, hypothetically, the baby was stuffed back into the mother and dependent on her again?


(Maybe a neonatal surgery involving a c-section, if that helps make the scenario more plausible for you)