That is known as the pro abortion dance. Abortion above is desirable for the vast majority of posters defending abortions. They really desire it with all their heart. Deny it is a child. At any stage you can try to revert to medical language. But Mom has a child and she knows she does. She would not need an abortion were it a loaf of bread, she calls it a child. Mother knows best. Try to make the problem a legal one. I don't use the Bible on law. America does not use Bible laws.
So if "mother" says she has a bun in the oven at birth a dinner roll will come out? Really? There is no dance, there are unrefuted facts. "Mother" may call it anything she likes..the law and science trump her feelings so everyone enjoys equality under the law. BTW, if "mother" knows best then WHY are you trying to control her??????
The claim I control women is ludicrous. I did not mention buns so you need to live with that. When my wives got pregnant, do you honestly believe they saw our children in such scientific or legal terms? Do you honestly believe your own mother saw you as her fetus? She wanted you. Which is why you are here today calling for the deaths of millions of humans.
Yes, you want to control women by making abortion illegal. IF "mother" knows best then she should decide whether or not to have a kid, right????? YOU said she knows best. I don't give a flying poke at a rolling donut what your many wives had to say, THEY do NOT decide for every women... ...and if you continue to flamebait with comments like , ""Which is why you are here today calling for the deaths of millions of humans"" I will report your post. Of course YOU don't have any proof of that but when did you ever need proof or facts to back up your opinions...never.
You want a report war? I am for lawful changes to the law. You were not flame baited. Are you saying you are out of control? I simply told the truth which is why you want a report war to commence. I believe Moms that allow the birth do know best. Funny how I get asked for proof by a poster who does not prove things.
So you admit that "mother" ONLY knows best when she decides to give birth.......so you're saying "mothers" don't always know best...you can't have it both ways You stated , """Which is why you are here today calling for the deaths of millions of humans."" I have never called for the deaths of millions of humans , so you can't prove that enormous lie....and that's flamebaiting.
Explain to me what you do to save the lives of the unborn? If you are trying to save them, I definitely retract my comment and apologize. I speak plain english. I do not appreciate you trying to spin my comments.
I have NO obligation to "save the lives of the unborn" ..NONE and neither do YOU. What women do with their bodies is NOT our business. I call for NOTHING but women's right to choose either abortion or giving birth...and YOU spun that ( if you want to talk about "spin" ) I NEVER called for the deaths of millions of humans , as YOU said I do.... you can't prove that enormous lie....and that's flamebaiting.
Standing on a soap box yelping "its a child, its a child" is not an argument for much and does not magically turn a single human cell (zygote) into a human. Medical language is not required - did you not play the game "which one is not like the other" in kindergarten ? My personal belief is that a human exists at the point of significant brain function. The difference between my claim and your claim is that I can back my claim up. Regardless of what you believe or what I believe ... there is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing another to act on the basis of our belief though physical violence (law). Taking away the rights of a woman over her own body - through physical violence - on the basis of your belief. It is a demonstrable fact (not a "belief") that "experts disagree" in relation to the status of the zygote. This is this is the same as saying "we don't know" Do you think we should be making law on the basis of "we don't know" ? or better yet "we don't know otherwise" ? Is this sound basis for law ?
This is inside your head. I see the unborn as totally innocent. They did nothing wrong. All this fancy language gets you no place when the woman's only aim is the killing of her child. She knows it is a child. Logic says she knows. She does not think she is killing an ear of corn. She refuses to care for her own child. I truly want to know in what way me giving my own views amounts to forcing others to take any action? I am realist enough to know the woman wanting to kill her child won't listen to me. She is well past the listening stage of her life.
I wonder who this mysterious "she" is ? And why does her knowing anything have any affect on anything? Why would anyone think a woman thinks she's killing an ear of corn? How silly! Why should women listen to anyone? you don't...
So was the cow that you ate for dinner - It was a living sentient animal - as is a human- and you ate it. You say - "but it wasn't human". I say what is it we value about humanity ? (Memories, Love, compassion, not wanting to see something suffer, intelligence, joy, happiness, sense of belonging - family and so on). What you are doing is projecting these characteristics onto the Zygote (single human cell at conception) but the zygote does not have any of these characteristics. You are thinking about the human that might be created by the zygote in the future. You are projecting into future - thinking about what might be but, non of this exists at the zygote stage of pregnancy. There is no "child". At some point a child might be created (should all go well). The physical structure (body) of that child will be made of trillions of cells. At the zygote stage not a single one of those cells exists. That child will have various physical characteristics - brain, spine, eyes, mouth, nose feet and so on. None of these things exist at the zygote stage. The cow that you ate had all those physical characteristics. That cow was sentient, felt pain, pleasure, had a family and so on. Yet - you ate it. That cow as far more like a human in every respect mentioned than a single human cell. It is you that is misusing language. You are calling a single cell "a child" when even a child can see that a single cell is not a child. "Which one is not like the others" 3 pictures Man, Ape, Single Human cell ? What do you think the child chooses. This is not fancy language. This is reality. Logic dictates that a single human cell is not a Child. Wisdom and experience tells us that humans project into the future - what might be. They create fantasies about what might happen in the future - what the child that is being created might be like. While these fantasies may seem real - the reality is that the zygote is not a child by any rational stretch of the imagination. In now way. Your views are your views and they harm no one. It is when you take action (such as voting for a pro life candidate) or in a referendum to ban abortion, that your views are forced on another human through law. You are not a realist. You are living in some concocted fantasy that a single human cell is a child. You do not think bone, brain and heart cells are children. Why would you think this other human cell (the zygote) is a human. What is the significant difference between the zygote an these other human cells that makes the zygote a human and the others just human cells ? If you have no answer for this question then you have no business assuming that the zygote is a child. A realist would understand this logical imperative. As it turns out there is a significant difference between the zygote and other cells. The question is whether this difference makes the zygote a human.
You're correct, this shouldn't be a religious issue but neither should it be a moral issue . If one's morals and/or religion forbid abortion then don't have one but that doesn't give anyone the right to force those morals/religion on others. Not everyone's morals are the same. That's why law should ignore morals and religion and just make sure women have the same rights as everyone else.
Not that you haven't made a great point, but it's probably best to leave the religious based abortion arguments on the shelf. Religion is too fluid and can be twisted to justify anything, as it has been since the first religion was created by humankind. Pretty much any heinous act can be justified by finding some lines of text in some old book and using the creative liberties everybody gets to use with religion(since it's only based on itself). Slavery, murder, torture, all of it can be justified using the false authority of religion and nobody can dispute it to a certainty, because the only one that could settle that dispute is God since God is the ultimate author of what those religious texts claim they contain, in addition to being the creator of the universe. So it's really just he said/she said nonsense, like two English students arguing over Shakespeare, that gets us nowhere. In the context of a reality based discussion on reality based policies, it's best not to mix the realistic with the religious because it just muddys the water with unrelated debris that nobody even knows is real in even the most trivial way.
They are at about 20-22 weeks. Perhaps they should. Re-Classifying Dogs as Sentient Beings: It’s Time, America, It’s Time Last week, Quebec welcomed pets into the circle of “sentient” beings by granting them many of the same rights as children in the eyes of the law. The legislation, hailed as the “Animals are Not Things Manifesto“ lifts the legal status of specific animals from mere property, i.e. inanimate objects like toaster ovens and iPhones that can be manipulated any which way, to sensitive, emotional beings that require nurturing and respect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-hodgson/reclassifying-dogs-as-sen_b_8717888.html
Abortion is currently legal, just like Slavery used to be legal. Everyone deserves a chance at the Game of Life. Children are not "Homeless" or on Welfare because of their own actions; it's the fault of the parent(s).
But, of course! You've been brain-washed by the Media, conflating the verbs to murder, to kill and to slay. They all mean something different.
Of course not a "brain dead human." According to the US Supreme Court's definition of death, which is effectively the absence of life. an abortion during the first 12-14 weeks would be permissible, since the fetus is technically "brain-dead."
I've never heard anyone say a dictionary definition is the Media. Sorry, I am not the one brainwashed.
