"The brain hasn't turned on yet, so it's okay to kill"

That's because it means nothing...

If "brain function" started at conception it would be OK to kill the fetus....

If brain function is so important to you then have ZEFs taken out the second there's is "brain function" and let them grow on their own....afterall, if it can think it can take care of itself and develop on it's own..

Of course it can't and neither can a ZEF except the OBVIOUS difference here is that a toddler can be taken care of by anyone, a ZEF is attached to the woman it's in.

I focused on it and blew it out of the water....brain function makes no difference to when a fetus can be aborted.

 

If a fetus has rights, is it a US citizen if conception occurred on US soil?

Why should a fetus be denied citizenship just because it's mother decided to give birth in another country?

 

Human rights are not exactly the same thing as citizenship nationality rights.

It has citizenship, in the country of its mother and/or father.
I personally believe that the child should get that citizenship if the child is openly permitted to live in that country for a long enough period of time (effectively permitted rather than legally) and is not being totally hidden from the society.

It is an interesting question you are posing here, but would it not be more appropriate to start a SEPARATE thread if you want to discuss that comparison in depth?

Why the repeated attempts to derail the topic of this thread?
I think I know why...

 

I think if we are having a debate on abortion that deals with the rights of a fetus, then we should be deciding exactly which rights a fetus has and why it should or shouldn't have those rights, and when those rights begin. If some rights exist at conception, but others do not until birth, why?

 

I think you're confusing two different arguments here.

Here, here's another thread if you want to discuss that:
"the lungs haven't fully developed yet so it's okay to kill"

 

Are you familiar with self-selection?
Would you agree it is fair to speculate that the most ethical in the bunch probably were not the ones who chose to go the route of becoming an abortion doctor?

Sometimes a person's ethical sense can become dimmed if they are exposed to a certain circumstance, especially if it is a part of their career and their personal revenue depends on it.

Even if we assumed that 90% of doctors were ethical, wouldn't these women just specifically seek out the doctors who had fewer ethical qualms and would do the job?
I'm just saying, there's an inherent problem when the woman is the one specifically choosing the doctor who will supposedly be making the decision for her.

It would be like a prisoner having a parole hearing, but the prisoner gets to choose whoever he wants to be the ones on that parole board. It would be mostly absurd, with clear conflicts of interests.

 

Maybe we should be appointing a special government council of neuroscientists and researchers who study fetal development to make ethics recommendations concerning abortion policy. Maybe even put someone who is a philosopher and ethicist on this counsel too.

I totally agree with you on this. But right now, the way the situation is run right now, these decisions are not being decided by people who are actually experts in this area.

 

If you turned someone's brain activity off completely, it would be permanent and they would be dead before you drove the pick axe through them. You can stop a heart and restart it. You can remove the heart and keep them conscious with an ECMO.

Your brain dictates whether you are alive or not, not the heart. Also, I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice, just not pro-abortion like many on the left are today.

 

so you're comparing me temporarily someone leaving their body temporarily to someone that is brain-dead

no, you can't kill them

 

doesn't matter if I believe it's right or wrong, that is the point, it's up to each woman to decide for herself

I think you know that forcing a rape victim to have her rapists baby is wrong, but her deciding to have it would be ok, as it's her choice

 

If you want to talk about rape so much, why don't you start a special thread about it? Instead, you seem to keep constantly bringing up rape over and over again in different threads posted in the Abortion section that are about a topic that has nothing to do with rape.

You don't expect us to talk about rape in every thread that has anything to do in any way with abortion, do you?

Why can we never discuss the issues? Why do pro-choicers keep constantly trying to change the topic?

 

guess that means you think your losing the debate now, trying to silence alternative views

 

does citizenship start at conception or birth, if not until birth.... why?

 

I'm just going to ignore that. Happy to talk to you about that if you start another thread.

 

you're the one that brought it up, lol

 

No I didn't.
I just responded to someone else who brought that up.
Maybe I should STOP responding to off-topic posts.

Guess that means you think you're losing the debate when you try to repeatedly derail the topic of the thread with other issues.

No one is trying to silence any of your views. If you want to do that, you are more than welcome to start a separate new thread and post a link to that thread here.

 

I am not trying to censor people, speak your views on the topic all you want

 

How is talking about the rights of a fetus off topic when many people base their pro life stance on the idea of fetal personhood.

If it’s a person it has rights, and if it’s not granted all the rights of personhood there should be a good explanation.

 

That comment was not directed at you. It was directed at FreshAir.

FreshAir was not talking about the rights of a fetus. She was trying to create an analogy of someone else's rights to the rights of a fetus, bringing up a very controversial separate issue in the process.

WhoDatPhan78, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. I'm not going to give more of an answer than that unless you first clarify.

 

actually, I was talking about the rights of a fetus and when they begin, conception or birth....

 

I have no idea what your point was.

You were somehow claiming that because the US law grants citizenship based on birth that somehow has something to do with when a fetus should get its rights?

That doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. Especially since most pro-life conservatives don't even support this law and argue it should be changed.

It seems whatever point you had here had more to do with the "rights accorded at birth" issue than it does with brain development. Two different issues and arguments.

Maybe your REAL argument is that you don't think brain development should be the deciding issue in the abortion debate?
That you DO see them as "human beings" with minds (like babies) but just still don't think they should have rights.

 

if a child is conceived here, should they not get all the rights you and I have?

 

Sorry, I think that's still not really on topic in this thread.

There's no way I can carry on a thousand arguments about different topics in the same one thread. The arguments just never go anywhere. It becomes too hard for anyone to follow the different multiple conversations that are going on at the same time.
I've seen it in past threads before. I'm just not going to do it.

 

being against abortion is complicated, that is the point, which is why it's best to let women decide for themselves

 

No, I am not ...neither are "arguments" for anything.