If it is not something we can determine and we are not sure when a person becomes a person, though to me it is quite obvious, then why kill the fetus. What I am trying to say if you cannot tell when a person is a person then why take the risk of killing the life form in case it is a person. Also if we go on a time scale, lets say 20 weeks, and there is conception at midnight after a man and woman have bben intimate, is it exactly midnight 20 weeks later that fetus is becomes a person?. What happens if you have an abortion 1 minute after midnight is that then murder?. One minute before midnight is it not a person?. To me this is a joke, courts do not decision on what is life or not, a man who is living and is 20 years old is still a person whether the courts say he is or not. So tell me then the exact point when anyone becomes a person?. If you cannot answer this and tell me then I suggest we stop killing life until we know.
Not at all. Infants, though unable to communicate, are aware of themselves and possess a limited understanding of their surroundings. They are conscious thinking beings with higher brain function. The abilities I've mentioned are all present in a living child after it's reached term and has been born. Productivity has nothing to do with it, I'm not quite sure where you got that from to begin with. It is a human, we can both agree on that. But I do not believe that when we are speaking in specific terms like we are about abortion here, a human and a person are identical beings. Many many things can be "human", including a body that has had it's brain entirely removed and is being kept alive by a machine. Without the brain, there is no "person". That is the source of everything that makes us individuals. And not just by possessing one, but by having one capable of the higher thought, personality, and emotional traits that people possess. I do not believe human beings are special as a species just because we exist. It is the abstract part of our existence, the non-physical mental abilities, that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying because I do. I can respect that position. The problem I have(and presumeably the reason anyone anywhere really gets into politics) is when people take their beliefs about ambiguous abstract things like this topic is and try to make them policy. Some things are straight forward. Murdering another person, that's pretty bad. Theft. Rape. Kidnapping. There's not really any gray area there, so you don't really find too many people arguing that those things should be legal. When it comes to topics like abortion, I think you have to let people decide for themselves individually. One person should not be able to tell another person that legal medical abortions should not be legal. It should be a simple choice of, do I want one or not. Most end up choosing no, but you'd like to force everyone to lose that choice because you don't like it.
What makes it quite obvious to you? Why is it quite obvious to you, yet it has remained unresolved throughout history? First, there is no reason to believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, and secondly, because elevating a tiny mindless zygote or embryo to an exalted status reduces the status of the woman to a gestating/birthing slave. How exactly are we ever to have that knowledge? Who is going to determine that point, and by what authority? What you are suggesting is that, since we will never know that point with certainty, we must all play by your rules. It is believed in some religions that life begins at birth. Why should Catholic or Evangelical beliefs take precedence over others?
That's really beside the point, to be honest (or atleast if you're consistent enough in your belief that life is life). I can't imagine holding a pro-life position only on the preface that it (the fetus) must have physical characteristics similar to a born childs anatomical state in order to call it a life. If it's a life, it should be so at conception, for it serves as the starting point in human development. Call it a clump of cells all we like... who cares, we all started out that way, and here we are... living, breathing people. If there's anything that bugs me, it's a) a pro-choicer that attempts to make distinctions for personal relief and b) a pro-lifer that makes distinctions period.
Yes, the South Dakota task force did say that, but the article I cited refuted the task force findings which was based on ideology, not science. Here is the assessment of Dr. Marty Allison, the self-identified "pro-life" task force chairwoman: "It got to the point at the end that part of the task force members, as well as the vast majority of our public audience, left the meeting because it just got so ridiculous. It was an embarrassing end, to tell you the truth. I was disappointed in the process," Allison said. "The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated," said Dr. Marty Allison of Pierre. http://thewelltimedperiod.blogspot.com/2005/12/south-dakota-task-force-to-study_17.html Here is an article detailing the process used by the South Dakota "task force": http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/march_2006/s_dakota_task_forces_disavows_science.html
What complete nonesense, you are saying the moment a child is born it's brain begins functioning completely different than one minute before it was born. A child does not just have selfawarness because it is outside the womb at the moment of birth anymore than it did before it was born. Productivity has got to do with it you are basing your argument on the capabilites of the infant. If it is selfaware or not, it's thought process etc. You are judging the chilon certain criteria as to whether its' right to life is justified or not. What you are saying is that based on the capabilities of the mind we can decide if we should terminate or not, however these capabilites are developed over time, a 2 year old does not have the same sense of apathy as a 7 year old etc. Stop trying to find justification for the unjustifiable.
Because it has remianed a mystery to some others believe it is evident and clear cut when a persons' life exists. At the moment of conception there is a new life. We know a fetus is a person, what else is it?. How does recognising that a pregnant woman contains another human within her reduce her status. If anything it shows the importance of women in society. To me the evidence speaks for itself there is a new life form at the moment of conception it is our origin. Tell me when did your existence begin?.
The moment a child is born is when it is a legal person. That's been the way things are done for thousands of years. Even religions have declared birth to be the way I have described, and have stated that the mother's life is more important than the fetus she carries. You cannot have rights if you do not meet the mental qualifications of having them. That is why we don't give "rights" to anyone but humans, and is also why there is a small movement to extend human rights to dolphins and whales because their sentience can be compared to the level that human beings have. Yes, those capabilities are developed over time, but they also have to begin somewhere. Before they begin, the fetus is not a sentient being. You're trying to judge it based on future potential, not it's current state. Again, this goes right back to what I said about how something cannot BE something before it IS something. On the flip side of that, if it is your position that we should be extending rights based on future potential, why do we set age limits for certain things like driving, voting, buying a gun? Those are all abilities that any person will have the potential to do in the future. Or do we only judge based on handpicked future potential? How convenient for you.
hmmmm have a looksee at this. It's not unique either DISCLAIMER- try as I might, there were no versions of the story which I think will not offend you. They all refer to the child as a child or baby. i looked for versions where they were called fetus,foetus, bags of goo, clumps of cells, zeph's, zygotes, inconveniences etc but all where charges are filed call the baby a baby/child http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/25/texas-drunk-driver-faces-murder-charge-for-killing-unborn-baby/
The key word here is "believe." No one KNOWS with certainty. There's no "new life," because the sperm and egg were already alive. A fetus is a fetus. How does it qualify as a person? It is only your BELIEF that a zygote/embryo/fetus is "another human." Recognizing that a woman is pregnant doesn't reduce her status, but forcing her to continue a pregnancy against her will does. It shows that a woman is important in society if she is allowed personal autonomy. Forcing her to use her body against her will makes her a slave. At conception, a zygote is formed. According to you, that's a person. But the zygote can split into two or more zygotes up to 14 days after conception. All of them didn't begin at conception My existence as a person began at birth.
I dont care about abortion one way or the other... but I have never heard someone use the fact that they "liquify the baby" before pulling it out as a pro-abortion argument lol........I dont see how its relevant at all ? Just because someone smashes, sucks, or deforms something so that you can not see the original image does not mean that it never existed...?
Lifers think that a week old embryo feels pain. It doesn't. This proves that a six week old embryo doesn't feel pain because it is aborted so quickly, and it also proves there fake pictures false.
No it just proves that the author of the website is either good with Photoshop, or leaving out the graphic pictures which nullify her argument.
