Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

They're "rules people," proponents of unwritten cultural norms they believe are "the difference between right and wrong."

 

Since you are on the internet, I will assume you are not living your life as a Buddhist munk in an isolated temple somewhere in the mountains and thus conclude that you too do not consider animals and bacteria to be equal to human beings.

What we are discussing here is human life and it is simply impossible to honestly claim that an embryo/fetus in the first 9 weeks (when most abortions are performed) is anything close to a life in the human sense of the word.

Should whales, bacteria and plants have rights? Of course not.

The ridiculous post I have quoted yet again proves that anti-abortionists are actually anti-life.

 

They are proponents of tissue and the fairytale concept of "afterlife".

 

Can you address my arguments though?

Is that all you have to say in response?

 

.

 

Pretty funny how you think that you can speak on behalf of all women everywhere throughout history!

 

Oh come on! Not even YOU believe that, given that you said the below!

 

And why is that?

And I see that you dodged this part of my post in which I made an assumption about your position:

"Yes, but your point is that it should not be legal to shoot the comatose patient, even though you say that they have no "volitional consciousness", just like a fetus. "

Give that you didn't correct me, I assume that you are in fact saying that it should not be legal to shoot the comatose patient,
even though you say that they have no "volitional consciousness", just like a fetus. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Independence has nothing to do with consciousness. And you are saying that it DOES have consciousness, just not volitional .

Definition of individuate:

distinguish from others of the same kind; single out.

Yet you agree that a fetus is distinguishable from the mother. Interesting!

No they are not, but are you saying that what defines physical individuation is whether or not someone is attached to another human being and living of it like a parasite? If so, then how VERY convenient!

Well earlier you said that "actualised means that something has fulfilled its potential." But you have agreed with me that a baby has NOT reached their potential in life. But now you say that a fetus' potential has been actualised once it is born. So which is it exactly?

 

The alternative caretaker for the fetus is not another female, it's a MACHINE at a certain point after viability! So how is a baby distinguished from a post-viability fetus if they both have alternative caretakers?

Don't you distinguish human being and person?

 

Which is what I said, but just because a life isn't fully developed, doesn't mean that it's not a life!

You KNOW that I understand that, given that I said that I consider it a "potential FULLY DEVELOPED life", to which you agreed. So I really don't know why you are playing silly games here.

But it's NOT fully developed once born! What are you talking about! I wasn't 6 feet tall and 80+ Kgs when I traveled down my mother's birth canal!

Well, in that we have the right to life without some government giving us such a right - that is, rights which pre-exist government. If the government made murder legal, meaning that people no longer have the LEGAL right to life, wouldn't you still say that we have the right to life?

Okay, but you're NOT saying that the kid is merely a "clump of cells" as they are traveling down the birth canal.
Good! This means that you acknowledge that something changes between conception and at some point before birth!

And this is SELFISH?

I agree.

I disagree, but I still haven't understood what you're trying to say about parents being selfish. Once I understand, I may even agree!

Correct, which is why parents can give the kids to the State. Did you forget about that?

And it's yet ANOTHER dodge!

Ah, what the hell, I'll try again! Who would be responsible for the situation of a woman who got pregnant via consensual sex but doesn't want to have a child but has no legal way to get an abortion in her State? If you dodge for the MILLIONTH time, I will have to assume that your answer is something that you don't want to publish!

 

So because you were both teaching sex ed, this meant that she didn't feel like a mother until after the baby exited her? I'm not sure I see the connection there.

 

So you never referred to it as a BABY during pregnancy, even when it was kicking the living crap out of her? So you wouldn't have been JUST AS DEVASTATED if the kid miscarried one day before the due date than if they died minutes after birth?

 

Yeah, I'm sure that you referred to it as a "beachball" to your friends and family!

 

Ah, so it may NOT! Interesting!

 

Looks like you admit that you were wrong about the definition of SELFISH!

Nonsensical babble. There's no connection between people on the right and CEO's!

Why would such a question need to be asked in order to not be selfish?

Random murder creates chaos in society. If the only legal murder that happened was a few mothers killing
their born kids, (VERY rare) you would not be impacted one little bit! Yet, you don't think that it should be legal!

So if a BORN kid dies of a disease just one day after birth, the family are "not really affected" because "they don't have to experience 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth?"

You can't assume what people think they had or did not have. Many people will think that they HAD an unborn baby.

Well apparently you think that a woman (and a man) are responsible for how their unborn kid feels about being "brought it into the world!"

 

Well we BOTH think that it should not be legal for women to decide to do certain things.

 

You have EVADED about a hundred of my posts, and you have the nerve to talk about 'evasion?'

Speaking of which, do you have an answer to how SANE women kill their born kids?

 

So bacteria on Mars is life but not a heartbeat on earth. Weird

You’re simply changing the definition of words to fit your illogical paradigm.

 

My guess is a security guard on a night shift with not much to do...

 

You didn't address anyone.

 

Oh, I think I did....

 

Until the fetus exited her and became a baby. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to relabel the fetus as a "baby."

She said she didn't see herself as a mother until she gave birth because she taught "family studies" (that included sex ed) and was very familiar with fetal and child development. We discussed it because I was teaching the standard sex ed course taken by all students. I was looking at presenting how women react to their pregnancies.

 

My position that third trimester abortions should not be performed is in the OVERWHELMING majority.

Serial killers are also not a "big problem". I still oppose them.

 

No need to punish a bipolar murderer? You are entitled to your opinion I suppose , but to me that belief is silly. I think that you do not understand the difference between insane and a run of the mill bipolar with anger issues. Most people with bipolar live mostly normal lives. They are not considered "crazy".

 

I'm quite sure we would have felt pretty much the same way.

This is about the right of women to control their pregnancies and lives without unnecessary interference from government. As I said, I don't see from you much interest in or respect for the rights of women.