It is NOT the duty of the government to force raped 12-year-olds to carry a dying fetus for months on end, but some will continue to cheer them on.
We have bodily autonomy. That right overrides another's rights when they are the initial violator of the bodily autonomy. So in the end, if the ZEF doesn't have rights, it can be terminated and removed due to a lack of rights. If it does have rights, then it is still in violation of the woman's bodily autonomy if she doesn't give or withdraws her consent to the use of her bodily resources, and thus can be terminated and removed due to that violation. So in the end, whether it thinks or feels doesn't matter. Whether it is human or not doesn't matter. The violation of the bodily autonomy will cause the same results regardless.
I think both arguments need to be kept in part because both are valid, but also because whether it thinks or feels more directly combats the pro-life position. Their position is that the fetal right to life overrides the mothers right to not be pregnant, basically. So one could either convince them this is not the case, or that the fetus is not a person. Many people will simply never change their position, but of those who could, realizing the fetus is not a person would be more persuasive than that this "innocent little baby" is less important than the mother's bodily autonomy.
Yeah, yeah, we get it. You literally have no other argument than "YOU MUST OBEY BECAUSE I SAY SO!" And a zygote on itself will never turn into a human being. Thus, by your standards, it's not a human being. You make this way too easy. As I can trace my development back to an ovum, it is clear that an ovum has the potential to become a human being. And that creates an unsolvable problem for any pro-life "potential" arguments. Your general problem is that you started out with a conclusion, and you're trying to work backwards from it to justify the conclusion. That doesn't work well. We started out using the same belief that all of humanity has used over all of human history. A person is human, born and alive. It's not and has never been a scientific definition. That's recent pro-life revisionism. And for reasons unknown, you despise those HelplessHaploidHumans, and you clearly take delight in justifying their murder. That, of course, proves how evil you are. BECAUSE I SAY SO. It's your standard that BECAUSE I SAY SO is a valid reason to call someone a murderer, therefore, by your standards, I get to use the tactic too. You assign rights based on whether the genetics of some entity are up to certain standards. How is that not eugenics? Circular logic, so not useful. For your position to be valid, you have to define exactly what a human being is without using circular logic, and then you have to justify why you chose that exact definition. Go.
Why are you fallaciously stating that I have not cited the medical and science textbooks? A human zygote is already a human being as I cited the medical and scientific knowledge and teachings. Just as a dog zygote is already a dog being and an elephant zygote is already an elephant being. Why is it so important to you do deny the humanity of the human being inside the womb? What is the difference between a haploid and a diploid cell? What is a gamete? There are no pro-life "potential" arguments that is the specious canard of the pro-abortion side. I have no problem I start with the building blocks of life and then go through it's creation. You try to start at some arbitrary point of convenience in order to make it more palatable to kill the unborn babies in abortions. It doesn't stand up to the science and you have presented NOTHING from the science to support your layman's uniformed beliefs. No that has never been the same belief of all of human society and especially that of science but are you asserting we should 3rd century science to define our abortion polices instead of the most modern scientific knowledge? REALLY? Can you cite me from the medical or science textbooks which state a haploid cell represents and complete human organism? "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...As soon as the twenty-three chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the twenty-three chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered...(W)hen this information carried by the sperm and by the ovum has encountered each other, then a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again...[the zygote, and the cells produced in the succeeding divisions] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a "population" or loose "collection" of cells, but a very specialized individual, i.e., someone who will build himself according to his own rule." (As quoted in Linacre Quarterly, February, 1993) Why do you fallaciously state that I have only written my opinion when in fact I have fully backed up my position with the medical and science textbooks while you have provided NOTHING but your uninformed opinion? I don't assign our founding documents declare it quite loudly and unequivocally. What human exist that does not have human DNA? What other species exist that has human DNA? I have no cite from the medical and science textbooks in rebuttal. Go.
And when you can't argue on the merits pull some .001% of all instances of abortion to justify the other 95% of purely elective abortion of a healthy child and a healthy mother.
Her life was not threatened her babies life was the one in jeopardy. But when you can't win on the merits engage in the invective.
No I have given you the full scientific context from the medical and scientific journals, your layman's uninformed unsupported simple dismissal does NOT refute the biology and embryology. Lack of rebuttal noted. Follow the science. Follow our founding documents, you were CREATED with your inherent right to life, that is a self evident TRUTH.
The ethics are spelled out in our founding document and goes further for doctors in their hypocritic oath. I have given you the SPECIFIC basis of my arguments, the unequivocal clear basis. From the science and from our founding principles. You have offered NOTHING to support yours.
You pretend to come from a scientific perspective, but really you're attempting to co-opt embryology out of context to support your spiritual beliefs. It's out of context because the point of these books and journals wasn't to establish when and whether a being should have rights, but rather the logical starting position to gauge the development of a distinct individual. That way, we can see the results of an ultrasound and understand if things are proceeding normally and act accordingly. This is important because things that happen prior to the development of the mind can affect the development of this future individual. For example, an early fetus may not actually FEEL pain or experience anything, but the chemical stress response from noxious stimuli can affect their future development, and this can warrant anesthesia for fetal surgery. Just because a fertilized egg is a potential future person, and development has begun, doesn't mean it's a person upon fertilization. Personhood lies in the mind, logically, and the mind requires a more advanced stage of development to exist. The unique DNA (normally) - the instructions for a new person - may be a logical starting position for development, but that doesn't make it an actual person with rights. This happens once a mind exists. To me this is self-evident. It is odd to me you come to a different conclusion. Is your conclusion based upon something supernatural like souls? I'm not a layman, by the way. I'm a pathologist and at one time my grasp of embryology was far above most doctors, but I haven't used that knowledge from training for my daily practice. In terms of what doctors usually believe, I looked and it appears we are less likely to adopt either extreme position. i.e. like 97% of us think abortion is at least sometimes okay, but fewer of us than the general public believe late abortions are okay. This is logical, given what we know about embryology and the development of the mind.
And an acorn is an oak tree, and a caterpillar is a butterfly, and ... oh wait. Your claims defy common sense. Never mind. Hint: Nobody has done that. It's hard to take you seriously when you can't figure out the difference between nouns and adjectives. If you're going to mangle the language to support your bizarre authoritarian religious beliefs, at least learn how to use the language that you're mangling. Subjectively and inconsistently, which destroys your credibility. So according to you, all of humanity over all of history has been vicious selfish killlers. Your beliefs are kind of insane. Anyways, I didn't ask for excuses. I asked you to define exactly what a human being was, without using circular definitions. You couldn't. You wouldn't even try. You couldn't run away fast enough. Your argument rests on you simply defining yourself as correct, using entirely subjective criteria, with that subjective choice being very recently invented by a religion. Your lack of having any objective and specific non-circular definition invalidates your whole argument. Now you're saying our founding documents talk about DNA and genetics? In my world, abortion was legal and common when those documents were written, and those who wrote them were fine with that. That would seem to indicate what their intent was.
I can argue on all merits. Government has no business taking away individual liberty and bodily autonomy from half the population-women. And there are MANY cases were women need an abortion because it has no way of surviving outside womb, or will damage ability to have babies in future, and many other unique situations where it is required. Must be convenient for folks like you to be wishy-washy and ok with abortions if needed for a raped 12-year-old.
Doesn't matter when life begins, it only matters how it's treated under the law. Simply being a living creature does not afford any protections whatsoever. If you don't believe me, just ask our food. The law is based on individuals. A fetus is not an individual, the mother is. Therefore, the mother as the individual gets to determine what she does with her internal organs, just as we all should be. If a government is allowed to legislate your uterus, and you support this behavior, you have given up any rights to an argument about invasions of privacy or government overreach. There is nothing more invasive or overreaching than making laws about the inside of your own body, that doesn't even have to do with putting something external in it, like drugs. You're against choice in abortion, I don't want to hear you whining about how the government recorded your phone call or saw your bank records. Those are both less invasive than making laws about a uterus and cases can be made that allowing them to do both of those things saves lives.
You have shown NOTHING out of context in my post and NOTHING from any biology and embryology resource to refute it. And noted you refuse to use the science and instead some made out of putty "person" claim. Well got news for you a person is an "individual human being' which starting at conception describes the human being. As I showed with the science there is no such thing as a future potential person. There is no basis in biology or embryology for such and fallacious term made up simply to hide the humanity of the human being killed in an abortion. Yet you can cite no medical text to back your claim that the starting at the zygote through the fetus and through the embryonic we are not human beings until something happens in our minds, you don't say what exactly that is and how it is measured just some arbitrary standard. What is extreme about the established scientific fact that the new human being is created at conception and continues through all the stages of a human beings life at that point without further input other than nourishment and gases the same as adults of the species. Which is embodied in our founding document. What does it say about our right to our life?
Shouldn't the law be based on when it begins since we have the self-evident inherent right to it from creation?
Does one human being have the right to take away not just bodily autonomy but also the life itself? Well let's deal with the 99% that don't require the baby being killed first. I know it must be convenient to think you can justify the 99% that elective abortion by crying rape and the mother will die so we must allow ALL abortion up to birth.
There is no such things as self-evident or inherent rights, there are only the rights we create and enforce ourselves. If there were rights that existed naturally, they would not rely 100% on human beings to codify and enforce them. That is evident by all of the humans that have lived since the dawn of humanity not having these inalienable natural rights until the last few hundreds years when PEOPLE got around to enshrining them as law. So no, the law should not be based on things that don't exist. It should be based on what makes the most sense for liberty and equality. And there is little outside of outright slavery that is more invasive and anti-freedom than turning a woman's body into government property. You think the government potentially listening to your phone calls is invasive? That is literally nothing compared to legislating the inside of a woman's body.
And we are not oak trees or insects....go get some biology. My claims are based on the science as I HAVE CITED. ROFL it is EXACTLY what the pro-abortion side does in mangling the language I am citing the scientific literature what are you citing? And BTW I'm a atheist. ROFL again yep when you can't win on the merits accuse the other side of some religious zealotry. My arguments are ENTIRELY based on the science and medicine you should try it. I have no problem I start with the building blocks of life and then go through it's creation. Objectively with the science which is fully credible and un refuted. Want some credibility then refute my arguments with scientific data. You try to start at some arbitrary point of convenience in order to make it more palatable to kill the unborn babies in abortions. It doesn't stand up to the science and you have presented NOTHING from the science to support your layman's uniformed beliefs. Not that is according to you, my statements are according to the science as I have cited. I did from the science textbooks and medical journals in Msg# 2 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-definition-of-embryo.617417/#post-1074708614 Now go read it and then come back and refute it. It is entirely subjective go read the Msg #2 Now our founding document talks about the self evident truth of your inherent right to your life from creation. Never read it? There was no wide open abortion it was consider an immoral practice where it did occur and there were people prosecuted for engageinrg in them. An of course the science then was that the new human was created at the quickening. Shall we go back to 18th century science now or base our laws on the most current and accurate?
Well when we burn our founding document let me know but until then it is ingrained in our government and our nation. When we as a country turn over what is or isn't a right to the whims of government I hope I am no longer here. You may want to go back to the days of when those were NOT considered OUR rights as the PEOPLE which the government cannot take away, me I don't. I only have to look at NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia and China to give me a dose of what I don't want.
Yes, unless you are willing to donate your kidney to sustain another life, you shouldn't be asking women to donate their body to sustain another life. Simple. Hey, I don't support forcing 12-year-olds dying during childbirth but that's your thing...
Well the quick response is - that's not what biology and embryology resources are about at all. They are not about when legally protected personhood should begin. It's not a topic they seek to cover by default. It's all well and good to borrow facts from science to support moral claims (e.g. to determine when a mind can exist, when pain can be felt), but you're just twisting semantics to pretend they support you when they were never intended for that purpose to begin with.
So we should NOT base the law on the science? The topic here is the definition of an EMBRYO and that is not semantics it is scientific fact as I have shown.
And another phoney argument and the only way to attempt an argument is to ignore the 99% of abortions.
