Because how do you or any other person know which cells will become the fetus and which will become the placenta, you have asserted on numerous occasions that a "person" is from the moment of conception. I highlighted the fact that some of the cells within the blastocyst will become the fetus. Your comment; So you tell me what is the earliest stage, not forgetting that you have already asserted that "baby" is relevant to the whole of the pregnancy from conception. It's a simple question is there a "person" from the moment of conception or not?
Doesn't answer the question, are the morning after pill and IUD's contraceptives or abortions, given that you have already asserted on a number of occasions that there is a "person" right from the moment of conception.
Anything that kills a zygote, embryo, fetus intentionally is an abortifacient. - - - Updated - - - What difference does that make? If you kill the Blastocyst you kill all of the cells. you aren't making any sense.
So you are still asserting that there is a "person" from conception, even though it is unknown which cells will eventually make up the person .. does that mean that the cells that started off as a "person" which are all identical and then go on to become the placenta are no longer a "person". Good grief it's a simple question.
Simple, yeah I would say that much is true. Obviously the placenta isn't a human being, but the embryo obviously is. I still don't see your point. At some point the human being creates what he/she needs to develop further, the placenta. How does that change anything I have asserted.
No it doesn't, prior to the blastocyst all the cells are the same, there is no he/she to create what he/she needs.
We know without a doubt the fetus was killed, and who did it. In any other homicide investigation that would be enough to prove guilt right there. Do detectives ever find a dead body with incriminating fingerprints all over it and ask themselves whether the body is really a person? Imagine if the prosecution had to prove it is a person every time before the murderer could be found guilty. Imagine if they had to bring in biologists and bioethicists every time to examine the remains of the victim. It would be completely ridiculous.
What an absurd comparison, a base rate fallacy. For starters all BORN people are considered persons, just because you wish all un-born were as well doesn't give any credence to your argument.
You don't even know a fetus existed. You don't know an embryo existed. Even if you did know a woman was pregnant, and is no longer pregnant, you don't know what caused it. And you don't have a body to provide forensic evidence.
The later into a pregnancy, the more evidence there is. The fact that it may be difficult to prove does not mean it should be legalized. It's also not that difficult to see if a professional is offering abortion services. Easiest strategy is to come after abortion providers. What if we just ban abortion after 7 weeks? Is that not enough time for a woman to determine whether she is pregnant?
There is NO "later into a pregnancy" for women who want an abortion and can afford one. I'm not talking about "difficult" to prove, I'm talking IMPOSSIBLE. If abortion is illegal, it won't be PROFESSIONALS offering them, it will be drop-out medical students, drop-out nursing students, wanna-be students, etc. That is for surgical abortions which would become more of a rarity if abortion should be criminalized. Herbs, drugs, will be the future. Currently, a woman not only has to know she is pregnant, she has to get together enough money to pay for an abortion. She has to make an appointment, then jump through various hoops legislated by individual states designed to delay her abortion action. Why are you so determined to LEGISLATE abortion restrictions? Can't you see that legislation is not effective?
So somehow a woman who doesn't even know she is pregnant will be seeking an abortion? If there is a way for her to know, there is a way for authorities to know. The mindlessness of the pro abort crowd is so blatantly obvious!
I don't quite see how you got to "a woman who doesn't even know she is pregnant will be seeking an abortion" from what I said. However I would like you to explain how authorities can know how a woman is pregnant even if she knows? Explain PLEASE!
Why? The fact that people will kill even if it is illegal means nothing. It is merely a favorite red herring of the abortion promoters.
That doesn't explain how any authority will know, can know, when a woman is pregnant. Please explain. Do you think her nose lights up or something?
Why is that relevant if we don't make our laws solely based on whether they will stop people from committing crime?
Nobody believes abortion isn't murder. Even the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who founded Planned Parenthood believed it. She just didn't care. In case that's kind of hard to read, here's that last part again. Just for clarification. All you people that go around parroting that "a fetus is not a person" crap have been duped by dishonest politicians, pundits, and social activists that came along afterward and had to clean up her narrative to make it more marketable. God knows most of you probably wouldn't be so eager to support her cause if they were using her real motives. "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976. "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." -- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. "Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. "I think you must agree ... that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics ... Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator. "As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble- minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation. "On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." -- Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5. "In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of 'fit' and 'unfit.' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists [sic], one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails." -- Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives , January-February 1985, page 44. "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." -- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control . New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12. "There is only one reply to a request for a higher birthrate among the intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of the insane and feeble-minded from your back. [Mandatory] sterilization for these is the answer." -- Margaret Sanger, October 1926 Birth Control Review "[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race." "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent Multiplication of this bad stock." -- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review And my favorite. The original definition of "pro-choice." Straight from the horse's mouth: "Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization." -- Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review
The fetus is currently not considered a person under the law except under certain circumstances like if the pregnant mother was brutally murdered or if she was assaulted and it caused a miscarriage. If a fetus is considered a person under the law though do you think that would change things? Do you think people should be forced to use their bodies to save the lives of others under any circumstance? Maybe only pregnancy? We all have a right to autonomy and a right to make medical decisions over our own bodies. Please do not try to take this right away from pregnant women just because they are pregnant. You will only end up hurting all pregnant women, those who wish to carry to term and those who do not. [video=youtube;-3X4_p3yAC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X4_p3yAC8[/video]
Random roadside vaginal ultrasounds administered by "flying squads" of concerned christian crusaders.
Whaler (and others like him) want a law....that is unenforceable and unprosecutable... and then discuss the "mindlessness" of others.
Only way it's going to work....random may even be too "chancey" to "save the babies"....DAILY (or be nice, thrice weekly) MANDATORY vaginal ultrasound probes for every female within child-bearing years (Probably have to start at the low end of 9-10....go as high as mid-60s, just to make sure). And once they're discovered to be pregnant? Into "protective custody" at a Womb Police Gestation Holding Hospital for 24/7 monitoring. Oh....and no pineapple or papaya on the prison....I mean..."holding hospital"....menus.
