well, like I said, and someone agreed, pregnancy is a completely unique situation, and what a person is required to do for their own offspring is much more than for a stranger. Your analogy doesnt work because you are requiring me to change the medical condition Im already in to save the persons life, while in a pregnancy, that condition already exists. for example, my body is preventing flood waters from coming into a room and causing drownings. I am required to continue to hold back the water til they can get out, within reasons of course.
duh, but it requires an intentional act for the unborn child to be left on its own, not to mention, if an adult is with a baby, and just leaves it somewhere to die, they would be charged with breaking the law, not to mention how society would consider that person to be dispicable. not to mention, who put the baby in that posistion of dependency?
Where is it written? As a pregnancy continues, a woman's medical condition changes. It changes a lot.
If a woman could clamp off the cord without touching the fetus, it would die. Because a baby is recognized as a human being. There is no baby until birth. A woman doesn't usually "get herself pregnant."
Why do you think the right to control one's own body and reproduction is extreme? Call it what you want, but criminalization of abortion results in more deaths, so it isn't really "pro-life."
so, thats how they do it? not a baby? oh come on, you are going to go there are you? that is so old and scientifically wrong,, besides I thought you were arguing about using a persons body against their will, so have you given up on that one now and are starting another line of supposed reasoning?
really? did you really just ask that question? oh, how tricky of you, you little propagandist you. Take the statement about abortion rights and cloak it in the terms to "control ones own body" and "reproduction" HOW AWESOMELY CLEVER !!! You dont like the terms pro abortion, killing the baby, late term abortion where a baby is cut up into pieces and pulled out of the womb dead, PRO ABORTION IS WHAT YOU ARE. pro abortion PRO ABORTION PRO ABORTION Why are you so against using that term? YOU dont know that for sure, but some actions are just illegal and immoral in and of themselves, taking an innocent life is one of those.
So, a woman's right to control who or what is inside her using her resources--that's just a "tricky propagandist" notion to you? You can use whatever terms you want, but that doesn't make them accurate, and the use of inaccurate terms IS propaganda. Abortion doesn't kill a baby; a baby is an infant from birth to one year, so using the term "baby" is strictly an appeal to emotion. Late term abortion is rare and only done in extreme circumstances, so there's another appeal to emotion. Yes I do know that for sure. Studies and empirical evidence have shown that criminalizing abortion does not reduce abortion, but without exception, it increases maternal deaths. Prove abortion kills a person/human being. You can't.
Indeed. The whole argument with being required to save other with your body is missing the point - with abortion there is simply no "other" to save until brainwaves develop (or another criterion of personhood is met). So its perfectly consistent to agree with forcing people to save other persons, such as with blood or bone marrow donations, and at the some time be pro-choice. Its forcing to save other persons, but the fetus is not a person, so it does not apply to it.
[video=youtube;7hdFtN8lirA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hdFtN8lirA[/video] Brain waves can sometimes be measured as early as 6 weeks in the foetus. Even as early as 6-8 weeks, the baby begins to move his arms and legs. http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/life_saving_options/life_saving_options_chronology_new_life.htm
murder is the unlawful death of a human PERSON. "Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American murderer convicted of killing his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California, in 2002."
Oddly I didnt say that whatever. Abortion doesn't kill a baby; a baby is an infant from birth to one year, so using the term "baby" is strictly an appeal to emotion..[/QUOTE] but yet it still happens, and you support it. blah blah blah, no you dont. in your own mind. per·son   /ˈpɜrsən/ Show Spelled[pur-suhn] Show IPA noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
Then what do you think abortion rights are, if not the right for a woman to determine who or what is inside her body using her resources? Of course I support abortion to save the life/health of a woman, even if it is late term. Prove otherwise. And this proves a fetus is a person/human being...how?
You wont get around the person question by quoting definitions. The philosophical question of the beginning of human personhood is far from settled (since its ultimately an opinion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
uh, not really, biologically its pretty much a closed case. Philosophically, people will come up with convoluted arguements that stretch the bounds of reasonable thought. I dont really care about the philisophical standing, but legal and biological ones.
Peterson was convicted under the "victims of unborn violence act." If the unborn were considered human beings, that law would not be needed. We have always had homicide laws for human beings.
Apparently "Never Again" does not apply to unwanted Babies... That type of twisted logic worked great for disposing of the jews too.
Not really. The umbilical cord is attached to the placenta, which is stuck to the woman's uterus, but not really attached. The baby is INSIDE the mother, not an integral part of the mother. In medical terminology the placental adheres to the uterine wall. There is actually no shared blood flow between the mother and the baby. Yes, but at some point (20-26 weeks) the fetus does not absolutely require continued sustenance from the mother for its survival, its life could be maintained outside the mother.
There is nothing in biology (a descriptive science) that says what should be a person and what should not be a person (a prescription). Personhood is a philosophical question. Science can tell us whether fetus has some characteristic, but it cannot tell us whether that characteristic should be relevant for personhood. Thats the realm of opinions.
