A woman who willingly engages in vaginal sexual intercourse automatically signs an unwritten contract that she will not artificially cut off the baby from her body's natural sustenance, in the event she becomes pregnant. Women have a choice: If they do not want to sustain a (healthy) baby to the end of pregnancy, they should not engage in vaginal intercourse. I suppose it is really not surprising that liberals are generally pro-death, since they are so fond of shying away from individual responsibilities. And if abortionists really care about "choice" so much, why do most of them want to take choices away from the individual in all the other facets of life? (banning normal light bulbs, trying to ban guns, telling homeowners who they have to sell their house to, for example) No, the vast majority of abortionists care nothing about choice at all, they are just using it as an excuse to justify not having to deal with the inconvenience of having a baby.
Why should they automatically sign such an unwritten contract? That does not follow from simply having sex. Women who engage in vaginal intercourse only sign an unwritten contract to vaginal intercourse, no more. And who should be the second party of such a contract? The man has no right to force others to bear his child just because he had sex, and the fetus is not a person so it cannot enter contracts.
we are concerned if it is an individual human being or not. An individual is identified by their unique dna, which also determines if it is human or not. We know it isnt an animal, or a plant, and since its alive, it has only "human" left as a choice. We know its an inidividual at the moment of conception, are immediately afterwards when it has its dna formed as a combination of the mothers and fathers.
so, if its not a person, then its just a part of her body? dont be so silly, even little kids know better than that.
If you define individual human being as biologically alive human, then indeed a fetus is an individual human being. Claiming that fetus is not alive or is not human is fallacious, its obviously alive and has human DNA. But being biologically alive and having human DNA is not enough to grant personhood IMHO. Having a mind should be a basic prerequisite for personhood or any rights. Living humans that do not have a mind, such as fetuses before at least 20 weeks or braindead people, should not be considered persons. Its the mind which makes us a person. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing mindless life, no matter its DNA sequence.
If its not a person, then its her property, a thing. An owner has a right to decide what happens to its property.
if its not a person, then how can someone be charged with murder if the only thing that dies is the "fetus"?
we dont have to know if its one or two or three individuals, all we need to know is it isnt a part of the woman, it has wayyyyyyyyy to many characteristics that dont fit the definition of a human beings "parts", no matter how many you show that are similiar. Its like saying, well, it has two legs, grows hair on its head, stands upright, is capable of anger and fighting, is fairly intelligent, this doesnt make a monkey a human.
if its not a person, what is it? animal, plant or mineral? an individual or part of the woman? It has to be something.....
Because in some states, there is an ad-hoc law that says so. If its indeed a person, why was there a need for a separate dedicated law in the first place? Normal homicide laws would be enough, as they already protected all persons from homicide. Fetus is not a person, thats why it needs separate law to protect it, thats why normal murder laws were not enough.
Its a fetus. A mindless living human. A thing (property of the woman). If braindead human is not a person, what is it? Animal, plant or mineral? I think its a separate category from all these.
Emotional appeal. Try reason. http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/6/22/144310/250 It is long past time to end the use of Nazi and holocaust analogies regarding legal abortion and contraception in the United States. The practice substitutes a weak, inflammatory analogy for substantive disagreement. It elevates the most cynical kind of demagoguery over respect for constitutional democracy. It is abusive towards the the religious views of those for whom abortion can be a moral choice, which includes most of organized Judaism. What's more, the Anti-Defamation League has repeatedly denounced such uses as a further abuse of the victims of the Nazi holocaust itself. What is remarkable to me is that some of those who engage in this also claim to embrace civility in public life, and do not seem to see any inconsistency in their approach.
What in the world makes you think that this is about keeping women in their place? You place way too much importance on yourself. This about children.
there was a need because of snake lawyers who will try to say what you are saying, even though its not true.
ahhh, a seperate category, and what would it be called? The,"only one thing in existence that doesnt fit into the other three categories"?
no more or no less relevant than mixed marriage analogies posed by those who support killing unborn humans.
Well, what category do you have for braindead, but biologically alive humans? Thats where the fetus belongs. This category includes people after cortical brain death, and fetuses before 20 weeks.
If it were really about "children" (meaning zygotes/embryos/fetuses), pro-lifers would support the only policies proven to reduce abortion--affordable, easily accessible birth control, and comprehensive sex education. But rather than support these measures, pro-lifers oppose them vehemently. That's how we know it's not really about the "children".
well, its a person. we are not God and get to decide what constitutes "personhood", 12 weeks, 20 weeks or whatever. Science is constantly improving, making mistakes, so we arent positive they have this one right.
