But most do not, so what is your point? Only to those incapable of rationalizing or understanding the essential differences.
I read the tripe you post all the time. I was looking for proof or support of your assertions, that is still missing in action.
Whaler - you have no valid support for your positions. The irony is that those on the other side of the debate have presented support for their positions which you are not able to refute and yet you still persist in stating your premise while claiming to have supported it. What the law "is" is not justification for what the law should be. That said, the current law does not recognize the existence of a person in the early stages of pregnancy in relation to abortion so an argument based in law does not work even if it were valid to the question which it is not. It up to you to show why a zygote should be granted personhood with an argument other than what is written in law. So far all you have come up with circular logical fallacy such as: The zygote is a person because it is a human being. (You have to show that a zygote is a human being for this premise to hold true) "Every human being is a zygote in the earliest stages of its life" (You have to show that every zygote is a human being for this premise to hold true) You are "assuming the premise" (a zygote is a human being) which is a logical fallacy because you have not shown that a zygote is a human being. I would hope that your support of the creation of laws, that will force your beliefs on women, is based on something other than logical fallacy ?
I'll let everyone else who reads your nonsense judge its credibility. Your seeming assertion that every human being is NOT a zygote at one point in development is very interesting, but ridiculous.
We have been through this silly argument of yours so many times and your position has never held up. That the zygote creates a human does not make the zygote a human. Your claim "assumes the premise" that a zygote is human. Your claim also assumes that a human being is present at all stages of human development as defined by human developmental biology. The biologists who coined and provided the definition for the term "human developmental biology" disagree with you.
You have been reduced blubbering meaningless phrases due to your inability to cope with reality. What assertions are inane, rediculous, and unsupported?
This is not rocket science .. if you are going to make statements such as: Then at least state what is unsupported, what is inane and why. Any fool can say "thats rediculous", but this is meaningless blubbering unless one states why.
I strongly agree with these rights. A woman that partakes in activities that can damage a developing foetus should be prosecuted. And it indeed is currently so, chemical endangerement laws are common in the US and around the world. These things have nothing in common with fetal personhood. Even if the foetus is not deemed a person or worthy of protection, the child that will develop from it indeed is, and it is because of this future person that such things need to be banned. It has nothing to do with abortion debate even, these laws are just common sense.
Where it gets problematic is in the first couple of weeks of pregnancy when a woman does not even know she is pregnant and THAT time is when the most cellular division occurs so that is also when the most teratogenic activity happens Now the $60,000 question How do you enforce these laws??
Of course when the woman did not know she is pregnant, there can be no crime, since there is no intent to damage or neglect the would-be person. We can enforce them by ensuring woman either aborts, or when she wants to bring the fetus to term, would not endanger it. Anyway, ability to enforce the law is not necessary for it being right IMHO.
Interesting because here in Queensland we do actually have such a law and it was just overturned in court. Google abortion Cairns
