No, I do not. I just don't understand why you think the difference is important. It isn't to me, at all. I meed more than a mere diploid cell to think of something as a human person. It is science to figure out how it works and develops. It is philosophy and language to decide when to apply the label "a human life". Mere "human life" (without the "a") is indeed continuous and has existed for numerous centuries. I have not and do not dispute the science. I dispute your semantic argument which you layer over it. No, it absolutely isn't. Its just you and them playing semantic games back and forth. Very similar to Fox's pointing the unborn not being recognized in law as human persons. Neither of these are actually arguments touching on any moral or rational basis.
The current status of the law does not determine what is moral or what should be the law To illustrate the above point. What is currently the state of the law is not an argument and is not relevant to the issue of what should be morally or rationally, other than to show which side is currently having its way. So are you trying to make an argument or are you just gloating? Oh wait, there was that recent US supreme court decision.... So maybe Bluessguy is the one who should be gloating?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Not jargon, facts , legal facts which cancel out your feeeeeelllllings... I never said it did ... ....legal facts which cancel out your feeeeeelllllings... But you think taking women's rights away is something to gloat over? Only for the demented.
This mantra of yours remains nonsense no matter how often you chant it. Then why are you here, if not to make any actual argument? Really only to gloat? I am not gloating. I actually try to engage people in good faith discussion. Clearly something alien to you.
When one can't address posts or answer those inconvenient questions one makes it personal and all about their opponent.
What questions? You didn't ask any questions. You merely made accusations. You also answered no questions asked of you. If you wanted to engage in good faith conversation, this may go somewhere, but it is clear to me that you don't come to this forum for that reason, so I shrug and wait for somebody to actually say something intelligent.
It was YOUR failed attempt at some specious analogy not mine. I gave you more, the science. That is a function of SCIENCE not philosophers. A human life only last a human lifetime starting at it's conception till it's death. You just did it your above statement. YOU are playing semantics I follow the science and the science confirms the immorality of abortion. Elective abortion is a mother killing her unborn baby, a human being, because she does not want it to live.
Congress could vote today to change the law so that unborn babies could be assigned a SS number couldn't it? Is that because suddenly unborn babies are now human beings? Having or getting or qualifying for a SS number does not define what is a human being. Stop with the canard.
No, it would be because Congress has finally dissolved into total idiocy. AGAIN,, I NEVER SAID IT DID AND YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM I DID... It's pathetic you have nothing but "misrepresenting" my posts....proof you have NO argument , no nothing Why do you support destroying all women's rights?
I did in #225 based on the science. Ball is in YOUR court to prove YOUR claim that the baby is a physical part of the mother until it is born. And now you have this one waiting Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. Just othe'rs opinions...NO facts. Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact... FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. Just other's opinions...NO facts. Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact...
Yep I did in #225 based on the science and you have failed to refute it. Ball is in YOUR court to prove YOUR claim that the baby is a physical part of the mother until it is born. And now you have this one waiting Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. Just other's opinions...NO facts. Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact... I read post 225....it just refers to why they feel women have "LATER term" abortions NOT that the fetus is separate from the woman's it's in... NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN THAT A FETUS CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF THE WOMAN AND GROW ON IT'S OWN....AND you SUPPORT THAT BY SAYING IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO HER IN ANY WAY. Why do you support destroying all women's rights? Why don't you believe women should have freedom, equality and justice?
Sorry #285 based on the science and you have failed to refute it. Ball is in YOUR court to prove YOUR claim that the baby is a physical part of the mother until it is born. And now you have this one waiting Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
And you now you also want to call it a baby, to garner more sympathy than a mere fertilized egg at conception otherwise would. Fox seeks the opposite wording for equally obvious reasons. But the semantics don't change the actual facts for either of you.
MYGAWD! How YOU HAVE to avoid those inconvenient FACTS .... FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE you claimed the fetus is NOT part of a woman FIRST .... and now you're trying to dodge that NOPE you never showed how a fetus is totally separate from the woman it's in. Just other's opinions...NO facts. Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact... Why do you support destroying all women's rights? Why don't you believe women should have freedom, equality and justice? UNANSWERED. OK, I've had it with your factless parroting and dodging those inconvenient questions....you seem to believe that women should not have equality, freedom or justice.....can't use facts and logic with anyone who thinks that
That would be a more interesting conversation, and i can see arguments in either direction from there. I think we would have to keep in mind that the fetus (or baby as Bluesguy would like to call it) didn't cause the situation, and absent rape, the woman (along with the farher) did. I think she should take some sort of personal responsibility, but would then weigh that against her right to control her own body.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Besides if the fetus is separate then the woman has all the more right to kill it You sure avoid that statement along with all the other statements that are fact... What has that got to do with anything?????? You want to assign rights based on who is to "blame" ???? NO, it is right in line with her right to her own body . A woman takes responsibility (controlling her own body ) for her pregnancy by either gestating or aborting. HER responsibility....NOT yours or mine or the Republican's Big and Bigger Government's ...
You are talking about killing what Bluesguy sees as a moral equal to you and I. And late late on in the pregnancy, I agree with that. You are talking about homicide at that point. The killing of a human being. Whether or not that should be ok with society is debateable. Sometimes homicide is ok, or even laudable. It depends on the circumstances.That she created the situation, putting the victim of the killing in the danger he/she is in, is relevant to that. We do that all the time in society. Most laws are infringements on liberty and rights in one form or another, usually in balance with the rights of others. Here you are weiging a woman's right to control her body vs the "baby's" right not to be killed. There are arguments both for and against that. So far all I've seen from you is bold assertion with no argument other than refernence to what the law currently is, which as has been pointed out to you, could change. I know your line is that its nobody's business but hers, but if she is killing another being who we deem to be our moral equal, if it is homicide, then it is everyone's business. We don't excuse homicide just because the killer wants to kill. We need more justification than that. The bodily autonomy agument may be such justification. Let's see if you have any actual argument that it should be, and maybe we'll see Bluesguy chime in with an argument why it should not be.
That, of course, depends on what is meant by "human being". If you define the words to count a merely fertilized egg cell as a "human being", then no, neither do most people, and you've given no argument thus far why it should be. And again, I think you want to use the word "human being" in an attempt to equivocate and drum up images of not egg cells, but human beings with formed brains, hearts, nerves, thoughts, etc.
OH YES, if Republicans had their way more than just women will lose their right to bodily autonomy and the south could vote in slavery....you are correct , things could change if Really Rotten People ever get too much power. NO, "we" do not....and "moral equal" ...what TF does that even mean?? IT IS NOT HOMICIDE...anymore than if someone cuts your heart out and it dies...that is NOT homicide. BUT GEE GOSH if you get lucky you could someday see women executed for having an abortion to save their life !!! RIGHT HERE: Jolly Penguin said: ↑ That would be a more interesting conversation, and i can see arguments in either direction from there. I think we would have to keep in mind that the fetus (or baby as Bluesguy would like to call it) didn't cause the situation, and absent rape, the woman (along with the farher) did.""" The old Anti-Choicers , "PUNISH WOMEN WHO HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX"" Who caused a pregancy has NOTHING to do with women's rights... YOU think getting pregnant is a crime that should be punished....it isn't.
An egg once fertilized is no longer an egg but a zygote and a living human being. That is established by the science. So try again Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
I am the only one posting any Ball is in YOUR court to prove YOUR claim that the baby is a physical part of the mother until it is born. And now you have this one waiting Do you subscribe to the belief that equality, freedom, and justice apply universally to all human beings?
It's so cute how you avoid answering those inconvenient questions by pretending they didn't happen....and pretending you gave proof of your accusations when you never did...
