How could you kill your own baby ?

It's not a question of laws or no laws. Abortion is murder. If you want abortion to be legal, you want there to be laws allowing an exception to murder in particular circumstances.

 

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Since a fetus is not a human being (although it is human) and abortion is currently not unlawful it therefore does not fit the definition of murder.

Perhaps you'd have more of an argument if you want to call it a homicide, but you must still prove that it is a human being.

 

Must I prove it is a human being at 18 weeks? What about 28 weeks?

 

Look how tiny it is! a newborn baby is not much bigger than a fetus

 

Humans have been aborting for millenium,and as far as the Lion analogy ,the lioness is always on guard against the father of all cubs as they tend to like a nice snack ,if she is a little distracted or leaves them for some reason.

Abortions will happen whatever the law as it was as it will be ,now ask yourself should it be driven underground as in the pre 1970's costing the lives of many young women of the working class[yep the middle and capitialists had the european 'clinics 'to have the great shame dealt with ,working class and the poor had unhygenic backyard ,with untrained butchers not only killing the babies but the women as well.

and any doctor who tried to help was jailed for showing compassion and empathy.Some of us remember the days before women had the right to a safe medical procedure,

BTW, we used to have some religious nutters picket outside a medical facility in Sydney ,i had some words a couple months ago ,talked about child rape in the catholic church got right into their faces ,and they seem to have packed it in ,my mother taught me well.

Moralistic trash!

 

You did say you liked them "the younger the better"

 

I think i would use a chainsaw or a big hammer , knifes are much more elegant and ovens are fun but big tools give a more satisfying feeling.

Self replicating cells are NOT humans
Foetuses are parasitic organisms and the host should be free to terminate them any time she likes.

 

We cannot tell how "tiny" or how big it is with nothing of known size to compare. And why is size supposed to be relevant? IF size is of consequence, one would think that the smaller it is, the less consequence.

 

Or if it's photo-shopped...but at least it isn't his usual PLASTIC DOLL he tries to present as "real"... ...LOL! Or cartoons that he claims are "Actual" footing "caught" on tape.....

 

It is a valid as any of the stupid arbitrary thresholds you use to determine "personhood".

- - - Updated - - -

fetuses are CLEARLY human beings. Read the FEDERAL Unborn Victims of Violence Act. There is no question!

 

In what way is size valid? Anders seems to be saying that if it's small, it's valuable. It seems to me that being small would indicate LESS value. Please explain HOW size indicates value, and WHY.

Nothing in the UVVA indicates that zefs are "human beings" or "persons."

 

OKGrannie:"""Anders seems to be saying that if it's small, it's valuable.""""

Maybe he has to..... LOL!

 

Good one!

 

In what way is any threshold valid other than the actual scientifically proven beginning of a human life?

The UVVA OBVIOUSLY recognizes children in utero AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT as human beings, otherwise there could never be a conviction of manslaughter, or battery under the law.

 

Only for the purpose of this law, which means they are "juridical persons," rather than natural persons.

 

With a gun, to avoid serving in a militia. It is a constitutional right.

 

Just answer the question, is SIZE of a zef a valid consideration in limiting abortion rights?

 

Glad you brought that up. Your position does this...the bigger the fetus gets...the more it LOOKS LIKE A BABY...then you want restrictions. I don't think it matters what size or what it looks like...you people do. That is when you do the flip flop...when the woman's rights don't matter and she loses control of her body and the unborn becomes the focus.

 

Many of the thresholds are not arbitrary. There is no such thing as a living human that does not have a functioning brain. (although by some of the comments from lifers one might question that premise)

What is clear is that reading a document written by a bunch of religious zeolots that has no valid science backing it will not help determine what qualifies as a living human.

 

To get your position clear....you support the woman's right to late term abortions? Because if you deny woman at any time the right to her body...your position is hypocritical. Are you denying the woman choice?

 

Anders.....most people debating here are anti-choice because they deny women their rights to a late term abortion based on THEIR PERSONAL BIAS. They want to make the decision for some women, not allowing them to choose.

I say..how could any woman want to abort period..as human life starts at conception. I was out of my mind obviously...but mistakenly thought I knew it all that what I was doing was not wrong...as like most here, I thought it was just a mass of cells, a blob...not human...does not matter at that point. The knowledge that we have today provided by medical science overwhelming says a human life starts at conception. It does not start at 24 weeks.
See abortion seems to be acceptable...UNTIL IT STARTS LOOKING HUMAN...TAKING THE FORM AND LIKENESS OF A BABY. Then people start changing their tune.

 

What matters is whether or not the entity has the nessessary characteristics for membership in the club "Homo sapiens"

Not only does a ZEF not have the necessary characteristics, there is no significant difference between a ZEF and any other human cell that would make one a living human and the other not.

The only argument you have come up with so far is " a zygote is a living human because it is a living human". This argument is circular, fallacy, and therefor not a valid argument because there is no statement of why the zygote is a living human.

 

I stand on what science says...life starts at conception. The fact the heart starts beating at around 20 days...well that means nothing to you.

What do they teach in medical school about life? That is starts at conception. A human cell is not a human being. When the sperm and egg meet....the cells meet...a new human starts. That is what they teach.

 

A new human is in the process of development when the sperm meets the ova, but that original single cell doesn't even exist anymore after it begins. The whole process of conception is very interesting and very strange and you can hardly constitute a blastocyst as equivalent to a human being.



You even say right there that a human cell is not a human being. Well that's all there is at conception, a single human cell.

 

Yup, when it's not some freaky looking thing that shouldn't be born...looks like a baby and can survive like a baby then it's a baby but not until then.




"""I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so UNLIKE your Christ.""" Mahatma Ghandi