I am seriously saying there is no consensus about when one becomes a human being, and there never has been. A developing something is not that something. A developing storm is not a storm, only a potential storm. Because she is the one who is risking her health, life and permanent body damage.
You don't kill for a risk....you kill the fetus to eliminate the risk.....it's rather egocentric of you to even comment since you'll never have to face that risk...
Since it is the woman's body and life that is affected, it is her risk assessment to make. Not yours.
HOW small is it? Where are your accurate statistics ...or is this just another of your opinions...? If you're the one who dies is that statistic meaningful to you???
But if she loses taking that risk, she's 100% dead. And there's no second chance. So it's up to her whether the risk is too high or not.
I face risks, I don't kill another human to eliminate a risk - - - Updated - - - not just her life, not just her body, so no it should not be her decision to kill another human when her life is not in danger
Then prove a zef is a human . Prove an embryo is a human being; that is the stage for most abortions. It is only your opinion, and you can't morally force a woman to gestate and give birth on the basis of your opinion.
Pregnancy puts a woman's life in danger. And you can continue to use the dramatic emotional "kill another HUUUUman life " but it's still a fetus and yes, pregnant women have the right to eliminate it...
BS, Every war ever fought gives the government the right to kill on demand, every execution gives the right to a court to kill on demand. Now you may say those are 'justified', but that is no different to saying abortion is justified. You will find the majority of pro-choice people DO take the fetus into consideration, we just don't feel that consideration warrants forcing a person to sustain another life and by what right do you decide another persons choices, would you accept the same if your choices concerning your body were subject to others decisions .. I reckon not, and by admitting you are advocating to restrict her rights you are by definition forcing her to do something against her will . .you are in fact removing her choice and violating her rights.
That is your CHOICE, do other people make that choice for you, if not then why should you be able to make that choice for someone else? you keep going on this merry-go-round when it has been pointed out to you numerous times (with evidence) that danger to life is NOT the only justification for the use of deadly force and like most pro-lifers you try to gloss over the fact that no person can be forced to give up their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another REGARDLESS of how that person came to be in the situation. By forcing a woman to remain pregnant you are by definition removing a right that every other non-pregnant person has, you are making her of lesser status than others, and you are elevating a fetus above any other person by giving them a right nobody else has. 1. A none pregnant person has full and complete control over their own body 2. Once that person becomes pregnant they lose that right 3. The zef gains the right to use another persons body in order to sustain it's life 4. Once born the zef loses the right to us another persons body 5. After the birth the person regains the right to have full and complete control over their own body Why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights? would you accept the same, would you accept losing the right to have full and complete control over your body for nine months on the whim of other people .. if not, why do you assume a woman should? What gives you the right to decide what is best for another person?
it is not only my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology) stage 1 is the zygote and two is the embryo. You say developing does not make it a human. Well then what is a newborn baby? I have a slew of scientific and biological evidence to show that the zygote and embryo are a human. they are not something else, this is not my opinion, I didn't just think it up. Plus I even said even if somehow you can prove that the zygote and embryo are something other then humans(what else could they be), then what about the fetus around week 6-8?
Comparing terrorists and murderers to an unborn human being is really low. I mean you can't be serious. Justified killing is not killing on demand it is justified. You can argue abortion is justified sure. I ask this. what capital punishment did the unborn commit? What national security threat does the unborn pose to go to war so to speak. What terrorist act did the unborn commit? What country did the unborn forcibly take over? against the unborn. I'm not saying it is a war against the unborn. I don't think there is a war going on, even though there is over a million deaths a year in the USA due to abortions. We have choices removed everyday in order to save the life of another.
It is only killing on demand from your perspective, just because you don't agree with the reasoning does not negate that reasoning or justification What capital punishment did Trayvon Martin commit? What national security threat did Iraq pose (not based on lies and misinformation that is)? What unspeakable crime did the estimated 132,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan commit? What unspeakable crime did the 66,000 civilians killed in Iraq commit? (figure from Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010) What unspeakable crime did the estimated 890 civilians (included approx 197 children) killed in USA drone attacks, to date, in Pakistan commit? What terrorist act did ANY of the above civilians commit? and YET every single one of these is claimed as justified, but of course 'collateral damage' is expected and accepted Name one that requires a person to give up their body, or parts there of, in order to sustain the life of another?
I've stated numerous times yes if I could get pregnant I would feel the same way. gender has nothing to do with abortion stance. I also keep telling you that pregnancy is nothing like a surgical procedure where you take a part from someone and give it to someone else. The unborn does not take any parts from the woman. Also you are claimign self defense when you are saying a woman can terminate pregnancy even without threat to life. Well the unborn is not constantly injuring the woman. It is the woman's own body injuring herself(even then she is not injured everyday in most cases) In fact she can do everyday tasks for a avst majority of the pregnancy (until 7-8 months in a vast majority of cases) and by 7 months who really believes an abortion is right? Very few.. It is to accommodate the life inside. It is the response to pregnancy by the woman, it not an attack by the unborn. You can then argue well then why have risk to life exceptions. Read below 1. nobody has full complete control over their body, nor can they do what they want to who they want. Military, and corporations have standards on everything from dress code to tattoos. Even places like Mcdonalds and walmart make you wear name tags. 2. Once pregnant they do not lose the right to save her own life- if their life is threatened they can terminate pregnancy- preserve life. Risk is not a reason to terminate. Abortion is not self defense. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense- very first little sentence. Self-Defense The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another The unborn is not attacking the woman. and a little further down, even if you can successfully argue abortion is self defense... Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. A vast majority of pregnancies do not even come close to meeting deadly force criteria. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Now you might be able to argue this one in court. She has reason to believe she is in danger. Then she will have to prove what the unborn is doing to put her in danger in a self defense case. 3. Unlike other cases involving body parts to sustain life, the woman's body does everything it can to sustain the life, the woman's body does not reject the unborn, in fact the immune system adjusts to protect the unborn from being rejected. This does not happen with an arm and a leg, or even blood that is not a matching type. Because it is not an unwelcome intruder, like an arm, or leg would be. Plus as I stated 50% of the unborn is always inside the woman, so it never actually enters at all. It is technically always there. 4. True, but the newborn is still completely helpless. 5. Nobody ever has full and complete control over their body Free and easy? I take killing another human who did not commit a capital crime, is not a threat to national security, is not attacking anybody very seriously. You believe pregnant women should have the right to kill another human that is doing none of that. What gives me the right to protect life? Everyone should want to do that. [TABLE="class: sbox1, width: 160"] [TR] [TH][/TH] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
Was Trayvon Martin armed .. didn't think so Were the civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan armed ... didn't think so "risk is not an excuse to kill." - apply that to the above, even though you are completely wrong on risk not being an excuse to kill. The whole deadly force in self-defence is founded on the risk a person perceives to their own life or the perception of injuries that could be received. The qualifying requirement is the question what would a "reasonable person (or man)" in the same situation do, the 'reasonable person' is not something that is set in stone, since some human actors have limitations, the standard only requires that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstance" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as experiencing the same limitations as the defendant.
LOL you are serious. 1. was a self defense case- done 2. War has innocents killed accidentally and payments are made to families of those affected. This applies to all the other things mentioned 3.Abortion is no accident nor collateral damage. 4. what steps ar3 being made to make abortion less deadly for the unborn? 5. killing of innocents is never claimed as justified a choice that requires a person to give up a body or part of to sustain life? third trimester pregnancy and this http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Anatomical+Gift+Act+(2006)
1. does a state law concerning stand your ground have anything to do with pregancy? no didn't think so 2. does war have anything to do with pregnancy? no didnt think so Reasonable person hmm well most pregnancies are not aborted, so who's reasonable the majority, or minority?
It is your opinion, it is not fact, even though others may have the same opinion. A newborn baby has developed to the point that it can survive without an attachment to the woman. You don't have evidence to show that a zygote or an embryo are human beings, because there is none. You have speculation that someone has written as fact. The summary below shows why one scientist doesn't believe it is: This paper re-examines the question of whether quirks of early human foetal development tell against the view (conceptionism) that we are human beings at conception. A zygote is capable of splitting to give rise to identical twins. Since the zygote cannot be identical with either human being it will become, it cannot already be a human being. Parallel concerns can be raised about chimeras in which two embryos fuse. I argue first that there are just two ways of dealing with cases of fission and fusion and both seem to be available to the conceptionist. One is the Replacement View according to which objects cease to exist when they fission or fuse. The other is the Multiple Occupancy View - both twins may be present already in the zygote and both persist in a chimera. So, is the conceptionist position tenable after all? I argue that it is not. A zygote gives rise not only to a human being but also to a placenta - it cannot already be both a human being and a placenta. Neither approach to fission and fusion can help the conceptionist with this problem. But worse is in store. Both fission and fusion can occur before and after the development of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst - the entity which becomes the embryo proper. The idea that we become human beings with the arrival of the inner cell mass leads to bizarre results however we choose to accommodate fission and fusion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076123 At 6-8 weeks, it's still an embryo.
You completely miss the point of the question .. in your capacity to make decisions do other people make those decisions (choices) for you, do they force you to abide by choices they have made for you, especially when it comes to medical procedures concerning your body, and I didn't even mention gender so have no idea what relevance that has. Yes it does, how the hell do you think it oxygenates it's blood, how the hell do you think it get nutrients to grow .. do they magically appear out of thin air. Everything the fetus takes belongs to the woman's body. You are 100% ignorant of the biological facts .. in fact you are just focusing on the external elements and completely ignoring the internal elements, in order for a response to happen there HAS to be something to cause that response .. in fact the normal biological response of the immune system attacking a foreign object - which is what a zef is - is modulated directly by the zef, without this modulation by the zef it would be attacked by the woman's immune system and expelled - During normal pregnancy, the human decidua contains a high number of immune cells, such as macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells and regulatory T cells (Treg). Seventy percent of decidual leukocytes are NK cells, 2025% are macrophages and 1.7% are dendritic cells. From the adaptive immune system, B cells are absent, but T lymphocytes constitute about 310% of the decidual immune cells. During the first trimester, NK cells, dendritic cells and macrophages infiltrate the decidua and accumulate around the invading trophoblast cells. Deletion of either macrophages, NK cells or dendritic cells (DC) has deleterious effects. Elegant studies have shown that in the absence of NK cells, trophoblast cells are not able to reach the endometrial vascularity leading to termination of the pregnancy. These studies suggest that uNK cells are critical for trophoblast invasion in the uterus. Similarly, depletion of DCs prevented blastocyst implantation and decidual formation. Indeed, this study suggests that uDC are necessary for decidual formation and may affect the angiogenic response by inhibiting blood vessel maturation - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025805/ The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms: 1. It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host. 2. Also, there is presence of small lymphocytic suppressor cells in the fetus that inhibit maternal cytotoxic T cells by inhibiting the response to interleukin 2. 3. The placental trophoblast cells do not express the classical MHC class I isotypes HLA-A and HLA-B, unlike most other cells in the body, and this absence is assumed to prevent destruction by maternal cytotoxic T cells, which otherwise would recognize the fetal HLA-A and HLA-B molecules as foreign. On the other hand, they do express the atypical MHC class I isotypes HLA-E and HLA-G, which is assumed to prevent destruction by maternal NK cells, which otherwise destroy cells that do not express any MHC class I. However, trophoblast cells do express the rather typical HLA-C.[3] 4. It forms a syncytium without any extracellular spaces between cells in order to limit the exchange of migratory immune cells between the developing embryo and the body of the mother (something an epithelium will not do sufficiently, as certain blood cells are specialized to be able to insert themselves between adjacent epithelial cells). The fusion of the cells is apparently caused by viral fusion proteins from endosymbiotic endogenous retrovirus (ERV). An immunoevasive action was the initial normal behavior of the viral protein, in order to avail for the virus to spread to other cells by simply merging them with the infected one. It is believed that the ancestors of modern viviparous mammals evolved after an infection by this virus, enabling the fetus to better resist the immune system of the mother. Oh for god sake we have already been here and I proved to you that tattoos in the military are only not allowed where they would show when wearing dress uniform, and the military has it's own set of laws which you consent to abide by when you sign up they do not apply to civilians. Wearing a name tag is not an infringement on what you can do with your body, clothes are not part of your body and you do have the choice as to whether you wear one or not, if you choose not to then don't apply for a job at McDonalds or Walmart as again it is part of what you consent to when accepting a position there. Yet she losses the right to protect her body from sustained injury . go figure, and risk is the fundamental basis of self-defence, it is the perceived risk to your live or limb that goes a long way to using self-defence. So to you then the fetus is not "another" ergo it is not a person, ergo it has no rights and the woman can do what ever she likes. Yes it is as ample proven numerous times. no where in your deadly force link does it state what you have highlighted, what it does state in regards to private citizens is the following - "When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force." and as pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in law in some cases and is declared an injury in some state laws it meets the requirement of 'bodily harm', and a felony. Current laws regarding pregnancy deem it to be a serious literal injury in some cases, which is also the case in some state laws, as this is the case the question that needs to be asked is what is the difference between these situations and other situations, the condition of the pregnancy does not change regardless of how it was conceived, and you are wrong in your assumption that she will have to prove the amount of danger, the part that you neglected to quote is as follows - Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. - do tell me what other reasonably force a woman can use to prevent an impending injury caused by pregnancy other than removing the cause of the injuries? The immune system adjusts because it is modulated by the fetus/placenta, should that modulation fail (as can happen) the fetus will be attacked by the woman's immune system and expelled. If as you assert the woman's body simply just adjusts to the fetus there would be no requirement for the fetus to express the chemicals required to modulate her immune system would there. If 50% of the unborn is always technically there then it is technically part of her body and she may do with her 50% as she wishes. Irrelevant as it is not wholly dependent on a single individual .. it goes from being biologically dependent (ONLY able to survive with a connection to a single person) to being socially dependent (able to survive with a 'connection' to ANY person) Name me one law that applies to civilians that stops you having full and complete control over your body, military law does not apply as you are deemed to have consented to the restrictions in place when you sign up. Well obviously you are being free and easy with other peoples rights, otherwise why would you want to remove a right every other non-pregnant person has. What Capital crime did Trayvon Martin commit? What threat to national security were the civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan? and your belittlement of the actual injuries incurred during pregnancy is noted. Of course you are entitled to your opinion But you only want to protect it where you feel it is justified . .arbitrary
