The end of the 10th week of pregnancy marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Perfectly serious Really, so you faith in the law is that good is it. Even though Zimmerman profiled a young lad doing nothing illegal, even though he went against all the Neighbourhood watch training he had, even though he ignored the police when told not to follow him ,, If you don't see that case as a huge miscarriage of justice then I feel for you. Oh right so innocents killed accidentally in war is ok, but a zef killed in an accidentally pregnancy isn't, and do you really think that money brings back the dead .. just how much blood money is each of those lives worth do you think? So money makes it all 'good' then But the pregnancy that led to the abortion could very well be an accident, and if something is caused by an accident then it is also an accident. Abortion isn't collateral damage, the aborted are. What steps are being taken to make war less deadly to civilians? Urm, you just did in answer number 2 and isn't collateral damage a justification. the justification of unintended civilian deaths in war, just as a pregnancy can be an unintended result of sexual intercourse. my argument against ANY restrictions on abortion exactly, it restricts body autonomy, something that no other person has to give up regardless, and you uniform laws have nothing to do with giving up your body, or parts there of.
I have stated nothing arbitrary, or ignorant when ti comes to pregnancy, your refusal to recognize science is not my issue. You can call me what you want, say what you want. Facts are facts. - - - Updated - - - another link says week 8 another says week 6. - - - Updated - - - you said risk is a reason to kill. It is not a legal one. - - - Updated - - - you are just starting arguments to start them at this point. You really aren't proving anything, or providing anythign relevant. Science is science, can not argue with it. A human is a human at every stage. and if those civilian deaths are accepted, why can't pregnancy be accepted. Far less deadly
Yes facts are facts it is a shame you don't actually recognize facts though, and almost everything you have stated is arbitrarily, what isn't has been shot full of holes by the very science you say you recognize .. but choose to ignore. The fact that you refuse to answer the points made just shows that you cannot, and please don't bother responding that you all ready have because it is obvious you haven't. so commenting on the points YOU made is just starting an argument .. lol, you have a very superficial idea of how debating works. I am proving that your comments are inane .. quite easily as a matter of fact. Yep science is science, shame you cannot recognize it as such. If a human is a human at any stage then prove it, so far, and I have been following the discussions between you and Giftedone, you have utterly failed to prove your statement.
Your failure to recognize the science facts is not my issue. You stating I'm ignoring science is false. Pro-chocie scientists failure to recgonize their own findings is misleading. Goes along the same lines of evolution vs creation. I have proved it, you just fail to recognize it, because you support the woman's right to kill the unborn human. you going on and on about war and other stuff is irrelevant and taking away from the real issue. The only failure is you and everyone else who disputes that the unborn is a human. And you do it in the name of women's rights to choose. Choose killing unborn humans. Then say oh no consensus and the law says this. Like there have never been unjust laws before. I'm gonna keep calling it what it is. abortion is the legal killing of an unborn human http://www.sfuhl.org/
and I will continue to call you on your erroneous use of science and arbitrarily made decisions, and you are right abortion is the legal killing of the unborn .. just as war is the legal killing of innocents. Yet you proclaim one is just and the other not, a claim I add you have failed totally to support. The facts are that the science does not fully support your view of a human being at conception The facts are that the science does not support your view that a female simply adjusts of her own free will to the presence of the zef The facts are that the current legal status of self-defence does not support your view that it can only be used in life threatening situations The facts are that pregnancy is already declared a serious literal injury in law for some cases The facts are that at every stage of the pregnancy a woman is undergoing sustained injuries The facts are that the chemicals the zef produces are not 'gifts' from the male and female Now you have every right to ignore those facts and proclaim your arguments from a point of ignorance, but that is all they will every be.
And that doesn't negate arguments as to why taking away the fetus's right to life isn't justified. The government actually tries to avoid civilian casualties. The goal of war is not to cause civilian casualties. The goal of an abortion, however, is to abort the fetus. What an irrelevant comparison.
By using drones? The goal of war is to kill real breathing people. When civilians are killed, that's just "collateral damage." One kills actual born, breathing people. The other does not.
The goal of drones is to attack enemies, not civilians. While civilians do die in wars, the goal of war is not to kill civilians. It's against international law to intentionally harm civilians in war.
Really, then your justifications are arbitrary. You demand rights for the unborn and yet aren't bothered about the rights of others. Hence the increased usage of drone bombings The goal of war is to place your enemies in a position where they have no capability to fight back, ANY civilian casualties are 'collateral damage' The goal of abortion is to cease the pregnancy - Abortion - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks, please show me where it says to "abort the fetus" So it is irrelevant to compare the innocent people killed in war, who have not done anything to your belief of killing an innocent fetus who has also (in your opinion) done nothing.
No more arbitrary than your justifications. It's against international law to intentionally harm civilians in a war. it's just a side effect of war. If the military takes precautions to have the least possible amount of civilian casualties, then it isn't illegal.
Really, I actually want rights for the people who are born, where as you just pooh pooh them. Using the law to justify the law .. how about the moral side of it Sam? BTW : The death of the fetus is "just a side effect" of abortion.
Except you have nothing to show that the unborn are people. - - - Updated - - - Using the law to justify the law .. you know very well how that is relevant and aren't morals relevant anymore then Sam
Especially when they get their blood money .. going price in Afghanistan is around $2,500 for each death, $500 for two wounded men and $1,500 for village repairs. Wow the US government thinks the price for a human being is $2,500
They are humans and have a heartbeat, and location doesn't define person hood. So, my justifications for my beliefs are no more arbitrary than yours.
It is its own separate being. sheesh - - - Updated - - - actually a lot of states do define the unborn as people
The unborn is breathing and very much alive. Abortion kills unborn humans. A lot of states have defined the unborn as people. You don't have to be born to be protected by the law.
