Hmmm, weird question: human being noun : an individual of the species of primate mammal that walks on two feet, is related to the great apes, and is distinguished by a greatly developed brain with capacity for speech and abstract reasoning Does that help?
So does a fetus "walk on two feet"? Does a fetus have a brain "with capacity for speech and abstract reasoning"?
Actually "neonates" DO have a brain "with a capacity for speech and abstract reasoning". It's how babies learn to talk. It's how babies learn about the world around them. Is it as developed as an adult? No. But the brain (and that is stretching the use of the word) of a fetus is INCAPABLE of it.
A neonate is an infant less than 4 weeks old by medical definition. I don't accept legislatures making decisions concerning whether the woman must accept serious and possibly permanent damage or risk of death in order to give the fetus a chance, or whether the fetus must be removed in order to save the woman. These are highly personal decisions over which a legislature has no right. They always include significant issues that some legislature didn't understand, because they are clueless about medicine. And, there are many examples TODAY of the total failure of legislatures in their attempts to write laws to make these healthcare decisions. Patients have rights over their own healthcare.
Once again, Republicans totally ignore the life of the woman. Both Idaho and Texas have cases to be reviewed by the SC, claiming they have the right to deny abortions even when the life of the woman depends on it.
Do Pro-Lifers ignore the life of the woman more, or do Pro-Choicers ignore the life of the unborn human being more? That's a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.
We do. Since there is no thing as an "unborn human" prior to 24 weeks gestation it's obviously the former rather than the latter.
Yep! Pro- lifers are more concerned about something that my never be than what is in front of them otherwise they would be actively working toward saving childtpren in war zones, reducing child poverty in the USA and reducing maternal mortality
But my whole point is that pro-choicers are not really creating any specific counter argument to that argument. When you say "It's her business, not yours", that implies that you have a whole other counter argument ready, which you don't seem to. All your arguments just seem to come back to "the fetus is not really a person and is devoid of value". With that being the case, it's almost dishonest (and disingenuous) of pro-choicers to put up a statement like "It's her business, not yours", when there's no real argument specifically behind it.
This has been explained to you over and over again. Whether you agree or not, by now you should know the arguments.
That IS the counter-argument. It's not your business. Your entire position is faulty from the start because you're trying to inject yourself into a situation that you have no business being involved in. Your opinion, your feelings, your morals, your beliefs, none of those matter outside of you. Having them does not grant you the power to control other people's lives. Thinking it does even a little bit is incredibly arrogant. And lets be realistic, the Pro-Life* argument hinges on little else other than emotion, the desire for control, and the arrogant belief that your way is the only way because of your feelings. The difference between the two sides is simple. Pro-Choice folks believe a mother should have decision making powers over her own body and everything in it(because everything in your body is part of your body). Pro-Life people believe when you become pregnant, your uterus stops belonging to you and instead becomes the purview of every arrogant *******'s arbitrary feelings. You claim that you're not reducing women down to a brood mare, but that is exactly what you're doing even if it never occurred to you to think of it in those terms. * = Many exclusions, conditions, and restrictions will apply.
The "it's her business not yours" argument is based upon assumptions that aren't shared, so in that sense it's useless in the debate. The fundamental difference really is whether the fetus is a person. It's not. "It's her business not yours" really would be a piss-poor argument without the assumption that the fetus is NOT a person. If it were, then there would be a true moral dilemma, but you would still be left with the issue that people cannot be forced to give their bodies to save the lives of others. An organ donor match can't be forced to give their kidney even if it's the only way to save another person, ethically. Forcing a woman to continue to be pregnant for the sake of allowing a person to live touches upon the same privacy issues. So it's fine to say "it's her business not yours" isn't one of the better arguments for addressing the issue. Why even bother with it? Why not focus on the actual crux of the issue?
Then you seem to concede that "it's her business not yours" is not really an argument in the abortion debate. Rather, it's a conclusion based on another claim that the pro-choice side holds. So it mostly doesn't represent a real argument by itself.
Nonsense. No matter what, the woman is a person. And, what is being debated is whether that woman has control of her own body. And, that IS her business.
Yes and sometimes the skeletons of adult people are used to study them too, do you know what they have incommon with the fetuses used? They are already dead. So in case I agree that medicine students should be allowed to study my skeleton or if I agree that Dr. Hagen may use my dead body for "Body Worlds", does that give anyone the right to murder me? Abortions should be legal before a fetus is a being which is able to suffer. After that its not an individual and private decision of her anymore. Its also not my private decision if I e.g. kill a cat.
A hedgehog is not a person. If you found it funny to kill it, you could claim its not your neighbour's business, but if he witnessed he could press charges and you could discuss with a states attorney if it was your body your choice to stomp a hedgehog.
I dont need to. Its a living being capable of suffering, which is not a person, but still protected by some laws and its punishable to kill it or to induce suffering on it. Although I am not sure about different US state laws, I would bet you get punished in almost every state for torturing it or killing it although its not a person. So, whether or not a living being can be seen as a person or not is not a criterion if it should be protected by law or not.
True. These "pro-lifers" are making laws AGAINST the healthcare of women, even when there is serious risk of death.
I am not talking about hedgehog fetuses. You were talking about about fetuses implying they should not be protected by the law as they are not "persons". I gave you an example that living beings that are able to suffer are indeed protected by the law, even if they are not a "person". I took hedgehogs here as a pars pro toto for certain animals, I could have also taken elephants or a cat. A cat is not a person, but if you drown a cat and get caught with it, you will end up in some trouble with the law, because living beings capable of suffering are usually protected by the law. A fetus is a living being which is capable of suffering. Due to that its only logical that a fetus should be protected by the law and an abortion should take place before that stadium.
