If you must go, then you must go, but that does not change the fact that you lied even if that fact bores you.
You are deluding yourself again, but by all means you can believe anything you wish. Just keep in mind that that does not make it fact, but more often than not it is a lie.
When you assert something, I know it is a lie. You have proven this over and over again. But again, we both know I am right here, so rant and insult on, I really don't care.
Why do you feel the need to lie more and more? You haven;t been able to show a single instance where I lied, but of course it has been shown that YOU lied.
I think that its not required to be lied, because there is nothing to be kept in secret. But you have proven this again.
If we're going to be talking about giving rights to a fetus because it will one day be born, why stop there? How about rights for sperm and eggs too? What rights do they get to have? If I was a woman and the primary care giver of all of the eggs in my body, would I get to claim exemptions for each one? Would they be eligible for social security disability insurance if I claimed that, oh, 125,382 of my eggs were too chronically injured to work? Do eggs and sperm get to vote? What about the right to bare arms? That's gonna be a hard one. Even if we're talking about a fetus, what rights do they get to have too? Is it just the right to not be aborted or do they get other ones?
Your argument is nothing but a textual example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. "If we do this, what will happen next? [examples provided]" That's not a logical argument.
It is a logical argument if there is no important difference between embryos and gametes (one that would warrant one being a person (having rights) but not the other). Then treating them differently is an illogical double standard.
It's not really a slippery slope. Right now, your rights begin when you're born, which is when you are removed from your mother either through natural child birth or medical procedure. The personhood movement aims to give rights to a person before they are even born. But how far back do you go? If you're saying that 5 days from conception is alive and deserving of rights, why not the eggs and sperm that created it? They are just as alive and each a potential human being. Is a fetus "more alive"? Or to throw in a different theory, if a fetus has rights, do you investigate and prosecute every miscarriage? Obviously some are going to just be unfortunate natural occurrences, but others may likely be caused directly or indirectly by the actions of the mother. I'm not just talking obvious things like she was a smoker or drinking lots of alcohol, but maybe she was driving too fast and crashed, or she had left some clutter in front of the stairs and tripped on it(just the first two examples I thought of). We prosecute people for unintentionally causing the death of another all the time, it's called manslaughter. Is that the future for women should personhood gain ground? It becomes a reality the minute a fetus is given rights, it's not a slippery slope. And if they are alive, and if we're giving rights to anyone that hasn't been born, what rights do they get? Just the one that prevents women from making decisions about their own health, or do they get others as well? My original post was intentionally ridiculous, but not entirely improbable should the personhood movement gain legal ground.
It has already happened http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
