"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

That is sick, disgusting, and evil; to knowingly create a child and then kill it for convenience reasons.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I wish I knew of a way to persuade you to understand the pro-choice view better, to see that freedom and liberty and ownership of one's own body is an extremely important part of our basic human rights but I feel there is nothing else I can say to open your eyes to this issue. I think only personal experience and growth will ever change your mind.

 

I think mainly you are flamebaiting by saying that.

 

(for the sake of arguement, assume that the unborn are persons.)

By consenting to sex, there is always a possibility of an innocent child being created.

 

And that is like using a credit card, how?

 

A credit card involves an obligation to another person.

 

1-Your argument is that women have the right to control their own bodies, which somehow makes abortion moral and worthy of legal status. I have proof against your claims.

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It's attached to her body (90% of the time because of her choice to have sex), but it has it's own heartbeat, organs, brain, (even brain waves at certain stages of pregnancy.)

2-*sigh*

Actually, I made that comment about women being "morally depraved" as bait. It's not really relevant to this discussion, and I apologize for saying it. But churchmouse realized what she did was wrong. She doesn't try to justify and rationalize it. Everybody makes mistakes.

 

That is correct. Her uterus belongs to her and she may do as she likes with it. Can you prove that a woman's uterus does not belong to her and that she may not do what she likes with it?

Just all the more reason she may have it and the placenta removed from her body.

Let me ask you this Sam, does the placenta belong to the woman or the fetus?

I really have no comment about this.

 

It is also easy to conclude that if a fetus is declared a person under the constitution it will be afforded the right to live. The mere existence of the fetus does not threaten the mothers life, or threaten injury. Complications that occur threaten the mother. You say a normal pregnancy results in changes to the mother. This is true, however I do not feel it warrants a death sentence to the fetus. A lot of the changes in the mother are made to support the development of the baby. After birth, in a lot of cases the mothers body goes back to normal, or near normal over time as the body recovers. It is the way nature intended it to be. Otherwise men would be able to get pregnant too.

 

you have the right to exercise any right you want as long as it doesn't violate another humans rights

 

1-Her uterus belongs to her, but she invited the fetus to come into her body (whether she wanted him/her there, or not) by choosing to have sex, ESPECIALLY if she knew beforehand that she would get pregnant.

However, in some situations, such as rape, the woman didn't invite the fetus in there. It's a bit harder to justify abortion being illegal in situations like that. But all I would say is this.

A person doesn't have any less rights (such as the right to life) or worth as a person, because of the negative circumstances that led to their existence. Many of us Americans only exist because of land being taken away from the Native Americans, but that doesn't mean that Americans deserve less rights than people in other nations.

I know that was a weird comparison, but it was the only analogy that I could think of.

2-I don't know how to answer that question, because I'm not sure how it relates to the abortion debate, or the question of bodily rights.

 

she can what she wants as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others and if a fetus is a human (which it is) it is allotted the basic rights as any other human and the fundamental right is the right to life

 

Conception-

1. 1. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
   2. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2. 1. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.
   2. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See synonyms at idea.
3. Archaic. A beginning; a start.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/conception#ixzz2rRCHah2u
​

- - - Updated - - -

As much as I agree with you on this, the SCOTUS has ruled the constitution does not apply to the unborn. it's sad, but true. Only way to change it is to overturn Roe V Wade, or make an amendment to the Constitution.

 

if you tell Sam before hand "if I use your car it is possible it will come back painted", and he agrees to still let you borrow it then he also consented to the possibility it can come back a different color

 

Conception is a process that takes about 48 hours. There is no "moment of conception."

 

Yes it can take about 48 hours for the sperm to penetrate the egg, but the moment it is fertilized as I highlighted is the moment of conception. Until fertilization the sperm and egg are two separate organisms, each containing half of the DNA make up of a human being

 

A credit card involves a previous contract to a company. Having sex does not involve an obligation to one that does not exist and may never exist. Your analogy hinges on a logical fallacy, therefore it FAILS.

 

A fetus is not a person or baby, that is why it is called a fetus. The reality is until the fetus develops a brain it cannot be referred to as a baby and be accurate.

 

So if she were to have it removed from her body whole and intact, unharmed and alive then she would be doing what she likes with her body without harming the fetus, yes?

 

She invited it? So she said, "Wow, I really hope our contraception fails and that I get pregnant when we have sex."

Wrong. The only time a woman is 'inviting' any living entity into her womb is when she consents to get pregnant and is actively trying to get pregnant.

This comment rather negates your last comment doesn't it? Whether she 'invited' it or not you expect her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will even if that means causing her mental and emotional torture and anguish.

Uh ok, but we're not talking about taking away people's land, we're talking about taking away a person's right to make serious medical decisions concerning their health and life, we're talking about taking away an entire organ, which should belong to them, and forcing them to gestate another human being against their wills and then to go through the pain of labor and birth.

Well the placenta is that whole new organ that develops when a woman gets pregnant. It develops and sticks to the lining of the uterus. The embryo/fetus resides inside of the placenta. I only ask because if the placenta belongs to HER, then she may ask to have it removed from her body can she not?

 

The reality is that we have people charged with murder and doing time in prison right now for killing a child in the womb.

The reality is that your denials have already been defeated.

 

But there is no "moment of fertilization." From a pro-life site:

Thanks to the advancement of science, we came to understand that conception requires a meeting of egg and sperm. The actual process of fertilization, until recently, was little understood. Whatever happened during fertilization came to be thought of as a mere moment.

We now understand this "moment" much better, and we need to update our thinking accordingly. It is now known that the process of fertilization takes about 24 hours. So where then is the "moment" to be found? Is it when the head of the first sperm burrows into the cell membrane of the ovum? Is it when the head penetrates the membrane? Is it when the acrosome containing the sperm's DNA dissolves? Is it when the sperm's DNA is released into the cytoplasm of the ovum? Is it when the sperm and egg's DNA are drawn close together? When the pronuclear envelopes break? When the chromatin from each pronucleus intermixes to form the diploid zygote nucleus? When the nuclear envelope reforms around the zygote nucleus in preparation for the first mitotic division? Doesn't this sound just like the same slippery slope we have already discussed?

Evidently, as we now know, there is no "moment of conception."
http://www.alysion.org/truelife/truelife.html

 

no because the removal will cause knowing inevitable harm it is called depraved indifference

 

Oh really? Because I call the removal self defense of one's own body, especially since pregnancy puts the woman's health and life at risk.

 

look I know what you want to do you want to have the pleasure of having sex and want to excuse your self from the possible consequences of having sex. you cant separate the two. You giving consent to have sex also gives consent to the consequences that possibly can follow there for you accept that pregnancy as a result of your actions you knew the risk and you took it so you accept everything else that goes with it. you gave consent