That should apply up until the child reaches the age of 18! Problem you have with that notion.....show me any law, anywhere that is not based on "someone's morals".
Fetus is the word you use to dehumanize a developing baby. It can become nothing else but a fully developed man or woman. What....aren't you for women's rights? Why would you kill them?
Why? That's what it is...a stage in life. Is calling a teenager a teenager dehumanizing them ? If you are for women's rights why would you want to take away the most basic human right, bodily autonomy? In an abortion "women" aren't killed, fetuses are.
Exactly. Keywords being developing and become. Please, do not confuse the potential for the actual. You are a developing and.potential corpse - can I bury you? Of course not.
I am not for "women's rights" because I am.not a collectivist. I am for individual rights and that is the basis on which I am not against abortion.
So, you are saying I can bury you alive because you are a potential corpse? That is at least consistent, but pretty damn awful.
Morals are the only thing that stabilize a society. There are societies among Native Americans that say theft is only borrowing because you do not own anything.....it all belongs to mother earth. Murder is the ending of innocent human life. Why does that not apply in the womb? Because someone's "morals" says it doesn't. Communist China's morals say girls born unlawfully can be terminated.
You can tell yourself anything. Whatever you call it, it has the code to become a fully grown adult. A unique code not replicated anywhere. It definitely feels pain after 3 months. Hitler promoted the idea Jews are not human. He told himself that.
I'm referring to life....you know, living things? You speak of death. Regardless of your fondness of it, it is not the same.
Clearly you lack the mental faculty to understand basic philosophy and a very simple argument. Maybe you should practise that before coming here?
That is you are foor "individual rights unless that individual has not yet exited the womb. You know, society stood in horror when they found out what Scott Peterson did to his wife. The horror mounted when her unborn baby washed up on shore. It was explained that gases from Lacy's decomposing body forced that child out. It made that murder all the more appalling. Lacy also washed up on shore later. Had a child not been involved, the story probably would not have made National news. There is a National hypocrisy there.
A fetus is not an individual. Claiming to be for individual rights and at the same time being an anti-abortionist is an inherent contradiction. It is not a very integrated worlview to have and quite frankly, opposing abortion is opposing the Constitution. Very Unamerican.
FoxHastings said: ↑ If you are for women's rights why would you want to take away the most basic human right, bodily autonomy? In an abortion "women" aren't killed, fetuses are. If abortion is made illegal then women would have their right to bodily autonomy taken away....
Sure, but that is not bad because they happen to be women, but because they are.individuals. the primary unit of existence is not gender and it is really completely irrelevant and insignificant what genitals one happens to be born with. Your body chemistry and genitalia is not what grants you rights.
What TF does that OLD, OLD story got to do with abortion ??....every Anti-Choicer has trotted that out repeatedly for no real purpose..
