What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

:blah: :blah:

Well I understand that you have some deep seeded need to feel smarter than other people, but that doesn't place any obligation on me to think so.

So can you set aside this chest beating brovado and agree that an embryo and a fetus are both human beings, or are you just interested in trying to impress yourself?

 

Not according to the law...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa042401a.htm

The only person who can murder a baby, legally, is the mother.

 

If that is what you want to beleive, then you beleive it Junior.
The rest of us will keep undferstanding that a young homo sapien does not have charecteristics identical to an older one.

 

What does a young homo sapien have to do with the issue ..you speak in riddles ?

A single celled zygote is fully grown !

It is not just what I believe .. but what scientists believe. There is a difference between an opinion and something that is supported by science.

I have presented science in support and you have not presented any science to rebuttal ... your opinion (a zygote is a mammal for example) does not count.

Where is your support ?

 

I agree with the science, and the legislation, that states that a fetus is a person at roughly 22-24 weeks.

An embryo is little more than a few cells .. having no significant similarity to a human.

I agree that abortion kills the potential for an embryo to become a human.

I agree that most abortions are in the early stages of pregnancy.

If you wish to stop "chasing the rabbit" we can do that.

Do you agree that there are divergent scientific and philosophical opinions on both sides of the abortion issue ?

 

No it is what you believe. You haven't presented anything but semantics so twisted you have confused yourself on several occasions with it.

 

Humor .. name one instance where the evidence I provided was in conflict with my claims.

I agree with the science, and the legislation, that states that a fetus is a person at roughly 22-24 weeks.

An embryo is little more than a few cells .. having no significant similarity to a human.

I agree that abortion kills the potential for an embryo to become a human.

I agree that most abortions are in the early stages of pregnancy.

If you wish to stop "chasing the rabbit" we can do that.

Do you agree that there are divergent scientific and philosophical opinions on both sides of the abortion issue ?

 

Well isn't that interesting. There actually isn't any legislation that claims any such thing. In fact the only federal legislation on point states that a "child in utero" at any stage of development from fertilization to birth is a regognized individual with rights.

Nothing scientific about that childish comment. "It don't look nuthin like me" is FAR from scientific. The fact rmains that every human being was an embryo at one stage of development. You cannot refute that as hard as you may try.

You are so completely misguided.

 

Colorado Law:

According to Colorado law the fetus does not have the right to life prior to 16 weeks, and the mother is not charged with murder.

What rights are you referring to that this fetus has ?

Abortion in the early stages is not homicide according to Colorado law.

Your legal argument fails to inspire anything but a giggle.

 

Well that is how people incapable of understanding a conflict in the spirit of the law react. They chuckle and guffaw to hide their ignorance.

 

So you finally admit there is a conflict in law !

Unfortunately for your argument there is no conflict in the law pertaining to abortion by a woman early in term.

The law is quite clear in stating that abortion in the early term is perfectly legal.

Resorting to a legal argument is kind of pathetic anyway.

That a bunch of legislators get together and make a law has more to with politics than facts.

Case in point: Under the Bush admin republicans arbitrarily changed the definition of a fetus based on religious beliefs. Not to many scientists voted that day and subject matter experts were not consulted.

It is obvious that the bill never would have passed except for the fact that Republicans controlled both houses at the time. 254-162 was the vote in the House .. obviously a highly "partisan" vote.

As such this was a violation of the constitution. The state is not supposed to impose its religious beliefs on the citizens... regardless of whether it has a 50 +1 majority or not.

 

An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. I see no problem with a legal abortion at anytime up until natural birth. Only with birth does a viable human exist, a fetus is the property of the parasitic host and it is for her to decide what to do with it.

 

You are so silly. I am the one who first brought up that there is a conflict in the law here!

 

Good, then quit bringing law up and pretending it is a valid reason for "what is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy"

That something is a law, is not a rational for why something is wrong.

 

I agree! But there is obviously a divide even within the legal community , and the pro abortion view is definitely not an overwhelming majority view.

In the interest of laws that work, all homicide law should follow the same premise and be consistent in determination of what excuses a homicide and what does not. Roe is the lone standout that is glaringly inconsistent with all other homicide law.

In that respect, the legal aspects of the issue are worth addressing, whether you think so or not.

 

Of course it is, you provided the evidence.

 

That pesky reading comprehension problem just will not leave you alone!

 

The evidence is speaking for itself, most people do not agree with you. The only group that does as a majority is the evangelicals.

 

There is no proof of this. You simply fail to understand what you read!

 

You can deny it all you want and stomp your feet the fact remains as per your evidence. There is nothing special to understand about it, it is as plain as daylight, but of course you have to misrepresent it because you are unwilling to accept or concede that fact you provided.

 

Oh darlin I am not stomping my feet, because I know you are the sole person here who thinks you have a point to make.

 

Your usual inane and or condescending drivel does not alter facts whaler. Your inability to refute them or even intelligently address them only further confirms them.