All this talk of injury to the woman. Even when injured, do you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force, especially when there isn't reason to believe your life in danger? I'd agree that not every sexual intercourse session ends in pregnancy, but pregnancy is instigated by sex, not by the fetus. In this case, all injuries are not a result of some conscious decision of the fetus, but can be traced back directly to the fertalization, prompted by sex. It even sounds odd to describe a woman being injured by her fetus, and defending herself from it with an abortion. You need to make a much stronger case to me that the fetus was the perpetrator in this situation, even if it's physical body is doing the damage. If I were to pull you down on top of me, and your physical body causes me injury, should I have legal impunity to murder you to get you off of me quicker? After all, your body is causing me injury, and my body has inalienable rights. Perhaps I didn't mean to knock you over onto me, but should I tolerate you injuring me, or be allowed to murder you? Perhaps we can even throw in the fact that I don't consider you a person, because what is a "person", after all. The greatest philosophers in history have been grappling with that one unable to satisfy it. Why can't I decide for myself? My body, my belief, my choice, right?
First of all, post 284 quotes post 279, and in it I piece by piece reply to that post. Second of all, I feel no need to reply to every post, nor explain myself when I do or dont. Like everyone else, I participate in these forums at my leisure. I am not put on trial, and if you demand I address each question, I'll gladly tell you to go sucked eggs.
You may have replied to it but you sure didn't learn anything from it.......nor did you prove it to be in error....as post 132 shows.....
So you agree that I didn't ignore the post? Why are you being pushy? You don't reply to every one of my posts. Even the one you quoted you didn't addess. Answer post 301, and do so in a way I agree with or I'll tell you that you "didn't learn anything", like you did. Or you could just say "oh I didn't see your reply, sorry" and admit that you made a simple mistake. Or are you so far above admitting error that you don't even believe you could have missed a post? No wonder you are so resistant to honest debate.
By your subsequent posts it was obvious that the scientific facts Fugazi presented were either conveniently ignored by you or you couldn't comprehend the facts...which is an Anti-Choice trait.
But when you said that I completely ignored the post, that was factually wrong. Sure, you don't agree with my reply, but I replied. Why can't you even admit error about forum posts? Why can't you say "I was wrong", especially when you were trying to bully me around?
you will find the complete answers to all your queries here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html
OK, I was wrong , you didn't ignore the post ,you just ignore facts and science when they don't agree with your opinions....or you couldn't understand Fug's post....
I read over it. I don't agree that a fetus causes the pregnancy, nor does the fetus exert any harmful behavior. Harm could be argued to have happened to the woman, but this isn't perpetrated by the fetus, and agreeing that the fetus has no intent to harm doesn't explain how the fetus initiated behavior which harmed. Sex causes pregnancy, not fetuses, or women would spontaneously become pregnant, which you'd have to agree would strengthen your argument pro choice. If you have to admit that a clear perpetraion, by a fetus, however unitentional, of a pregnancy, would strengthen your argument, then clearly your position as it stands hasn't satisfied the fetus as the cause of harm, simply the insturment. Again, this is illustrated by my post above. Nor does your post justify why a fetus isn't a person, only that by being a person, it becomes more accountible, though perhaps not guilty, for injury ostensibly caused. Someone who is a temporary insturment of harm doesn't lose their right to life in defense of the one harmed, especially when the perpetrator is also the one being harmed. This is the basis for the pro life position. Sex causes people to get pregnant, not fetuses. Parents should be culpable for harm done, not fetuses. Much in the example of your Forrest fire, the one who struck the match is put on trial, not the flames.
On a biological and legal level you would be wrong to not agree. Again on a medical and legal level you would be wrong. Then do tell what is that suppressed the female immune system? Then do tell what is it that invades the uterine wall? Then do tell what is it that causes the numerous other injuries to a female during pregnancy, from up to a 300 times increase in hormone levels to the constructions of a complete new organ? None of the things that occur during pregnancy would occur if it were not for the presence of a fertilized ovum. That is factually incorrect on a number of levels; firstly sex is not required in order for a woman to become pregnant, IVF and self-insemination require no sexually intercourse; secondly sex is merely causing the risk of pregnancy and no one is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken. The 'natural' state of a female is a non-pregnant one, if it were not so women would be pregnant all the time. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred. Sex does not meet the legal requirements to be the cause of pregnancy, it is an actual cause, but that in itself is not sufficient to be the legal cause. This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, caused by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state. I have not claimed that a fetus is not a person, in fact from my point of view the fetus being a person strengthens the case for legal elective abortion. Yes they do, all self-defence cases are a person being "a temporary insturment of harm" Which is biologically and legally incorrect. There are no parents until a birth occurs, unless they have previous born children. In this case it would be the fertilized ovum who struck the match. A woman could have sexual intercourse every single day and never receive any injuries from it, as soon as a pregnancy occurs she is being injured, as such sexually intercourse causes no injuries to the female, a fertilized ovum does. Pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases, with some states having it listed in their laws as being a serious injury.
Planned parenthood didn't get the memo. They still think people get pregnant by having sex, not some fetal behavior. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teens/sex/how-pregnancy-happens I can't believe this needs explanation.
Two points- both in bold. 1) The onus is on those claiming that a fetus is a person to show that a fetus is indeed a person. Killing something that is not a person is not murder. Humans kill non persons all the time. We have to eat don't we ? 2) Parents should be culpable for harm done to what ? and why should they be culpable for harm done to a non-person. It is true that sex causes pregnancy but pregnancy does not equal personhood.
When the argument is for ending human life, on the basis that the human isn't really a "person", the burden of proof must rest on those that advocate ending life, and the standard must be higher than any other. You cannot put life on trial and expect it to prove why it's life shouldn't be ended. You satisfy the burden of proof. Not me. Spoiler alert: you cant.
You are confusing the use of the term human as a noun (Living human, a human) and as a descriptive adjective (human life, human feces, human cell) We end "human life" all the time. Every human cell is "human life". Type too hard on the keyboard and you will kill lots of human life. The question is not whether or not the single cell at conception is human life ... of course it is as are egg and sperm. The question is whether or not that single cell is a living human (NOUN) You are talking nonsense. Newsflash Humans need to kill life in order to survive. Last time you ate a mean it required that some form of life be killed. The question is not whether the zygote is "life" or "human life". The question is whether or not it is a living human/Person such that it should have rights including the right to life. Something that is not a living human is not a person. If it is not a person then it is not murder to kill it. If you want to claim the zygote is a living human ... fine. The onus is then on you to provide at least some kind of rational that backs up your claim and explains why your claim is true.
Yes, let's see your proof that a fetus is a person...then the woman has every right to kick it out of her body in self defense...no person is allowed to live inside another without their permission...
What has PP got to do with the discussion, this is a discussion on the biological and legal standings of abortion, not PP. I can't believe that needs explanation.
Sorry it doesn't, sex is merely one of the required acts in the link of events that cause pregnancy, it is not the act that actually causes a non-pregnant woman to become pregnant, that can only be achieved by a fertilized ovum implanting into the uterine wall (which is when a pregnancy is generally accepted as starting). Having sex does not mean their WILL be a pregnancy, where as there is a pregnancy EVERY time a fertilized ovum implants.
No problem This is one of those things that pro-lifers fail to understand and one of the reasons consent to sex cannot be seen as consent to pregnancy regardless of the 'personhood' of the zef.
OH ! Look, Jane, Look, the TOPIC ! And it's not beating an old tired whining hobby horse to death.....
IT is NOT at conception. ---------- it is long before. Check your own Genetic knowledge, then try this on for size: Female"fetuses" (the prospective mothers) while developing, are already forming the rudimants of the eggs that will become fully developed in womanhood and which, one by one become the eggs which can be fertilized by the male spermatosa, Even then, both developing egg and spermatosa is alive . When the spermatose fertilizes the egg it enhances that life and allows it to become a VIABLE LIFE". But it is "life" in both of these cases, well before the sexual act which combines the two.
