When does one gain person-hood?

I don't see how this makes the fetus killable at will.

 

Well, life can be fun, death or non-existence, not so much.

 

OK you did not ask me, but, here goes anyway.
Abortion is terrible, but, legal abortion is an absolute necessity.

 

A new born baby is an individual living human being. A fetus is basically a parasite and not an individual living human being. Totally different things.

 

Yes, they feel relief from the pressures that forced them to seek an abortion. But many, later on after the first relief, do become moderately depressed, and some at times become extremely depressed. However the rate for extreme depression is far less in the case of an abortion, that it is for a normal birth. With the abortion there is relief at the end of something (for whatever reason) unwanted. With birth comes the realization that it is not all over, but just starting, which for many causes extreme depression, at times ending in the murder of the child or suicide. The most atrocious cases of depression after birth are often headlines, but many more occur that are not in the headlines. We tend to hear about the woman driving her car with her kid in the lake and drowning them, or drowning 5 kids in the bathtub, etc.

 

Why is it incorrect? Where is the error?

Merck show nothing that contradicts this.

Still stuck on childish behavior I see. It is obvious that you still can not address the topic. I made no definitions, so you introducing that is nothing more than you usual diversion in an attempt to hide your inability to post something relevant or intelligent. It is puzzling why you keep up such bizarre antics.

 

The principle is the same as pulling the plug on a patient that has no life that is significant.

 

Perhaps if you would read the entire quote you would comprehend better:

The quote from Merck's web page DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THAT!

Mod Edit: Not necessary.

 

Only this is not a patient who is insignificant!

 

Your right, because it isn't a patient at all. Until the fetus becomes an individual, the mother is the patient, and the fetus is part of the mother. For the reasons I gave above.

 

There is no valid excuse for the premeditated homicide of a child in utero, except in rare cases of self defense.

 

It's ok for the same reason its ok to kill skin cells when you scratch yourself, or for killing healthy cells when you go under chemotherapy. The fetus is part of the mother, up to a point, and is hers to decide what to do with.

 

It isn't a child, and until its able to support a metabolism on its own, it isn't separate from the mother.

 

Nowhere in that quote does it say what you claim. It is only your misrepresentation that it does.

I am not one who calls you names and posts childish one liners. That is still ONLY YOU in this forum.

 

I seem to recall that you also were OK with abortion in cases of rape and incest. Did you change your position on that?

 

He actually did in this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/4443859-post15.html

 

I seem to recall that I said that I understand why there would be consideration by a woman of abortion in those instances. Not the same as the blood lust you see with so called "pro choicers" here.

 

That is funny, the link you posted actually DIRECTLYcontradicts you.

 

Lets not get into another argument of semantics. Are you OK with abortions in those instances and if so what is the premise?

 

How does it contradict me?

 

Actually it is a child in utero by actual legal definition!

 

I cannot argue with wanton ignorance.

 

In the linked post I ask "did the fetus rape her? If not then why kill the fetus"?

Hardly sounds like I support abortion after a rape does it?!!!!!

 

Yeah. You used to be ok with abortion for rape and now you are against it. That was what I was saying.

 

I understand your point - but why is abortion terrible?