A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human-being Hmmmm - does an embryo have "articulated speech"? Does a foetus have an "upright stance"? And note the definition excludes unborn Going back to the OP where the debate is around an epidemic of babies who in all probability not fit this definition (most will never walk or talk) Is it morally allowable to abort foetuses that are destined for a short and miserable existance
In our system of law and morality, the burden of proof is on those who want to deny rights, confer guilt, or impose punishment. We assume innocent until proven guilty. In abortion, the starting point is that it is a human being deserving of the protections and rights of all people. Why? The baby is clearly a human being after 20 weeks since babies at that point have been successfully delivered and survived. The uncertainty is over the point before 20 weeks it becomes a human being. In accordance with our legal and moral codes, the baby receives the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty), the assumption must be that it is a human at conception unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the abortionists to prove it is not a human being in order to deny it the rights and protections all people receive. If as you claim it cannot be proven that the baby is not a human being, then abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and is murder.
Why are you focussing on late term abortions? Abortions after 20 weeks are rare, and overwhelmingly done for foetal abnormality
Stephen Hawking is incapable of an upright stance and articulate speech. By your definition, he is not a human being. By your definition a 1 week old fully formed baby is not a human being. Neither is a brain damaged para- or quadriplegic. Is a preborn baby a homo sapien? It has all the genes of a homo sapien. Why don't you argue that any human being who suffers a "miserable existence" - a subjective term - should be killed? If you are willing to kill a baby to spare it misery, by the same logic you should be willing to kill anyone who faces misery to "spare" them a poor future.
I am not focusing on late term abortion. 20 weeks sets the mark for when the baby is clearly a human being, the question is when before 20 weeks it becomes a human being. It must be assumed it is a human at conception unless proven otherwise. It is up to the abortionists - the people who want to do harm to the baby - to prove it is not a human being in order to deny it the rights and protections all people receive.
We switch off brain dead patients We make those determinations in ICUs every single day. Not every patient who has a failing heart is placed on full resuscitation
What are you talking about?? No one wants to harm any babies (POINT OUT PROOF THAT ANYONE WANTS TO HARM BABIES) ...your Anti-Choice emotional rhetoric is so dishonest, why DO Anti-Choicers have to lie to prove their point? Don't they have an GOOD arguments??? The only people I see who want babies to experience terrible harm and suffering are those who want Zika infected babies to be born . The fetus feels no pain when aborted but Anti-Choicers are against that. The Zika infected baby will suffer for it's entire life and Anti-Choicers are for that.
There is a cure for malaria that is easily available and it even occurs naturally in local beers made in Africa. There is no cure for mental retardation and blindness caused by Zika.
LOL, how quickly you jump from killing a baby because it is "irritable" but otherwise has a bright future to switching off brain dead people who are already dead. Almost as if you see no difference, your threshold for "humane killing" is extremely low, so low it is astonishing. - - - Updated - - - You are ranting again. Post rationally and you will get a response.
Completely wrong. The pro-life side recognizes there are 2 people involved, the baby and the mother, those 2 people are in a unique relationship, and the rights of those two people must be balanced. The abortionists ignore the baby and focus exclusively on the woman. Abortionists even have "approved" vocabulary and talking points to avoid any hint that there might be 2 people involved in the issue. In other words, prolife people are facing the hard issues, abortionists are burying their heads in the sand.
BZZZT Wrong! Anti-abortionists are intent on denying women their Constitutional rights. No amount of semantic squirming, appeals to emotion or disingenuous canards can obfuscate that simple straightforward fact.
Proof it is not a human being here in Canada: 223. When child becomes human being 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed. http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/223-when-child-becomes-human-being
Incorrect. The earliest surviving preemie was at 21 weeks and 5 days, almost 22 weeks. And only one or two have survived that early.
And what about the Constitutional rights of the baby? In typical abortionist fashion, you ignore that giant stumbling block.
That's not proof. That's simply regurgitating politically influenced laws, and it is an exceptionally poor definition. It is based on position, not development - its a human being when it is "here" but not when it is "there". That argument fails from a viability perspective, social and legal perspective, and rational perspective, and was rejected years ago. Does it have the genetic requirements of a homo sapien or not? - - - Updated - - - 21 weeks 5 days is "after 20 weeks". Learn to read. If only one survives it proves that at that point it is capable of life and is human. That sets the minimum boundary.
If only one survives out of the billions of births on this planet we call that a medical miracle....not a medical standard.
Nicrocephalics do not have a "bright future" And although I mentioned brain dead there are also multiple patients who we have to withhold treatment on because of varying reasons. Being human is no assurance of eternal life Now I have spared people pictures until now but here is one :Let me be clear - these babies are missing a large part of the brain They will never have a normal life
