Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You simply ignore all I wrote and restate your original position. Why is that?
No, human life quite clearly existed prior to that in both the sperm and ovum. Unless of course you wish already to depart from the well-established reports of science. Nothing magical happens an any "moment of conception". All of even the potential of a zygote was contained already in the cells from which it was derived.
The sperm and the egg on there own is not a human life . Neither can grow without the other.
Let's first be clear that arguments against abortion were just as poor prior to 1973 as they are today. Let's second note that a woman has the right not to be pregnant. This is her individual right, and you aren't allowed to meddle with it. You may not compel a woman either to become or to remain pregnant against her wishes. She may use such techniques as she feels are appropriate in avoiding pregnancy. Should she feel those might have been compromised, she may turn to Plan-B. Should that fail, she may resort to a medical abortion or at her election to a surgical abortion. No unwanted interloper, be it you or any fetus-from-the-blue, has any right that trumps a woman's right to decide for herself whether and when she will reproduce.
The arguements for murder has not changed since 1973, What has changed is 49 million deaths.
And you are again/still ignoring the blatant qualitative difference between a fetus and an actual sentient human adult, as well as the blatant lack of any such difference between a zygote and the cells it was derived from. You are basically ignoring whatever would keep you from arriving at a pre-ordained conclusion. You are free to do that, and to apply the probably illogical results in your own life. You are not free to do that on behalf of any others.
No you claim one part of life is different from anothe rpart, we agree. But each part is still life. A teenager is still a life. A teenager is growing and evolving just as the fetus is.
No one has claimed anything but that all of the stages named were examples of human life. Mere human life however is plainly not a sufficient grounds for protection. All manner of mere human life is routinely excised and discarded without giving it a second thought. From cuticle removed during a manicure to blood samples and biopsies, to polyps removed during a colonoscopy, to abandoned or unwanted product at an IVF clininc. You'll need something more than simple human life to justify anything even remotely resembling the special status that you wish to assign.
You seem to be confused A cuticle is not human life. I think you need to check on that in yoru sciences books. Sorry if you think a cuticle is human life. Perhaps you do not value human life because you do not know what a human life is.
Cultural development? No one is claiming that fetuses are an inferior sort of people. Why, some of my best friends were once fetuses. The claim is that fetuses are not people at all, in that they share absolutely nothing with actual people except the same commonality of cell properties that is also shared by everything from cuticles to polyps and beyond. An acorn is not an oak tree, and even if there is no place like home, a set of blueprints and a pile of lumber do not equate to one.
You have no friends who were fetuses who were aborted becasue they were killed. You are the one that claimed human lives have different values.
"Those who oppose slavery should never be forced to own one.
Those who oppose slavery should never impose their desires on anyone else"
"Those who oppose capital punishment should never be forced to execute anyone.
Those who oppose capital punishment should never impose their desires on anyone else"
I think i did reply on another thread but they asked us to use this thread.
the cultural group you are destroying is the cultural grioup known as the unborn.That group should not be denied its right to live . 49 million in that cultural group have been denied their right to life, 49 million is a genocide
So now the unborn have their own culture? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
Correct so its ok to kill the most innocent members of society. Because we do not know how or what they feel when their life is denied we should kill them and justify it it by saying it ok. Sorry not much of an argueemnt there.
IMHO its a pretty unique cultural group. One that has had 49 million denied theri right to live
I can't say I agree with classifying abortion as genocide. When the Hutus were killing Tutsis they did it in an effort to completely eradicate their race. It was the same with Nazis and Jews. If abortion is genocide (i.e. the systematic eradication of all unborn children), then why are there so many people under 30? I can see them dropping the ball a bit and missing a few after Roe v. Wade, but by the 80s you'd think that they'd have gotten it all down pat
I can't say I agree with classifying abortion as genocide. When the Hutus were killing Tutsis they did it in an effort to completely eradicate their race. It was the same with Nazis and Jews. If abortion is genocide (i.e. the systematic eradication of all unborn children), then why are there so many people under 30? I can see them dropping the ball a bit and missing a few after Roe v. Wade, but by the 80s you'd think that they'd have gotten it all down pat
Why ddi jews survive? we have court decree that says it ok to murder a certain group do to where they are in our culture. 49 million would be a genocide number
Why ddi jews survive? we have court decree that says it ok to murder a certain group do to where they are in our culture. 49 million would be a genocide number
They fled, hid, or survived concentration camps. Pregnant women aren't hiding in the dark, quaking with fear that a doctor will come and perform an abortion on her (at least, not in the US). If there are cases where the abortion is against her will, that is wrong too. Also, "saying it's ok" is different than actively mobilizing the population against a particular group. It's not a punishable crime to harbor a fetus and prevent its abortion, as it would have been if a German family was caught hiding Jews. Also, phrases like "baby-lover" aren't slanders as it would be in genocide situations if "baby" were replaced with the ethnic group of choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
