Previous 21 - 30 Next
"....Absolutey! And it is for this reason that I cannot but assume that life begins at conception. Any other 'guess' means a human being could be harmed because it is considered not human." You are perfectly free to do so, and to live your life accordingly. You are even free to be inconsistent about it. If you and your wife are trying to start a family and having unprotected sex, I will not demand that you and she microscopically examine her menses each month and rush any of your unimplanted children to the in-vitro fertilization clinic, or to the funeral parlor if you are too late. I wont because I'm not consistent in living by my own beliefs either, I think all people fall short of that one way or another. But if you are going to impose these beliefs on other people, we will have a problem.
"Wow, you had to torture language so much to contrive that point..." ??? This is just common sense, and it's simple language. It's called 'thinking', that's all.
Cardinal5671: "If the woman voluntarily had sex, then she gave her consent to get pregnant - even if birth control was used." This is false, and not especially relevant. The woman consented to have sex, nothing more. When I drive to work in the morning, I do not consent to be rammed by a drunk driver even though that is a possible outcome, empirically well established. The woman did not consent to pregnancy and parenthood, however much you believe that sex is dirty and she must be punished for enjoying it. "...using criteria such as failure to implant, inconvenience, and even rape tell us NOTHING about whether or not the fetus is fully human. Can you admit that?" I can admit to far more than that. I admit I cannot even define the term "Human Being". I admit I've no clue when a Human Being begins to be present in a pregnant woman's body, because I'm not God. Can you admit these things, cardinal571? We need to make guesses because we need laws to live in a society, laws that prohibit things like murder, for example. But the best we can hope for are guesses, approximations that are fair, consistent, and not hypocritical. What I've made as clear as I know how to above, and what as best as I can tell you still refuse to even try to understand is that to define personhood at conception with the force of law is hypocritical. It is a standard that you'd love to impose on all those sluts who can't keep their legs closed and then come whining for an Abortion, but that everybody else can ignore when it comes to all the conceptions that fail to implant.
"No one is trying to enslave anyone in this discussion." I do not know what to call this other than willful blindness. You are literally controlling another persons body, no different than forcing them to pick cotton. "Trying to say the fetus is not human because it fails to implant..." You seem to have understood this better in the past. Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. Let me try to explain: You say that the zygote is a Person, a Human Being. If true, then the Zygote that fails to implant is a Human Being in imminent danger of dying. In particular, to it's Mother and Father it is THEIR OWN BABY about to die. How much effort should this "BABY's" parents expend in trying to save it? In fact, we spend no effort. Why? Because we do not *really* regard it as a person. It is hypocrisy to demand the woman seeking an Abortion be held to any higher standard.
"Shouldn't that mean we should err on the side of caution and assume its human at conception?" No, personhood at conception is blatant hypocrisy. What you call "human at conception" really means "human when a woman wishes to abort it, menstrual issue when it's humanity would inconvenience anyone else".
This is not the first time we've had this particular discussion. But this is the 1st time you've brought up the analogy of taking shots at a barrel, and I cannot help but think that a person who would choose such an analogy really does not have much of a conception of the right of a woman to control the very interior of their own bodies. Women are not barrels, Cardinal5671, they are not baby making appliances for us to buy, sell, and maintain / tinker with like a car.. There are pro-choice extremists just like there are Pro-Life extremists, and the female ones will tell you that no Human Being has a right to parasitically survive off their body without their continuous consent. They will cite court cases showing that a sibling cannot be compelled to give up an organ to save their brother or sister from dying, even if they previously consented to do so. I tell such extremists that once you continuously consent to gestate a fetus in your body for such a long time that it becomes a Human being, or is likely to be a Human Being, then you should not have the right to arbitrarily withdraw that consent for no good reason. If you do it must be because of medical necessity. These are the two edges, murder vs slavery, of the sword. And the balance between the two is 24 weeks.
pascagoulapappy: "Lots of sleazy men pressure "their" women into having abortions." Yes, this is true, and it is wrong and evil. But these men are not a majority or even a significant minority of Pro-Choice men. They are more likely to be Pro-Life in public. The common denominator is that they think they own the woman and her body.
americathebeautiful: "....THE BABY IN UTERO IS NO A FETUS. IT IS A HUMAN LIFE BABY!" Ahh. Proof by superior capitalization. Look, I agree with you once the fetus has been in there long enough. I believe that the Newborn Baby is a Human Being just like you and me. And how could it be any less of a Human Being the day before it was born? Even though the old testament talks of the head and shoulderes emerging, I believe that teh fetus must be a Human person for at least some time before birth. But at the other end of the process, when Zygotes don't implant we just flush them down the toilet, and that is what happens around half the time. If we really thought they were Human Being at that point their Mom & Dad would be going through the Menses with a Microscope. Would you do any less for your own child? We DON'T *REALLY* think they are Human Beings at conception. I don't see how we can deny a woman who wants to take the morning-after pill and voluntarily remove the particular one in her.
americathebeautiful: "Excuse me!" Umm, OK. (?) Can we agree that there is a difference between "Life" and "Human Being"?
"10 weeks sense of touch, PAIN." Now you are at odds with the science on which the GOP is basing The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This list is interesting facts but it does not define Personhood. For instance, we can transplant hearts. Is the recipient two people?
This is probably not going to satisfy you, but my sense of the scientific literature is that at 24 weeks there begins to be the chance of enough cerebral cortex present that there might be some thing at the other end of those nerves being stimulated by the painful stimulus that can say "ouch".
Previous 21 - 30 Next