Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Because until an fetus can survive outside of the womb it isn't really alive in any kind of meaningful sense.
Do you have a point with all these questions?
If all these questions are trying to somehow get me to say something specific so you can launch into whatever defense of the "right to life" you currently subscribe to you might as well just come off it and explain why you think unborn children are entitled to a birthday.
|
Grows. Develops organs. Takes in nutrients. For crying out loud, there's three meaningful senses right off the top of my head. And now you get to say, "But they're not meaningful!" And then I get to respond, "Why not?" when I discover that that exclamation point is the end of your post.
You keep getting these questions because you fail to explain your answers adequately. It's okay because it's not viable? Without an explanation, that makes as much sense as "it's okay because it doesn't look human" or "it's okay because it can't fight off infection without the mother's antibodies".
Fyi, unborn children don't have a birthday because they haven't yet been born. Not sure where you were going with that, but I won't ask since questions irritate you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
and she's not killing a human being. she's removing cells that would grow into one.
|
She's killing a human being that would grow into a more developed human being. Enlighten me: I do not see any scientific reason to look at a fusing skullcap and say, "that is a stage of development in a human being", and yet to look at the development of the lungs and say, "that is a stage of development in a potential human being". I've searched long and wide and found no scientific reason for the distinction.
Quote:
|
what? first of all, there's no such thing as a right to life. the only 'right' to life is a social construct.
|
Politicophile dealt with this well.
Quote:
|
second of all, an embryo/fetus has no right to an unoccupied womb. that womb is part of the mother. and you just said that it has no precedence over the mother.
|
If you own a cruise line, you have no right to throw a stowaway into the ocean to die. He had no right to steal your product through trespassing, but the solution of ejection is a greater evil than the problem of trespass.
It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position.
Quote:
|
and how threatened does that have to be? if i were pregnant right now, i'd abort it. why? because even though my health might not be at risk, my life would be. the life i want for myself would be threatened. is that enough of a risk for you?
|
Of course not. Thwarted plans, no matter how thwarted, are not equal to the injury of losing your very life. Would you really argue this?
Quote:
|
give it up? give what up? there's no strawman there. your argument is that the rights of the z/e/f is more important than the womans rights.
|
You're either not making a good-faith attempt to understand my words, unable to make such an attempt, or you're lying. That is not my position, and you cannot make it my position by saying that it is.