Science does not refute the point either, since science does not and cannot purport to define what a person is.
Sure:
Yes, I agree that’s a difference in both degree and kind.
Of course we do occasionally require someone to “donate” blood – to a blood alcohol test, for example, following an accusation of drunk driving, or for a paternity test prior to the advent of buccal swabs.
No, a just society would not, because that society would recognize that you have no particular duty to care for that person. (Of course, I think society would regard you as admirable and noble if you did choose to donate your marrow).
–Golf clap–So very true.
Want to know what happens when the government decides one day to get in the middle of that?? Go read The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood.
So a just society wouldn’t consider you duty-bound to a person you haven’t explicitly consented to care for?
Just checking.
It’s not clear to me. Whether someone is arrested or not it’s not the definitive standard for whether their actions are against the law, especially things as subjective as disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. This detail is minor and not a fruitful line of discussion. We just disagree on this.
There’s also the detail of harassment. A contiguous barrage of verbally accosting a clinic customers seems to qualify, but again, it’s not a hair worth splitting.
I’m glad we agree on this.
and we saw seconds on a rainy day. We’ve had several people here giving more severe accounts.
It would depend on where the clinic is located. At the one near my home I think the walkway and parking lot is private property so the protestors can only be in the street in front of the clinic. Clearly the one in the video is not like that.
That’s not exactly the standard. A duty of care can be imputed to a person even without that person explicitly consenting to it. For example, you have no duty to rescue a drowning victim; you may walk right by the pool. But if you begin the rescue, you assume the duty towards the person, without explicitly doing anything.
You owe a certain duty to visitors to your home, even if you didn’t invite them; a Jehovah’s Witness may sue you if you left a sharp rake hidden by leaves in the path to your door, even though you didn’t explicitly consent to his visit – and didn’t even want it.
Careful honey… you can pull something, stretching like that.
Classyladyhp.
Most third trimester terminations are for serious foetal abnormality- often only diagnosed on a 20week ultrasound.
Many are not surgical (D&E, PBA).
Did you know that?
They involve inducing labour early, using the same drugs that are used on full-term women.
Sometimes a drug is administered first to ensure the foetus isn’t delivered alive, sometimes not, but there is an understanding that no heroic measures will be undertaken, and most end in stillbirth.
These parents mourn for loved babies, they cuddle them, dress them, sing to them in the short while they have together after the delivery.
They have decided that their baby doesn’t deserve the pain and suffering that a futile fight for life with intensive medical intervention would entail.
So yes, I can support that.
I am - I don’t believe that you can be pro-choice and then turn around and have a cut off date.
Actually, that’s renting your uterus… 
Once again your point is your subjective opinion. It’s just as easy to say that considering a zygote , or embryo, a human being is absurd, and in that case, there’s real evidence to support the statement. You have very little , perhaps none.
It’s also reasonable to say, it’s a human person the day it is born alive and independent of it’s mother. The day before that it’s a human fetus, at a certain stage of development, and the medical decisions should be up to the doctor and the woman.
I assume that medical issues concerning the mother and fetus you would leave up to the doctor and mother? You’d allow them to gauge the threat to the mother’s health , and the health of the fetus, and decide things like C section, when, etc. Or do you think there needs to be some kind of pro life panel to approve those decisions.
And, I’m curious, believing “fully human from conception” do you think mothers and doctors who choose abortion should be tried for murder?
and still just an opinion contrary to medical evidence and human tradition.
But presented with more intelligence than classyladyhp has shown in the sum total of her posts to date.
It isn’t as simple as a time frame. Why is an abortion even being sought.
Let’s say a woman is deserted by the father and finds herself is desperate financial straits at week 24, and being emotionally distraught, she considers abortion.
If some group like the one Bricker mentioned wants to step up and pay her medical bills and take care of her and the fetus I think giving the fetus an opportunity is a better option. I think just making it illegal, and then leaving the woman to deal on her own, is a shoddy choice.
That’s not counting health issues, birth defects, etc.
I dunno what you guys want from Bricker - he’s admitted his views are axiomatic. Trying to tease out some admission just encourages him to dig in his heels, as I’m sure would be the case for any of us who hold beliefs we can’t prove. Deciding when (or if) to label a fetus surely counts as one of these.
I agree it’s intelligent and well articulated. The kind of communication that helps rather than hinders.
Interesting. How about just a set of head phones with a wide selection of music to pick from?
Do you see what I mean. Again with the name calling:rolleyes:
Unbelievable. Again I don’t give a care what people like you think of me.
I agree that his posts are intelligent.
Interesting article. I skimmed, but bookmarked for a later read.
So lets see can we get back on topic? I think the thread is about pro-life demonstrators.