Well, technically speaking it is human and alive, but that doesn’t make it a baby or a person in those early stages and no amount of passionate belief and repetition is going to make it so.
Shit, I clicked answer before I realized it was the angry church lady. What, are you angry that other women are having sex and you’re not?
If life begins at conception then apparently as a fetus, Classlady was shortchanged in certain cerebral stages.
Your second point does not follow from your first. Biologists may agree that life begins at conception (I’m not actually convinced that they do unanimously agree about that, but let’s say they do), but what you fail to grasp is that ‘life’ in a biological sense is not the same as ‘life’ in the sense of personhood, sentience, etc. The latter is a philosophical or ethical concept, not a biological or scientific one. That you think the embryo has a right to life is purely a matter of opinion, not science.
An embryo may have ‘life’ in the sense that it has 46 chromosomes and will develop into a new person eventually if all goes right, but that doesn’t mean it has ‘life’ in the sense of having rights, opinions, desires, or even the ability to suffer. The woman on the other hand definitely has a life in both senses, so forcing her to suffer and to lose her rights doesn’t really make much sense.
Again, a poor example. A doctor shouldn’t be able to pull the plug whenever he feels like it just like a doctor shouldn’t be able to kidnap a woman and perform an abortion whenever he feels like it. But you must be aware that the families of people in comas do generally have the right to pull the plug if they feel that it is the right thing to do. Similarly, people can acquire DNRs for themselves, family members or minor children under the right circumstances. So your idea that all other human life is sacred and abortion is the only time we make an exception to this rule is just false.
Oh shut up. You ignorant moron. I have never once stated if I am religious or what religion I am so shut up. I’m pissed off that babies are being killed by their own mothers though.
So lets dumb it down and stoop to your level shall we? Jealous because I’m smarter than you and the best you can do is call me names?
You’re pathetic. That’s all I’m saying to you disrepectful troll.
Suppose someone were to argue as follows: “There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be prohibited throughout pregnancy.” Why is this argument any more, or less, reasonable than the argument that:“There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be allowed throughout pregnancy?”
So, lady,any thoughts on the questions in post #1079?
I’d say neither argument has a compelling point. When human life begins is not relevant.
Because, classylady, when given the choice between the most restrictive option and the least restrictive, when talking about human rights, generally the least restrictive option is preferred.
Certainly, not having exceptions for life or health of the mother would be unconstitutional in the US, and would be anti international Human Rights legislation in countries which have signed up to that.
Is this kind of post entertaining to you?
Continually calling embryos ‘babies’ is doing nothing to support your cause. Claiming to be smarter than others is also doing nothing to support it. And accusing other people of calling you names when you have repeatedly gone into a rage and called other people bitches, assholes, idiots, and morons is also not helping you.
Try again.
What about the argument “No matter when human life begins, one should not be forced to support something and allow them it to grow inside their body against their will”? How do you feel about that?
Because , IMO, on one hand you’re allowing women to make their own choices about their lives and their bodies, and with the other you aren’t. That’s not a minor thing.
With one you’re imposing your personal opinion and morals on others, who are no threat to you, or society, and with the other you aren’t.
we know that don’t we , based on the post that said,
According to that , it’s morally okay to let people die even when we have the ability to save them, providing they are a stranger. Yet is some strange way it’s also okay to interfere in the lives of strangers to force your beliefs on them, because now it’s babies, or potential babies. How’s that for all life being sacred?
You can’t seriously argue that she’s worth arguing with. I mean…“Shut up, shut up, shut up!” Yeah, I’m convinced all right.
I posed similar questions, but she’s still ignoring both of us.
Funnily enough, she didn’t go all out and call women sluts, just indicated that they could have kept their legs closed. I’m not sure what that has to do with getting pregnant. Olympic gymnasts, for example, do the splits all the time, yet they remain—according to appearances and abilities—unimpregnated. I guess women get pregnant all by themselves. It must be magic.
If you want to argue intelligently, you need to learn the terminology. You CONSISTENTLY use the wrong words and phrases. Doing this once or twice is understandable and forgivable. Doing it repeatedly indicates that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and that your entire argument, such as it is, is based only on emotions, without any factual basis whatsoever. The fact that you consistently cite biased sources, and that you think that US senators have a good grip on science knowledge, only makes you more pathetic.
Alive ? Sure. See above: life don’t mean shit.
Human ? It has the potential to become human, sure, but as you say it probably isn’t. Again, it depends on what one defines as “human”. To me, something that isn’t even a partially developed human being isn’t human, even if it carries human DNA. Cancer carries human DNA. My receding hair carries human DNA.
But I’ll grant you that YMMV - all the more reason for individual choice. Nobody draws the line in exactly the same place. I, for one, draw it at birth+15 years :p.
[QUOTE=classyladyhp]
There are two types of manslaughter […] Involuntary manslaughter occurs as a result of negligence. The killer was not provoked, and did not mean to kill anyone, but his or her negligent actions led to a death.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely. A woman who miscarries probably didn’t intend to. But she did. And if an embryo is the same as a human being, then the matter of whether we should burn the slaughtering witch should follow.
I didn’t *intend *my car to run over your mother, why should I be punished for an accident when the formerly pregnant woman isn’t ? She could have done drugs, or forgot to quit smoking, or drunk too many beers that one time, or taken horse riding classes. Any amount of things could have resulted in this lack of implantation, or that tragically early release. It’s not Karma.
So if you think a zygote = a human being, you *should *be calling for investigation over that sort of thing, and severe punishment on negligent expecting mothers.
If you were being intellectually honest and consistent, I mean.
So you’re interpreting my question as some sort of assertion? They’re two different things ya know.
:rolleyes:
http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/chemical-pregnancy.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-emotional-impact-of-early-miscarriage-or-chemical-pregnancy-a211587
Perhaps you should do a little more reading. A chemical pregnancy is a very early miscarriage. I’ll explain further. Chemical means that the presence of HCG has been detected and therefore the embryo had implanted but then went onto miscarry. These women take a test and it is positive then another is negative.