:smack:Oh my gosh. An embryo/zygote is a HUMAN life. Human life starts at conception. A skin tag is a fucking skin tag. I’ve never met a skin tag that became a human. Perhaps you have?
It is very dangerous to use the not a person argument to defend abortion. Was that not the same argument to justify the killing of Jews and the oppression of blacks?
Molar pregnancies are abnormal and not viable so you can’t even compare that to a normal embryo/zygote. There is no way that a molar pregnancy will end with a live normal fetus. Your point makes no sense.
There are plenty of inconsistencies in the thinking. One that I keep noticing is those who claim “human being from conception” don’t think women and medical staff that are involved in abortion should be tried for murder. If you’re really mentally and emotionally committed to concept then abortion would be no different than smothering a baby in a crib right. Yet I haven’t met anyone yet who is that committed to the concept. IMO, it indicates some doubt in their consciousness about their own claims. Somewhere in their mind they realize, it’s not really the same, and an embryo is not a baby.
Maybe , like other SSM and other issues, they’re happy to have these issues resolved out of the public eye where they can easily ignore it, but when out in the open they have some desire to prove their personal morals are right, by forcing them on others.
What in the hell are we supposed to do about natural miscarriages:smack: I oppose the deliberate ending of the life of the fetus by it’s own mother.
I’m sure some women who suspected they were pregnant and go on to get their period are quite upset about it.
Please try and make a relevant point next time.
A tumor is not an innocent life. If it’s cancerous it is actually going to end up killing you so I 've got no problem killing it. What a ridiculous statement:smack:
I’ve also never met a tumor that became human. Have you ever heard of a tumor becoming a human?
That seems like the reasonable and compassionate response to me.
I agree that people should be expected to vote their conscience. What I don’t respect much are efforts to circumvent existing law without providing the resources.
Then you should be for infanticide as well. If you believe that you need to be sentient before you can be called a person then it is ok to kill a newborn. Are you ok with killing a newborn? if you believe you have to be sentient to be a human then you would have to agree with letting mothers kill their newborns. As non-sentient beings newborns have less rights than the mother.
The slippery slope argument? Isn’t that what Catholicism uses to argue against contraception?
It’s not dangerous when the facts and reason support it. Society had to draw lines. There’s really no alternative.
Wait a minute, what’s this nonsense about ‘becoming a human’? It’s already human, isn’t it?
So, number one: the fetus is a person, and you know it. You’re right.
Number two: the fetus is not a person and you know that. You’re right.
Number three: the fetus is a person and you don’t know that. You think it’s not. You’re wrong.
Number four: the fetus is not a person and you think it is. You don’t know the truth. You’re wrong. (Like a Pascal’s wager, two chances of being right, two chances of being wrong.)
What is abortion in each of these cases? The only four possible cases, logically.
Murder. Case number one: The fetus is a human person, and you know that it is a human person, and nevertheless you kill it. That’s murder. That’s the legal definition of murder. Knowingly and deliberately imposing violent death upon an innocent human person that you know to be an innocent human person.
Manslaughter. The second possibility. The fetus is, in fact, a person, and you don’t know that. You think it’s not a person. You sincerely believe that, “Well, maybe it’s not a person, I don’t know it. I don’t know whether it is or not,” and you kill it. What’s that? Legally, that is manslaughter. Not deliberate murder. It’s like running over an overcoat on a dark night in the middle of a highway, that has the shape of a human being, and it might be an old drunk who’s just lying there, stoned in the road. And it might just be an overcoat. And you don’t swerve, you deliberately run over it. Or, it’s like shooting a movement in the bush that might be a deer, and it might be your fellow hunter. Or, it’s like fumigating a dormitory without being sure that all the students are out, and the fumigation kills them. You might be lucky. You might find that there is no man under the coat, and there is no hunter behind the bush, and there is no student in the dormitory, but you didn’t know that and nevertheless you shot, you fumigated.
Criminal Negligence. That’s criminal negligence if there’s nobody there, it’s manslaughter if there is somebody there. All three cases—murder, criminal negligence, and manslaughter—are bad.
So only the fourth case justifies abortion, and it does.
So, if you can give me some argument that the fourth case is true—not just that a fetus is not a human person, but also you know that it is not a human person, then fine. You’re right. But if you don’t know, if you’re a skeptic, if you say “These pro-lifers are dogmatists, they claim the fetus is a person. Who knows?” Well, that’s all the more reason for not shooting. Exactly because you don’t know.
The above quote is from a phd in philosophy from Boston college. Please discuss.
You know perfectly well what I mean. I’ll rephrase it though. A tumor is not human. Do you know of a human tumor?
Show me an example of a tumor that is a human being.
You’re not answering the question. Wasn’t the not a person argument used to justify the killing of jews and the oppression of blacks and women?
While contemplating the loss of human life associated with abortion, there is the following to consider.
Abortion, when legally performed in developed countries, is among the safest procedures in medicine. In such settings, risk of maternal death is between 0.2–1.2 per 100,000 procedures. In comparison, by 1996, mortality from childbirth in developed countries was 11 times greater. Unsafe abortions (defined by the World Health Organization as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities) carry a high risk of maternal death and other complications. For unsafe procedures, the mortality rate has been estimated at 367 per 100,000 (70,000 women per year worldwide).
So, classyladyhp, are you comfortable with eliminating access to safe, legal abortion and subjecting women to an 11-fold increase in mortality by requiring that their pregnancies be carried to term? Or more realistically, since many will revert to seeking an illegal remedy, forcing them to assume a far greater risk of death through unsafe illegal abortions?
Does that potential loss of innocent life trouble you? Or is “innocent life” a relative term that applies only to your concept of infanthood, and not to adult women?
but I didn’t say that so no points for you. 
Nitpick: sapient. Babby is sentient well before birth because s/he can feel. They are not sapient until – well, no one really knows where to draw the line – because they cannot exercise intelligence and discernment as per a fully grown human.
No I’m not, because it’s not relevant to this discussion. The “is it a person” question cannot be dismissed by showing it was once answered incorrectly.
Whoops. There’s one of those pesky inconsistencies again. Darn them.
Didn’t think you would answer it anyways.
I already responded to the other person. Guess you conveniently missed the response:rolleyes:
A tumor is not human. Show me a tumor that is human. A tumor has no right to life. It is not part of the human species.