Oh but it is totally relevant. Many pro-choicers make the claim that the fetus has no right to life because it is not a person.
Others have justified the killing of Jews and the oppression of blacks and women using the same argument.
So tell me how it is not relevant.
I ask the pro-choicers to prove to me that the fetus in not a person. Can you prove it?
He’s leaving out a a couple of crucial elements. Not very impressive for a PHD in philosophy.
I think you missed the point of the comment I responded to. You’re implying that the embryo becomes a human and the tumor can’t. If the embryo becomes a human, then at some point it isn’t one yet.
CLHP
Partial moles with a viable foetus or molar/viable twin pregnancies occur.
Does a woman get a pass to terminate the viable foetus in order to save her life from the threat posed to it from the molar tissue?
Choriocarcinomas have been diagnosed in women who have had live births- if there was a way to find out during that seemingly normal pregnancy that choriocarcinoma would happen, would abortion be ok?
I was super specific in my use of language in the posts about chemical pregnancy. I said it was a poor term because it included events which were not even pregnancies, not that all “chemical pregnancies” occurred prior to implantation.
I already have in a previous post. Maybe you could explain why you think it is.
Let’s not rehash old material. Nobody has to prove anything since nobody is trying to force a belief or choice on you. If you want to believe a fetus is a person and make your choice accordingly , pro choice people support that.
That is not what I meant. The embryo is human.
This is very important though. If the fetus is a person then abortion should be illegal. It shouldn’t be a question of choice.
Since you have seen fit to ignore any questions that might actually make you examine your views or stop spewing contradictory declarative statements…
We’ve met you, haven’t we?
What is he leaving out?
Again, that doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask how to stop miscarriages. I didn’t ask whether or not you were opposed to miscarriages. I asked why, if that’s the ending of a sacred human life, you don’t advocate that such events are given official solemnity and recognition.
This is a relevant point, because it illustrates the hypocrisy of the claim that conception is the point at which personhood attaches. The “at conception” model of personhood only ever comes into play in the argument against abortion.
If blastocysts and early embryos and even early fetuses were actual persons, who are endowed with full human rights by simple of their existence, then it would be raging hypocrisy and utter callousness to be perfectly okay with the fact that they’re flushed down the toilet and tossed out in the trash, wrapped up on dirty maxi pads. If those are people, little preborn human beings, how can treating them in that fashion upon their deaths be tolerable?
That’s the IF alright. It even involves more than that, when deciding the right of the woman to make choices about her own body. It’s not something we can just declare something is factual though, simply because it’s very important.
Person-hood, isn’t easily defined by courts, science, or philosophy. That’s why we have the laws we have now. Since you really don’t know, you don’t get to decide. You get to choose what your conscience tells you, not what their conscience should be.
Sure it is, a potential person, but not a person yet.
Isn’t it obvious? He seems to be claiming since we don’t know , the most moral and safest choice is to decide it is a person , based on his analogies. The problem is his analogies are woefully incomplete.
If you drive around a coat in the road because it may be a person, that person isn’t attached to your body. The hunter that may be in the woods isn’t either.
Too hard, apparently, for classyladymyass, who still will not (cannot?) respond.
repost the question my dearass.
Nice try buddy. I asked you to SERIOUSLY answer the question. I didn’t ask you to use insults to avoid the question.
This thread should be reopened in great debates so we don’t get the "lets avoid the question because I can’t give her an example so I’ll just insult her "answers.
I wonder if we might illustrate something by experiment:
Assumed:
[ul]
[li]You’re a person who is able to lift no more than 150 lbs and carry that weight down six floors of fire escape one time only before becoming exhausted;[/li][li]You’re on the sixth floor of a building with a freezer of viable human embryos, say 500 in all, and a teenage girl who for whatever reason cannot walk. [/li][li]Both the girl and the freezer weigh 150 lbs.;[/li][li]The building is on fire;[/li][li]You can save only one.[/li][/ul] Choose. Will you let the girl die, or the freezer of 500 embryos?
What is the reason for your choosing the way you do?
U.S. Federal Law:
Public Law 108-212 “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004,” a.k.a. Laci and Connor’s Law recognizes that an unborn embryo or fetus can be a legal victim if it is injured or killed during the . commission of a federal crime of violence. There are over 60 such crimes defined. The law was named after a mother, Laci Peterson, and her fetus, Connor Peterson, who were murdered circa 2002-Christmas by Scott Peterson in California. The law defines “a child in utero” as any “member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
The bill passed the House by a vote of 254 to 163 on 2004-FEB-26. It passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38 on 2004-MAR-25. President George W Bush signed it into law on 2004-APR-01. He said:
“Any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child’s life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law.”
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who ran against Bush in 2004, voted against the bill. He said:
“I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”
Any comments?
How about someone answers this question:
The scenario is the same except that. There are two people and you have to choose which one to save. Do you save the woman that is 3 months pregnant or the woman that is 9 months pregnant?
How about you answer mine first?