Kerry is wrong. The fetus’ status as a human being or not has no bearing whatsoever on the right of the mother to terminate her pregnancy.
It’s a good law. The mother has a right to evict a baby from her body because it’s her body. No one else has that right.
No effective difference, because the age of the fetus has no bearing on its status.
A repost of my question which you utterly ignored:
Been following this thread for days, hope you can tolerate my intrusion.
Easy: 9 months. Save one person, or two people? The nine month pregnancy, assuming it is a viable one, most likely will result in a baby who will thrive without intensive, invasive, and drastic medical intervention even if delivered immediately following the rescue.
Although I’m interested in Your answer to the original scenario as well as your own riff on the dilemma.
See posts 1079 and 1089.
The building is burning…make up your mind.
Honestly, you should answer someone’s question rather than quote it, ignore it, and ask one of your own.
I’m not sure what you think this question will resolve, The choice either way is to leave one pregnant woman to die. The pro choice position is about the woman’s choice , not what I personally think.
Before I answer, how much is a freezer full of frozen embryos worth on the open market?
Quite a bit, depending on how you fence them, I’m sure - but that’s really outside the scope of the little thought experiment. 
Oh well. I see that the little green light next to classylady’s name is out - she’s Offline. I suppose it was either that or explain why it was okay to let little Chrissie fricassee rather than permit the destruction of God’s Little Snowflakes. Too bad - I was looking forward to some high moral equivocation.
I think you posed an interesting question to those who argue sanctity of life vs women’s right to choose about her own body and future. I’ve noticed a persistent inconsistency in the argument offered by anti abortion folks.
but to answer the question , I’d have the girl who couldn’t walk hold on to the freezer, and drag them both down 6 flights of stairs. Girl saved from burning, and I still have a freezer of embryos to fence.
Despite the legislation’s name, I see its effect as an aggravating factor if a pregnant woman is assaulted, rather than a specific protection for the fetus, i.e. the assailant is attempting to forcibly end a woman’s pregnancy, possibly up to and including killing her. She’s being victimized specifically because she is pregnant, and as such I tend to lump it in with hate-crime laws that provide for harsher sentences if a victim is chosen specifically for being black or Jewish or whatever.
Now how about tackling posts 1079 and 1089?
:rolleyes: Jews and black people have thoughts, feelings, desires, and able to feel pain and suffer. I’m also pretty sure that you could ask them and they’d say they didn’t want to be treated in the ways that they have been. A fetus or embryo has none of these traits, so just the fact that someone once said “Jews aren’t really people” and we’re now saying “embryos aren’t people” doesn’t make them the same.
Perhaps more to the point, neither a Jew nor a black person has ever crawled up into my uterus and demanded to live in there for 9 months.
I’ve read through this several times and I must have a glitch in processing it.
Did you just make the claim that fetuses don’t have the qualities listed in the first sentence?
Every tumor that arises from human cells is a human tumor. You have claimed that a tumor is no longer part of the human species, which is absurd, unless you also want to claim that a liver or a pancreas are not part of the human species. Pluck a cell from a human tumor and you’ll find the same 46 chromosomes that you have use to define your human embryo. What distinction do you draw between the two that makes the embryo not only human but also a full person, but denies the same status to the tumor?
Why should a tumor have to ‘become’ something in order to be classified as human, when an embryo does not have to ‘become’ anything to be afforded the same classification? An embryo in a freezer will never become anything, so are they not human?
Just to make it easier on classyladyhp, here are the posts in question:
That’s it exactly and why the “human being/baby from conception” argument fails. It explains the inconsistencies we find in pro life positions.
They like to use the term, but the reality is “potential person”, whether they like it or not and most of them know it.
The only difference is that the intention , or the purpose, of an embryo is to become a person, and the purpose of a tumor or other human cells is not {in most cases} That still results in recognizing that a mass of cells is not a person.
Do you think an embryo or fetus *can *have thoughts, feelings, desires, and the ability to feel pain and suffer? I suppose some of those things may be true for a late-term fetus (the pain thing specifically), but not for those in the 1st and 2nd trimester. Since those are the ones that get aborted, those are the ones we’re talking about. Do you have any evidence that a fetus *does *possess these traits?
Bottom line: As long as blood and organ donation are legally voluntary, so should pregnancy remain. When every person is compelled to give freely parts of their own body to innocent :rolleyes: (or not-so-innocent) recipients, I’ll have a much harder time defending an exception for pregnant women.
Until then, I’ll deal with my own moral compass, thankyouverymuch.
Succinctly captured the essence of it. Thank you.
I see that classyladyhp has only been here a month. Have they posted in any thread but this one? I wonder how the poster found this board.
They never did answer my polite request to provide documentation or factual proof of their beliefs. Only a repeat of their belief.
classyladyhp, I’ll try this. You believe abortion should be illegal. OK, assume you are queen and make the laws and decree the punishments for breaking the law. What would you do to a woman who has an abortion? What about the person who helped perform the operation? Would you have any mercy for them?
Don’t forget that Christ had mercy on offenders. Remember the woman* who was brought before him, who’d committed adultery? By the laws of the time she was deserving of the death penalty, but all he said was for anyone there who hadn’t sinned to cast the first stone. And she was told to leave in peace, and sin no more. Could you do that?
[quote=“brossa, post:1272, topic:580935”]
**Every tumor that arises from human cells is a human tumor. **
[QUOTE]
It’s a human tumor not a human. Go out and do a survey and ask 100 people if they think a tumor is a human being. I’m sure 99/100 will say it is not and the 1 person out of the 100 that says a tumor is a human is a moron.
So if I can find 99/100 who think abortion is not murder, we’re good then?