Which of those books you read purported to be the authority from which all pro-life people take their guidance?
At best, you might demonstrate that some pro-life people would answer in the way you have.
Are those your definitons of personhood?
Her intent is not to protect her life aside from where her abortion is medically necessary. it’s not the same thing at all.Keep trying.
Killing the fetus is the only way to end the pregnancy. It is the intent.
You can’t even argue a point without resulting to insults can you? No you can’t.
Who are you trying to impress by constantly trying to prove you are smarter than I am. Really? Could it be because you are insecure?
Please bother to respond to the list of scenarios presented in post #1359. They are quite compelling.
It isn’t a difficult thing to prove as long as you continue to help them by doing things like using “resulting” when you mean “resorting.”
Thank you. You answered my question, even though your answer was an attempt to dodge it.
You’d save the girl. You’d allow to die, or risk the death of by your attempt to re-write my scenario, 500 of God’s Little Snowflakes rather than allow one girl to die.
Why? The same reason anyone would. Because the girl is a human person and no embryo is and on a visceral level, below the level of whatever conditioning or indoctrination you have received from wherever you go for it you know that.
No: hence, for example only. I don’t really think personhood is terribly relevant.
No, it is not. EVEN IF the only way to end the pregnancy is to kill the fetus, that does not make it her intent, from a moral, ethical, or legal standpoint. Again, you need to understand the principle of double effect.
This, incidentally, is the same ethical standard the Catholic Church uses to (logically!) justify abortion in the case of tubal pregnancy. The intent is to end a potentially fatal pregnancy, and the death of the fetus is justified because it is not the intent of the primary action, which is valid and moral in and of itself.
Also, if you want insult-free debate, start a thread in GD. This is the Pit, and I am insulting you for my own amusement WHILE instructing you in the actual rules of logic.
Do you have a cite for your number of “most”?
At any rate, the OP was about protesters at a clinic, who do not know (or care?) about the circumstances of why someone is going into the clinic.
So do you approve of those who protest in front of a clinic, even though they are yelling and shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in front of women who ARE facing those very circumstances? Or doing this to women who may be going in for birth control so that they DON’T have to get an abortion?
Do you support these protesters? (this is what the OP is about).
As long as they don’t use violence I support it. I don’t see a problem with showing them pictures of fetuses. Hopefully a life can be saved.
They are doing far less harm than the women who are going to the clinic to end their pregnancies anyways.
That’s nice. I’m glad I could provide you with some form of amusement:rolleyes:
No. I did not say that. the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet.
What about the vast majority of women who are going there for routine gynecological care and birth control prescriptions? Does the amount of harm done to them not matter to you?
So, are you ready for a final answer on whether human life begins and human rights apply at conception or at implantation?
Yes you did say that. The post I am quoting as your attempt to dodge yet further by adding other parts to the given scenario, specifically, “the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet.”
In this thread you had done this dodge repeatedly. You also refuse to answer questions, or offer proof of your beliefs. You are not worth the time of the posters who hold views that are opposite of yours.
Thanks for answering.
So basically, the ends justify the means, and if the protesters cause emotional distress to lots of folks that are not having an abortion, that’s OK if they save an embryo. They can do anything they want short of violence, since saving one embryo is worth it, no matter who else they hurt.
So forcing death upon an individual doesn’t violate their right to bodily autonomy? Now that’s just absurd.
And the mental gymnastics continues. There isn’t a single women I know of who has an abortion with the mind of being a mother to that child which is aborted. As it is, a simple fact of the matter is that women don’t overwhelmingly have abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant; they have abortions because they don’t want to be a mother to that child or because being a mother would interfere with their lives. So yes, much to your consternation, the intent of those women (which, ftr, are the majority of women) is to kill the unborn so they don’t have to be mothers to them. There are no and’s, if’s or but’s about it.
Funnily enough, none of them want to take the bait. You did, though, arguing that a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy which can be violated to prevent her from acting in certain ways against the unborn. An argument, mind you, in which you’ve still failed to find the contradiction.
You’re going to be hard-pressed to explain how killing the unborn for reasons which often amount to convenience is a good or neutral action, or how killing the unborn out of convenience breeds more good than not being allowed to kill it out of convenience, or even how abusing the unborn for convenience is neither a good or neutral act while killing it, is. Again, that requires a large amount of cognitive dissonance on your part.
There is no might. Does it really not bother you that you are, like, fifty years behind the curve here and have no understanding of sixth grade biology?
So basically you’re saying that everyone is right in their arguments so long as they believe their own axioms upon which their arguments are based to be true? Well, now. That’s just ridiculous. If we’re going to play that game, then you agree that if I want to go on a murderous rampage because my worldview dictates that others have no inherent worth, I should be allowed to, right? Right?!?!?!
Interesting snippage there. I’ll bring back the point of that post - do you not understand what the terms “beginning of a new human being” and “human development” mean? I’ll help - they mean that we are talking about something that has begun to be a new human, and will develop into a human. Which means that science does not feel that it is a human at fertilization or even at implantation but merely something that might develop into a human.
Yes, that would be “fettering” 
and I do mean legally. For example, I suppose it’s legal for a woman to have an abortion at birth minus one day, but I cannot imagine that any doctor would feel that was in her best interests.
Perhaps that’s just a limitation of your imagination? If it’s legal, there will be doctors willing to execute the procedure.
Apparently it is to all of those in this thread.
This is your first post on the last page. Do you mean your first post on the prior page? Have you not noticed how quickly this thread moves? The post/page you are referring to could be 2-3 pages back. If you really want an answer, you would simply repost the question.
It only makes sense if you believe that the fetus can feel pain early on, which it doesn’t. You do understand that something without a working nervous system cannot feel pain, or anything else? Without a working brain, it cannot feel fear?
Nobody has complete bodily autonomy - in most states, attempted suicide is illegal, as would be self serve surgery. If a woman does something purposeful, such as drink herself into a stupor every day or shoot up crack AND she chooses to maintain her pregnancy until birth, the law steps in because she is purposefully creating a life that will be severely injured at birth.
I am having trouble believing that you do not see the difference between flushing out a clump of cells, and attempts to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.
Uh, yeah. You want to force every woman who gets pregnant to carry to term, no matter what. How is that not control?
Shrug. I go with science. You want to think I’m ignorant, it’s your problem not mine.
:rolleyes: No wonder you can’t see facts. No matter how you want to twist it around, “beginning of human” does not equal “human”, except to those who want it to due to religious reasons or whatever. A fertilized egg has no human characteristics, and an early fetus looks more like a fish than a person. Sure, it’s got human DNA, but so does my left hand and my left hand does not have rights separate to me.
Then the obvious solution is to not argue with pro-choice people - just leave them alone, which is all they want. If it wasn’t for anti-abortion people trying to force their beliefs on others, there would be no controversy.
Oh, OK, I’ll change it to “any doctor not in danger of losing his license”. Better?
Why is the doctor in jeopardy of losing their license if the activity is legal?
Once again, genetically human in make up does not make a clump of cells a person. We’ve been over this a lot and simple logic tells you it’s true. when it comes to a pregnancy, I’d say the courts decide, and individuals decide. We’ve gone over that before to. Nobody is telling you to not consider an embryo a person. We’re saying that folks like you who believe that, don’t get to make the decision for others.
Once again, this is not relevant IMO. If you can explain in a reasonable way, why it is, I’ll reconsider. If your point is, those attitudes were wrong so this one is too, it simply doesn’t follow at all, or apply. If anything, in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it is the people who claim abortions should be illegal who want to enslave women by taking away their choices about their own body.
Again, please explain how this is relevant. Newborns are dependent on the care of others, but are physically independent from their mothers. That’s why viability is an issue, and so few abortions are done after viability. You are the one making the “from the moment of conception” claim and you have been unable to support it. As others have pointed out your own reasoning contains some major contradictions.
You claimed that all life is sacred, but then claim that you are under no obligation to donate blood or organs to stranger. Still, you think you and other anti abortionists ought to have the right to dictate to women who are strangers, that they should be required by law to remain pregnant and give of their bodies against their will.
I don’t see any consistent reasoning in the anti abortionists arguments.