That is simply not true at all.
Here’s more of the gymnastics you like to mention. Science says a zygote or embryo is fully genetically human. It also tells us that a zygote or embryo or early fetus, has no separate consciousness. Science makes no claim about them being a human being, in the way that counts here. Are they individuals without any brain or consciousness? Are they equal citizens? Yours is an inaccurate and disingenuous argument.
Science tells us a zygote or embryo is the beginning stage that MAY, develop into an individual person. It doesn’t say it is one.
Abortion was legal in the US until 1867 and in Britain until 1803. Just so you know.
You don’t know why I would say you are messing around and avoiding the point? Just look at your previous sentence and your retarded smiley. Not answering the question is not impressing anyone, even if you think you’re being terribly clever.
And there we have it. The inevitable conflation between human being and person. And people said my fictional argument with a pro-choicer was a straw man. Please. It just goes to show how little of their own argument pro-choicers really know and understand, and just how quick they are to try to move the proverbial goalposts. Moving on in that not-so-hypothetical-convertation-anymore, what does consciousness have to do with being a ‘person’? I don’t think you want to go there, for I have a sneaky suspicion you understand less on this point than you think.
The 1867 bit is a flat out lie. Look at the above list and count how many states and territories had instituted restrictions on abortion prior to 1867.
No. I perfectly well know why why you would think that. Yes, look at the sentence. Meditate and reflect on it. Then come back to me. Actually, read some of the stuff I typed out, then come back to me.
We have restrictions on abortion right now- does that make abortion not legal? Not knowing the laws- were they laws restricting abortion or laws making it wholesale illegal?
read the link and tell me exactly how your post refutes it. I generalized for brevity’s sake. Abortion laws developed over time.
from my link
Your link doesn’t refute that abortion was practiced and legal, and the sentiment against it developed over time for several reasons listed in my link. It wasn’t all some moral desire to protect human life.
I’m very well aware of abortion laws in the U.S. and their history. You didn’t generalize for brevity’s sake. You made a statement which was just flat out false.
Missed this earlier becasue the quote tag was mistyped.
No, it’s actually very true. It may be different in Canada, but in the U.S. neither slaves nor women have ever been defined as being non-persons. Even Dred Scott consistently references Blacks/slaves as persons.
Then they were persons who were property, and they were subject to numerous restrictions and killing such a person did not carry the same penalty as killing a white person. If they were indeed “persons”, they certainly weren’t equal persons, which I figure (with my modern sensibilities) defeats the purpose of personhood.
When was this? Not in Roe, as far as I can tell.
Yes, the same argument was made and it still had to go through round after round of appeals and get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and the process wasn’t complete (arguably, it still isn’t) until the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Are you suggesting fetuses should get the same result automatically? Okay, then so should people wanting gay marriage. So who gets fast-tracked and who doesn’t?
Oh, I get that you’re indifferent to the realities. In this case, though, the killing of someone is contingent on a woman choosing not to continue a pregnancy. It doesn’t really matter if she’s wealthy (and could support the child if she wanted to) or there were numerous people standing by to adopt. It’s her choice, I figure. Taking away that choice has certain costs, both to her and society, for benefits of dubious value.
You want her to have responsibility for a situation and yet deny her the autonomy to resolve it as she sees fit? I don’t see your basis for demanding that authority without assuming any responsibility. I basically have no confidence you’re thought this through or have any interest in doing so.
And you’ve yet to define “moral black hole”. Shall I assume that was empty rhetoric?
What else do you thnk it MAY develop into…a frog?
The term ignorance is in no way an insult so please stop trying to play the victim here. If you’re in doubt look it up.
People do have a right to their own opinion but if you’re going to enter into a discussion with others of your own free will, it helps if you know some facts about the subject you’re talking about.
Facts matter, and there’s and an uninformed opinion based on falsehoods doesn’t contribute much. If you’re really interested it helps to do some research and reading.
For fuck sake lady, THINK about it before you post this kind of bullshit. You might save yourself some embarrassment.
Of course not. Do you really think that what people are saying? It may develop into a human, if that development proceeds. Many, many situations outside of abortion can cause that development not to proceed, including in uterine environment, genetic makeup of the fetus, exposure to toxins, health of the mother etc.
However, just because a human being is the end-stage of development, it does not mean that every stage of development is classified as a human being.
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you leave flippant comments aside.
ETA: I am very curious about your opinion that Jewish law and tradition has a completely different take on fetal “humanity” than Christianity does (I posted an earlier link). Even if religions ostensibly rooted in the same core beliefs can come to such significantly different conclusions about abortion, how do you think anyone can have a handle on truth for anyone but themselves?
You’re the one who said “prohibitions against abortion span back thousands of years”, and you want to accuse me of a flat out lie?
So you really are defending ‘babies make people happy so we should have as many babies as possible’? Honestly, I don’t know if it’s just me but I’m having trouble understanding a lot of your posts because your language is not very clear and it’s hard to tell when you think you’re being funny and when you’re being serious. You came into this thread with the attitude “haha, look at those stupid pro-chiocers, der!” and have just flung that around without backing up your positions at all (the ‘discussion’ between a ‘typical’ pro-choicer and pro-lifer was the worst of this). I’m sure your position seems self evident to you, but if you want to debate you really need to do better than that.
See what I mean? At least she decided to keep her Downs baby.
No I did not. Was abortion legal in this country in 1867? Check your own post for the answer. You conveniently ignored the the relevant history that my link provides
The point is that historically abortion was not viewed as you are are trying to paint it now. People did not see a zygote or embryo as a person.
When are you going to answer my questions as to your actual position concerning conception?
Many people who are pro-choice come to that conclusion too, as a personal choice for their family.
There’s a problem with that because many pro-choicers on this thread are saying that the fetus needs to be sentient to be a human being. A newborn is not sentient in the way an adult is sentient. Should we be able to kill babies that are just born? Which is it?
Do you actually know what sentience means? If you think that means killing newborns is okay, you’re a moron.
She tends to ignore the more difficult posts in order to post more self righteous platitudes based on false information. And to complain about being insulted, even when she’s not.