I suppose some consider it necessary to establish that more personal liberty is better than less personal liberty, but for others this is taken as true by default and the argument redundant.
Yeah I should have been a prolifer.
Then I can give constant self indulgent, self congratulatory idiotic speeches about the glories of fertilized eggs, the sanctity of ectopic pregnancies and the fabulousness that is the zygote. Better yet accuse anyone who disagrees with me of killing Beethoven and acting like Hitler.
Your newborns may have slept a lot. Mine do not.
Beniamino,
A handnail is an inconvenience. A broken umbrella is an inconvenience. A pregnancy with nine months of weight gain and other assorted bad physical symptoms is nothing of the sort. Your side can just STFU when you imply otherwise.
Well bless your heart! You’re so welcome! I’m sure that you mean well.
When you manage to get your anger under control, Czarcasm had an excellent question:
When does a fertilized egg become a human being, classladyhp?
And of course, by “adopting spiritually”, I mean that I will have no responsibility for the health of the mother or the baby that will be born in any way, especially financially. Once the child is born, my responsibilities end, and I will be free to castigate the mother as a whore, and to promote cutting of social services that would benefit the child.
Amen.
I’m pretty sure anyone who refers to pregnancy as an “inconvenience” is unfamiliar with the fun and sunshine and sprinkles that is pregnancy-related death.
So, when does a fertilized egg become a human?
Hey buddy. Don’t put words in my mouth. Read the thread next time and you’ll see that I said ectopic pregnancies need to be aborted because neither the mother nor the fetus will survive. You’re making a fool of yourself with the melodrama.
Pretty much ALL newborns sleep a lot in the first week or so. After the first 1-2 weeks they start sleeping less and then colic starts for some around 3 weeks or so.
So, being proximately responsible for a person’s condition DOES require you to give of your own body to save their life, and DOESN’T require you to give of your own body to save their life, because all persons have full and equal rights.
I see. Perfectly clear. And oh so logical. 
[quote=“Euphonious_Polemic, post:1623, topic:580935”]
Well bless your heart! You’re so welcome! I’m sure that you mean well.
Are you from the South or something?
Wait I think this link is more geared towards your level:
Oh by the way, Czarcasm had an excellent question:
When does a fertilized egg become a human being, classladyhp?
You’re not getting it are you?
In fairness, you’ve asserted so many different beliefs and rationales that we could practically start a page on Wikipedia entitled “Things **classyladyhp **has asserted” and it’d hit the 50th percentile for length.
I am repeating your own assertions, and assembling them into contradictory statements. That’s all there is to it.
Perhaps if you’d take my advice from multiple pages ago, and actually bother to think through your beliefs before you fire off a one-liner…
I think this is an excellent summation of the point we’re trying to get at.
IMO, in order for a discussion to be helpful and promote understanding we have to define the terms and terminology, and clarify the relevant points. I think both sides of the argument are guilty of some bad terminology which may be a result of a lack of communication as well as emotions standing in the way.
So, to recap a few points.
It’s inaccurate for pro choice supporters to claim a zygote or embryo, or early stage fetus is not a human. It is genetically fully human, and recognized by science as such. From conception, it is recognized by science as the early stage of a human life , an individual human being. That’s factual. Can we agree on that?
It’s also inaccurate for pro life supporters to use the emotionally charged terms of baby killers , slaughtering innocents and such. Even if you truly FEEL that way, it doesn’t move the discussion forward.
We’ve managed to have a lengthy discussion without much mention of religion, which IMO, is a plus. If we’re going to discuss life being sacred , or the sanctity of life , let’s do it from a philosophical view and try to apply the term uniformly.
I think **OMG ** has made the point that bodily autonomy is not absolute, although it is far from an insignificant factor concerning this issue. That being the case I think the point I quoted above is significant. What are the issues of justice and human rights, in this issue, and the practical real life consequences of the available choices before us.
I think the discussion would move forward a lot better and be more productive if we could do away with much of this. You mentioned that pro choice supporters come off as thinking they are intellectually superior to pro choice supporters. I think that’s true in a lot of cases but perhaps you can understand how religious arguments and the term baby killers prompts that kind of response. You’ve established you’re capable of having a fact based intelligent discussion on the issue. Perhaps you’ve vented enough that you can leave out the unnecessary and unhelpful condescension and snark so we can deal with the relevant points.
Nobody is trying to legally force their definition on you. That’s the relevant difference.
It’s a question that society must deal with legally and philosophically. We have to draw certain lines and abide by them together. In areas where the lines are not clear, allowing people the choice is one way of handling it. Insisting that pro choice removes the rights of a segment of the population inaccurate and needs to be left out of the discussion. It’s your opinion, and no more.
It’s not really that simple. Even if we establish that an embryo is deserving of some protection we’re faced with a legal and moral judgement about society’s right to force an individual to physically bear another individual. It’s been pointed out over and over, that we don’t do that. Nobody can legally require you , under threat of some punishment, to give your blood and body to another. Is that a door you want to open, that under the umbrella of what’s morally correct the government can take you to a hospital and use your body to aide another , even against your will?
Another complete falsehood that needs to be eliminated from the discussion. You’re obviously an intelligent person but I don’t see your intelligence reflected in this assertion.
I think Bryan has made an excellent argument for his case, {if I understand it correctly} that even if we did designate an embryo as a person due equal consideration under the law, there is no law to force one person to biologically support another. I’m not sure we can find an accurate analogy but I’ll play.
Let’s say I take my elderly father into my home, and as his health fails quickly, the burden on me, and my resources, is more than I’m willing to bear.After all I have my own future and my own family to be responsible for. He needs a transfusion from me on a regular basis and it’s affecting my ability to work. The down side is that there is nobody else to care for him.
Is there, or should there be, a law or moral obligation, for me to deplete my resources and put my life and health at risk for him, or should I have the right to choose for the sake of my own life, over his?
Is there any legal precedent that compels me continue to care and support his life? Anyone?
You’re not the board’s only prolife nutter.
:rolleyes:
You and your ilk need to stop pretending that pregnancy and newborn care are minor inconveniences. You look like nitwits when you do that. Women don’t have abortions because they’re selfish bitches who want to kill babies. Many have them because they really do think that babies are better off born when a woman is truly ready to be mom. Most rational people understand that raising babies and children is an intensely demanding activity that should be entered into under the best possible circumstances and not just because the birth control failed.
A fetus starts out as a single, fertilized cell and over 40 weeks developes into a baby. There is no point at which a definitive line can be drawn to say “before this point this not a baby” and “after this point this is a baby”, just as in this statement there is no point you can definitively the color of the text has changed from purple to blue. Does this mean the color was blue from the start?