Anybody who opposes abortion but still supports the death penalty is thinking un-sanely, imho.
And there are plenty I’ve met who believe complete lies about the situation, though that’s more about research than sanity.
I wanna soft fetus toy for my birthday, but Mrs. J. is probably going to get me socks again. 
But what the the rational for what makes the stem cell not a person, and the ova adjusted one a person. Both are clearly human so it must be something else. The physical differences are minor, so it must be something other than pure science going on here that makes you willing to discard the first but not the second. I draw the line at what really makes us matter as individuals, namely our sentience.
No minds and spirits aren’t science, the abortion debate is about morality and that is outside the realms of science. What is the science that says slavery is bad? In terms of the start of person hood there aren’t facts there are just opinions. In terms of forcing beliefs it seems clear that the Pro-life side is on the side of forcing everyone to believe as they do than the pro-choice side.
I have direct empathy with a person born on Tuesday or a black person. I know that they have thought processes, sentience, and would experience being killed. Destroying that would be morally wrong. A blob cells with no nerves or consciousness reacting purely through stimulus/response? not so much.
It is as provable/unprovable as your belief that personhood includes a fertilized egg. You acknowledge that human life is not sufficient by your rejection of the stem cell lines.
Why can’t you? Is it because the mocked statement is basically true?
From wiki (my bolding)
"In humans (as in all other mammals, except for monotremes), implantation is the very early stage of pregnancy at which the embryo adheres to the wall of the uterus"
“The trophoblasts adhere by penetrating the endometrium, with protrusions of trophoblast cells.”
Implantation is an embryo-controlled process. It’s not the endometrium catching it, it’s the embryo clinging.
Of course, the endometrium is well prepared for this.
I have trouble with the words “baby” (at six weeks, it’s not even an fetus), “mother” (a mother is a woman who has given birth), and especially “his” (and in all anti-abortion tracts I’ve read, the masculine pronoun is always used).
Bullocks.
Half the blastocyst (it’s not even an embryo yet, much less a baby), the outer half, is what will become the placenta and amniotic sac. The embryo-to-be cells are on the inside, and never touch the endometrium. So, no, it’s not “an embryo-controlled process”. It’s a placenta-cells-to-be controlled process, which doesn’t work without the right mix of hormones from the mother’s body present (that is, too little maternal progesterone, and that sucker’s coming out with the menstrual fluid, fertilized or not). Fetal development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Wouldn’t it be a great world if everybody stopped trying to espouse their beliefs onto everybody else and just let each individual make their own choices in their own life.
Wonderful! Well, until I choose to cover your lawn with soft fetus toys (at least you hope they’re toys. hehehehehe).
I am actually on the declining edge of the Boomer wave. Most of my female friends close to my age are in or exiting menopause, and many of those a few years younger than me are not seriously considering (more) parenthood (even being over forty when conceiving is pretty risky, and all the Boomers view 40 as a fond memory). Yet, the shift in opinion is not obvious. The bulk of the Boomer generation will not be having more children, this has been the case for several years, we should see pro-choice opinions declining. This does not seem to be the case, AFAICT.
virtual beer
That’s correct and proper English, even if it seems dated.
and of course, any fetus could well be the Second Coming of Jesus.
…Bastard can walk on water but he can’t wear a condom…!?
I said few pro-choicers are crazy.
His is generally accepted. I detest his/her, she/he. I could use “it” but then it’s be a “gotcha” by using a pronoun for no-humans.
Baby and mother are common words in English for that situation.
The blastocyst attaches itself to the endometrium, thats a fact. The endometrium does not grab the blastocyst and forcé implantation. The processes are controlled (not exclusively but primarily) by the baby.
Of course, if you put a blastocyst in my grandma’s uterus it ain’t gonna stick, of course the is a interaction, but the porcess is dominated by the blastocys. If the blastocyst were dead, there’d be no implantation.
From your link “The blastocyst reaches the womb (uterus) around day 5, and implants into the uterine wall on about day 6”, it is the blastocyst the "implants into"not the endometrium abosorbing.
Fact, they’re bitches.
No. It’d be hell.
Especially if they are anatomically incorrect.
Have we ever established whether the soft fetus toys make screaming sounds when you squeeze them?
It’d be an added touch of “realism”.*
*And I’d definitely have to get one for Patience the Labrador.
News for Canadians that have the less abortion restrictions, what a hell hole they live in! :rolleyes:
This sounds a lot like arguing whether it is the hook or the loop which is responsible for velcro attaching to something.
I hope you’re not making the argument that the “baby”, as you call it, has some kind of conscious self-determination at that stage of development AND that cellular behavior somehow means that it should be protected. :dubious:
Not really. “Mother” is rarely used for a woman in her first pregnancy without the “expectant” qualifier. “Baby” may be used in personal circles (“oh, the baby kicked”, or “the ultrasound shows you have a normal baby”) when there is a reasonable expectation of carrying to term, but generally speaking, in English we say “embryo” or “fetus”.
One man’s hell is another man’s Kansas.
They come in a realistic amniotic sacs with lime amniotic soda (no sugar added, celiac safe).
Since the quote wasn’t “fewer abortion restrictions” your lame attempt at a brownie point fails.
No, it isn’t.
It’s whether we can say the a key opens a lock (HINT: Yes). Of course, the internal mechanism of the lock allow the key to unlock the necessary thingys inside and keys alone don’t open sihit, but trying to argue against the key’s main role in the opening is a couple of steps beyond angels and pinheads.
No, I’m not on both counts.