A fetus is also a developing corpse, with a significantly higher chance of 100%. Why don’t we treat it as that?
I’m sorry you don’t understand. Movement starts at 7 weeks so if most abortions are done by 9 weeks or by 12-13 weeks or the end of the first trimester then some abortions are done on fetuses that can move.
No it is not a developing corpse. It is a developing human being. We don’t call people who are alive potential corpses. That’s just silly.
-
Movement doesn’t start at 7 weeks, which I just pointed out.
-
It’s obvious that some abortions are done on fetuses that can move. However, nothing you have posted actually refutes the claim you are responding to.
Of course it’s a developing corpse. Over time, left to its own devices, it will become a corpse. This development requires even less input than does a fetus. As you and I sit in front of our computers, we are gradually developing into corpses - not potentially, but with certainty.
I agree with you - calling people who are alive potential corpses, treating them as the future cadavers that they will be, is an entirely silly idea. So why is it reasonable and rational to treat fetuses as they future human beings they may be? Why is that not equally silly? They rely on the same argument.
My spit contains all the information necessary to create a potential me. If a single celled organism is a human being then I’ve killed far more people than Stalin.
No, it isn’t. I have a mind and it doesn’t.
And guess what? If they are far enough into those conditions, they aren’t people morally or legally and can be disassembled for their organs. Except possibly for mental retardation, since if it’s that bad I’m not sure if it would even be called that anymore. You seem to be confusing “somewhat less capable than a normal person” with “totally mindless”, when it is the latter we’re speaking of.
Sperm is just as much a potential human being as a fertilized egg. And as said, every cell with DNA has the recipe for making a human. You are trying to make something trivial into something important.
I think that’s a valid point of view, but only if you think that the only reason/circumstance anyone should ever have sex is if they desire/are willing to create a child. As far as I know, the vast, vast majority of people don’t believe that. Moreover, the laws of most westernized countries don’t take that view, rather over the decades increasingly see sexual matters as private when they occur between consenting adults.
You could say that by staying barricaded in your home you can avoid marauding gangs of music lovers, and by ‘allowing’ yourself to be captured you have chosen to support the violinist. I’d argue that this isn’t the case.
I should clarify that, for me at least, the gang of music lovers isn’t analogous to the father of the fetus - it’s simply a stand in for the biological circumstance of conception. So for me whether the woman was raped really doesn’t have anything to do with it. Except perhaps that rape victims should be given even more careful treatment and supported in their choices (whatever choices they make) to the fullest extent possible to avoid re-victimization.
The Violinist argument falls flat immediately due to the problem that he’s a person, while a fetus is not. An unconscious person with a shut down mind isn’t the same at all as someone with no mind at all. If you wanted the analogy to work, you’d have to begin with “a skilled violinist all of whose higher brain tissue has been surgically removed and cremated, and replaced with blank cloned tissue that will develop into a new personality in some years if he is awakened…”
Again, you are missing the pro-choice purpose. It’s not to convince you to believe anything. It’s to allow people to follow their own legitimate moral code. Plenty of people who are anti-abortion are pro-choice. But they have respect to understand that this is a complex and nuanced topic and moral people may come to logical and reasonable conclusions that differ from their own.
Pro-life people do not have a monopoly on morals, truth and wisdom.
You’re wrong. Fetal movement starts well before week 9:
No, you’re wrong. In any event, even your own Wikipedia citation notes that deliberate movement doesn’t begin until the 18th week.
I personally don’t feel that the act of killing your own child should be part of someone’s moral code. Obviously not everyone has the same morals. If everyone had the same morals there would be no need for prisons. Nor do I feel it is a legitimate moral code. It’s immoral.
Well, that’s nice for you, but the point is why should anyone else give a shit about your personal moral code?
The poster I was responding to DID NOT specify deliberate movement they just said movement. Therefore I am right. I backed it up with 2 different links stating that movement begins before the ninth week. Thank you.
Again, it’s not a child no matter how often you say it is. It’s a mindless thing, and will still be mindless whether you call it a piece of meat, a fetus, a child or a shoggoth. The word games the anti-abortionists are so fond of are ultimately meaningless.
Of course you feel that way; it wouldn’t do to have to treat women as people now, would it?
Did I say everyone had to follow my moral code? If they did no one would have any abortions. I don’t presume to be able to get people to follow my moral code. I simply stated that in MY moral code abortion is not acceptable. Don’t twist my words around please.
Also please don’t be condescending with me. Who gave YOU the right to ridicule my morals and values???
The bolded is a complete falsehood, and I challenge you to find me where human rights are constrained by sentience. If they were, then they wouldn’t be human rights, and would extend to most every animal. Human rights are thusly called as such because they are rights afforded to all humans.
Higher brain functions =/= having a mind.
The First Amendment.
Sorry just because YOU say it’s not a person doesn’t mean it’s not. It’s a human being that is about to be murdered by it’s own mother. I never said women were not people. Stop making assumptions.