You can say what you want obviously. I am also using my first amendment right in order to tell you that I don’t need the condescension.
That’s easy, since I already have done so repeatedly. Organ donation. We can disassemble a mindless human for parts.
Well, no kidding. You’ve made that eminently clear. You continue to miss the point. You conflate pro-choice with thinking abortion is ok. I am trying to show you a more nuanced picture of what it means to be pro-choice. You are welcome to your point of view up to the point where you impose it on me.
You clearly have no respect for moral perspectives on this issue that differ from your own.
No, but the facts DO mean that it isn’t a person.
Not assumption. You want to treat women as walking wombs, you want to treat them as being inferior to a mindless mass of tissue. You want to treat them as less even than an animal.
I’ll grant you the first point, but as to the second, Wikipedia isn’t an authoritative citation.
You can’t have it both ways. If you concede that nobody else should have to follow your moral code, then you’re pro-choice.
Not that I’ve actually ridiculed them, but you gave me the right by discussing them on a message board.
If you say so:rolleyes:
Yes you have ridiculed me. It would be nice to have an intelligent adult discussion but alas it is not to be.
What am I supposed to do exactly? How would I go about forcing someone not to have an abortion. I obviously don’t have the power to do this. I’m not the President just a regular person.
Yes, it is. And having a mind has nothing to do with being human. Dogs have minds. Does that make them human? The criteria by which you set forth isn’t solely indicative of humans, and isn’t any kind of measure of being a human.
No, they can’t. If this were true, there wouldn’t be an organ shortage. What country do you live in?
I’m not confusing anything. If anyone is engaging in conflations, it would be you.
I’m trying not to come off as abrasive, but perhaps you should take a basic biology class. A fetus isn’t a “potential” human. It is a human, whether or not you choose to accept that fact (and I have a sneaky suspicion no matter how many sources I provide you, that you won’t accept it). I would suggest, at the very least, brushing up on embryology.
…and many of the pro-choicers on this thread have no respect for my point of view either. Don’t try and single me out. It’s rather hypocritical.
And this talk about “not forcing people to follow someone else’s moral code” is a complete red herring, not to mention a farce, as that line of thinking is more or less restricted to abortion.
Sez you. As a moral actor, I’m perfectly free to define it however I choose, and act in ways to bring the laws of my region closer in line with my definition.
You have no right to define my axioms any more than I have a right to define yours. Want me to believe a proposition? Bring evidence that it’s a law of nature, or bring an argument other than “nuh-uh!”
You too: just because YOU say it’s a person doesn’t make it so.
No, we can’t. Even individuals who are dead still have rights.
So what if the the fetus was murdering it’s mother? Where do you draw the line on the health of the mother? Would you condone (even grudgingly) abortion to save the mother?
If so, you then accept that there is a line where abortion is ok and that you and I draw the line differently. Then it is no longer so black and white- we are now exploring those shades of gray. Some moms choose to continue a pregnancy that puts their life at risk, some do not. Do you respect that? If so, who gets to make the choice- the state? The doctors? The woman? If it’s the woman- then it’s another example of supporting the mother’s right to choose what happens to her body.
If not, then you are putting the rights of the fetus ahead of the mother. What is the justification for that? The “innocence” of the fetus trumps the well being of the mother? That to me is immoral.
No, I haven’t. If you think I have, feel free to quote me.
You’d do the same thing other people who feel strongly on issues do: vote. If you don’t actually vote for legislative candidates who want to restrict abortion, then it doesn’t matter what you think of abortion.
[QUOTE=Omg a Black Conservative]
No, we can’t. Even individuals who are dead still have rights.
[/QUOTE]
No, they don’t. Their heirs may have rights regarding their remains and the like, and they may have exercised some rights while alive which affect their treatment when they’re dead, but people cease to have rights when they die. How would a dead person exercise his rights? Haunting?
You didn’t say human rights should attach to a sentient mind/personality. You said that human rights attach to a sentient mind/personality, which is 100% false as a cursory glance at the definition of human rights will tell you.
You’re not perfectly free to make a false statement.
And gun rights/gun control. And gay marriage. And a host of other issues.
Whose definition, again? I didn’t see where you quoted someone who’s authoritative over me on that subject. As we’re discussing MORAL views, and not LEGAL ones, I think you’ll have a hard time.
More links about fetal movement in the first trimester:
That link appears to support my argument. Thanks?
I note, while we’re discussing the importance of definition, that your cite says both 7 weeks AND 9 weeks, depending on how one counts.
Limited rights, not no rights. It’s illegal to harvest organs from a deceased person’s body, even if (s)he has no family to object, and even if (s)he did not specifically say that his/her organs couldn’t be harvested upon death.