The vast majority of people aren’t homosexual either. Does that make it okay to wrongfully treat those who are? The fact that most aren’t a problem (from my perspective, not those who feel as Bricker does where humanhood begins at conception) doesn’t mean that it’s okay to handwave away and dismiss those that are.
So lack of full development is your [del]excuse[/del] criterion for adjudging a person to be a human being? Then what about those who are 2 years old, 10 years old or 16 years old? They’re not fully developed either but I can guarantee that if you kill one of them and get found out your ass will be going to jail.
I have emphasized one word in the quote box for your attention.
Here is your response:
I did know that zygotes have 46 chromosones. They have 23 homologous chromosome pairs. A pair is two. 23 x 2 = 46.
Yes, that’s true.
As your opinion, it’s perfectly fine. I don’t agree, but it’s a defensible opinion.
It’s not a biological fact, however, that a fetus is not human. It’s true that a fetus is not a fully developed human, and I agree THAT is a biological fact.
Again, what biological facts exist which are beyond my ken? I have accurately laid out biological claims here in some detail, and I don’t believe a single one is in factual error. I welcome citation to recognized authority to the contrary.
If you take away the money they get from abortions they are still there (the exam rooms are the same for a pap smear as they are for an abortion). They may even become more profitable not having to pay insurance to cover that service.
True, but defunding the universe is a bit Übermensch even for the Trump administration.
So the line could be drawn with funds given to Planned Parenthood.
More targeted still, we could could demand that Planned Parenthood treat abortion doctors as tenant activities and assess them the true overhead pro rata cost of the facility use.
Inquiring about the actual facts and requirements of abortion? Careful, that road leads to wondering why an abortion clinic needs 8-foot-wide corridors and why mandatory vaginal ultrasounds are necessary and whether or not the woman needs to be informed, with pictures, about the nature of the fetus.
Did I say I was? Nope. However, those abortions done during what is called late term are done because there is something very wrong with the fetus and/or the woman’s life is in danger. Would you rather risk the actual human dying from having to carry to term and/or allow an actual human baby suffer and die?
“Full development” as in what is considered to be a full term baby.
Good for you, you are getting there.
You have completely ignored the fact that other than those chromosomes, a zygote has no resemblance to a human, especially biologically. It has the potential to change into a fetus which has the potential to change into a baby. That’s it - potential, and many don’t fulfill that potential without any interference from man. If you want to claim that a zygote is the same thing as a real live breathing human, why are you not calling for murder charges when a woman miscarries?
So, if your actual goal is to decrease abortions then you should support Planned Parenthood. You may think that since they perform abortions then surely taking money from them would decrease abortions. You would be wrong thinking that.
If doctors get paid I guess that is profit but abortions is not a business they do to make money. They certainly will not be lining up to pay to perform abortions. PP has a hard time finding doctors willing to do it as is (due to credible threats against the doctors’ lives from some pro-life folks).
Thank you. Any comment about the 23 chromosome PAIRS issue?
It certainly has biological resemblance to a human. It has very little physical resemblance. Biologically, it has the same chromosones as the adult into which it will grow.
I don’t claim that a zygote is the same thing as a real live breathing human. He or she has no lungs, for example, with which to breathe.
And I don’t call for murder charges when a woman miscarries because I don’t contend that the facts of a miscarriage meet the elements of the crime of murder.
Have you noticed how much you depend on mis-characterizing my arguments in order to advance your own?
At the risk of inviting a minute discussion of your exact definition of “support”. you have argued in favour of laws that indeed support those measures. Of course, again, this may not be indicative of your actual personal support of the measures, but of the legal process that seeks to mandate the measures, but you did put an awful lot of time and effort into it, so… don’t be disingenuous.
Also:
I’m sure you have any number of discomfortures in mind for Planned Parenthood. I can only speculate on what hoops you’d demand of the abortion providers themselves, and their patients.
I’ve already said that on balance, Planned Parenthood does more good than harm, and that I don’t favor defunding them:
But I further explained that the issue was not cut and dried, and explained that Planned Parenthood’s abortion activities do indirectly benefit from existing funding. I suggested controls to fix that, like requiring Planned Parenthood to treat abortion providers as tenant activities and assess them a pro-rata charge for overhead expenses.
So if I sign a lease for an apartment, the landlord should have the right to evict me because he changes his mind about me being inside his building? If a landlord signs the lease, he’s stuck with the legally required conditions for the duration. Being within your body is no different than being within your building.
If you give consent, it’s for the duration of the lease term. Doesn’t matter if it’s your body or your building.
So if a man rents an apartment or even a room from a woman, she cannot object if he also puts his penis into her body? Being in a building is drastically different from being inside one’s body.
Ahh. I see we are dealing with drooling morons. Is there a contract provision in the rental agreement about penises or vaginas? If so, then it’s a question about what sort of shit you can put into a contract, and the courts will enforce. If not, then your objection doesn’t fucking apply, moron. Which would apply to every fucking lease agreement that’s ever been entered into, dumbass.
Helpful hint. No court will enforce such a provision.
The stupidity of the lefties at this site never ceases to amaze me.
Because the law permits abortion, the correct analogy would be a landlord that signs a lease in a jurisdiction that permits landlords to summarily evict tenants. A landlord in that jurisdiction accepts a tenant knowing that he (or she) retains the right of summary eviction.