It would be my personal policy to not cut deals with so called “religious conservatives”. They should not be given any power to decide or influence the law for the rest of us. EVER.
Hell, at least Christianity exists.
How do you feel when atheists say arguments based on religious beliefs are nonsense? That’s another reason I would oppose the religious tyranny you favour; your anti-choice argument is entirely without merit and has no rational basis.
If it makes you feel better, just pretend aborted fetuses are just collateral damage necessary to maintaining that holy grail, Freedom. I’ve seen you dismiss the deaths of thousands of fetuses that were carried to term in countries Republicans want to bomb as collateral damage, just do the same here.
It isn’t murder in my country or yours.
I don’t know if I qualify as a liberal to the op, but I’d advise against it.
Negotiation with terrorists is of dubious value.
But, if you’ll excuse me, that seems more like an emotional “seems like” argument rather than a reasoned one. To you, it seems as though a fertilised egg should be where the line is drawn, but you don’t seem to have any actual reason behind it besides it just looking right to you. I apologise if i’m wrong.
Imagine that, tomorrow, for whatever reason, some horrible virus or otherwise widespread medical disaster occurs, which means that miscarriages skyrocket; a fertilised egg in this situation has a considerably lessened chance of surviving, even with the most excellent of care. How lessened a chance would you be willing to accept before you would reconsider whether a fertilised egg falls across this line? To go with an extreme example, if 99% of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage, would you no longer consider conception the point at which the being in question need be treated as a human?
Curtis, there IS no fetus. The fetal stage of a pregnancy does not occur until 9 weeks. How many times do we have to point this out???
It would help your argument if you’d at least use the correct terminology and try to educate yourself.
Cut him some slack, Guin. His sex education has probably been non-existent, other than to tell him what a filthy horrible thing all of human sexuality is.
Is there some blanket term that covers zygote, embryo, and fetus? Pretend that Curtis had used that word instead.
I’d like to know myself.
This is why Augustine of Hippo is first on my list of “Historical figures I’d assassinate if time travel becomes possible.” He had his hedonistic youth and came to Christianity as an adult, becoming celibate only then, but later Christians twisted this into promoting celibacy and chastity from birth, with sex being something icky you gradually accept as a necessary evil, but don’t embrace it too enthusiastically, you sinful perv - you’ll make Baby Jesus cry.
Perhaps we could just say pregnancy? “The pregnancy has a chance blah blah blah”
Nah - that’d be a tacit recognition that someone existed who was pregnant. Better to ignore any such irrelevant trivia.
Parasite? It’s true, after all.
No, a parasite is something that confers no advantage to the host, while, biologically speaking, offspring confers tremendous advantage to a parent.
It’s not just biological in the cases of humans (and we are really talking about humans, anyway). It’s the norm for children to help out Mom and Dad; often for life. A leech, tapeworm, and a fetus will all feed off their host’s body, but the former two won’t drive her to the doctor when she’s 70.
Yeah, all right. Although I think you’re describing children, not zygotes, fetuses, or embryos.
OK, that caught my eye, and in risk of a hijack, you’re referring to the simple act of the parent(s) reproducing their DNA?
But by supporting the zygote etc, you get children; by supporting a tapeworm, you get sick. It’s the difference between investment and theft, basically.
No, absolutely not.
Well, at least the tapeworm won’t nag you to borrow the car.