Abortion

Howey said:
per·son
/ˈpərsən/
Noun

A human being regarded as an individual.
Used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual.
Click to expand...

Every cell in an unborn's body has a different genetic code than every cell in the mother's body. Do you have something to support that an unborn is not an individual, or is not a human being?
 
evince said:
How about we take another aproach to protecting what you see as full rights owning person who ends up in an unwilling uterous.


You snip EVERY males testicular sperm delivery tube and make sure no little guys get into unwilling uterous'.


That is how you control your part of the bargain.
Click to expand...

But then; that's something you've never had or will ever have to worry about, HUH Desh! :D
 
WoLong said:
Every cell in an unborn's body has a different genetic code than every cell in the mother's body. Do you have something to support that an unborn is not an individual, or is not a human being?
Click to expand...

The definition of human being says nothing about cell structure. Until such time the umbilical cord is cut, the mass of cells within a woman's stomach are dependent upon her for survival. Without her, it will cease to exist.


human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
 
Howey said:
The definition of human being says nothing about cell structure. Until such time the umbilical cord is cut, the mass of cells within a woman's stomach are dependent upon her for survival. Without her, it will cease to exist.


human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...
Do why the delay between cutting the cord and recognizing the cell structure as a life?

It is not a life until it is born, until it gets home and belongs to its family( barbera boxer)?
 
Howey said:
The definition of human being says nothing about cell structure. Until such time the umbilical cord is cut, the mass of cells within a woman's stomach are dependent upon her for survival. Without her, it will cease to exist.


human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide any evidence that being dependent on it's mother is necessary to being an individual human being. It's proven that the unborn is a unique individual because it has a different genetic code than its mother.
 
WoLong said:
Feel free to provide any evidence that being dependent on it's mother is necessary to being an individual human being. It's proven that the unborn is a unique individual because it has a different genetic code than its mother.
Click to expand...

Zat you, Yurt?
 
WoLong said:
There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life trumps every other right. Simply because an unborn is growing in a mother's body does not give her the right to end its life. The law already forbids everyone in this country from taking life, I fail to see why you think a pregnant woman has the right to kill.
Click to expand...

It's because our culture, our entire way of life in the West, is based on the idea each human being is an individual and has exclusive rights to their body.

As Evince explained in msg #2, "You don't have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh."

It can't be made any more clear than that. As individuals we decide on what to do with our bodies. Surely that's the most basic of freedoms. If I don't have the right to go up to a woman and grab her ass why would another "human being" have the right to live inside her body?
 
apple0154 said:
It's because our culture, our entire way of life in the West, is based on the idea each human being is an individual and has exclusive rights to their body.

As Evince explained in msg #2, "You don't have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh."

It can't be made any more clear than that. As individuals we decide on what to do with our bodies. Surely that's the most basic of freedoms. If I don't have the right to go up to a woman and grab her ass why would another "human being" have the right to live inside her body?
Click to expand...
But what about outside your body, why the 2 to 3 day wait before the infant is considered a life?
 
007 said:
What about when the fetus is out of the other body, what then?
When is it to be considered a life?
What qualifies as the moment life begins?

Barbera boxer says the non living thing can be terminated at any point until it gets home from the hospital.
Is that the general opinion of all liberals?
Arrival at home is the moment of birth?
That's when life begins?
Click to expand...

Let's see if I can explain it this way. I don't give a damn if it's called a "life" or not. As long as it's inside another person's body it is part of that body to the extent the host body makes all the decisions.

Maybe an analogy will help. Let's say 18 is the age of majority. Until a person is 18 they have to respect their parent's decisions. Even when they are 17 and 364 days old they are not adults. What happens the day they turn 18? Not much physically. It's merely a designated line. If a parent can not, or refuses to, look after their child they can have the child removed from the home. No court is going to insist on the child staying there.

The same idea applies to abortion. The parent is not demanding the fetus be killed. The parent is demanding the fetus be removed. The parent's right, the right to their own body, (to coin a popular phrase) shall not be infringed. A life? A human being? A fetus? Call it what you will. Just remove it.
 
apple0154 said:
It's because our culture, our entire way of life in the West, is based on the idea each human being is an individual and has exclusive rights to their body.

As Evince explained in msg #2, "You don't have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh."

It can't be made any more clear than that. As individuals we decide on what to do with our bodies. Surely that's the most basic of freedoms. If I don't have the right to go up to a woman and grab her ass why would another "human being" have the right to live inside her body?
Click to expand...

But if you did go up to a woman and 'grab her ass' that would not give her the right to murder you. The right to life supersedes all other rights. We simply do not have the right to murder another human being under any circumstance other than to protect our own life or the life of another.
 
apple0154 said:
It's because our culture, our entire way of life in the West, is based on the idea each human being is an individual and has exclusive rights to their body.

As Evince explained in msg #2, "You don't have the right to tell that completely formed human being what YOU will allow to be done to the INSIDES of her very own flesh."

It can't be made any more clear than that. As individuals we decide on what to do with our bodies. Surely that's the most basic of freedoms. If I don't have the right to go up to a woman and grab her ass why would another "human being" have the right to live inside her body?
Click to expand...

First of all the gobblement would argue with you that you have an unfettered right to do what you want with your own body. To argue otherwise is just laughable.

Second of all, the woman took actions to put that baby in her body in the first place. Unless of course you are arguing that she didn't have the capacity to understand what she was doing when she willingly allowed a penis to penetrate her vagina and commit thrusting motions until seminal fluid was released and traveled through the canal potentially fertilzing an egg if conditions are optimal? Are you saying a woman does not understand that process? Are you saying a women does not understand the risks involved with spreading her legs and allowing penetration?

It isn't like some random baby is choosing her as a host against her will and she took no actions to cause that baby to take up residence.
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see if I can explain it this way. I don't give a damn if it's called a "life" or not. As long as it's inside another person's body it is part of that body to the extent the host body makes all the decisions.

Maybe an analogy will help. Let's say 18 is the age of majority. Until a person is 18 they have to respect their parent's decisions. Even when they are 17 and 364 days old they are not adults. What happens the day they turn 18? Not much physically. It's merely a designated line. If a parent can not, or refuses to, look after their child they can have the child removed from the home. No court is going to insist on the child staying there.

The same idea applies to abortion. The parent is not demanding the fetus be killed. The parent is demanding the fetus be removed. The parent's right, the right to their own body, (to coin a popular phrase) shall not be infringed. A life? A human being? A fetus? Call it what you will. Just remove it.
Click to expand...
You answering a question I didn't ask.
What about the 2 days( on average) after the cord is cut before the thing, fetus, infant, collection of cells, whatever you want to call it, is regarded as a life.
It's no longer inside a woman's body, but is not viewed as a life by Barbera Boxer!

What is it in that time frame?
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see if I can explain it this way. I don't give a damn if it's called a "life" or not. As long as it's inside another person's body it is part of that body to the extent the host body makes all the decisions.

Maybe an analogy will help. Let's say 18 is the age of majority. Until a person is 18 they have to respect their parent's decisions. Even when they are 17 and 364 days old they are not adults. What happens the day they turn 18? Not much physically. It's merely a designated line. If a parent can not, or refuses to, look after their child they can have the child removed from the home. No court is going to insist on the child staying there.

The same idea applies to abortion. The parent is not demanding the fetus be killed. The parent is demanding the fetus be removed. The parent's right, the right to their own body, (to coin a popular phrase) shall not be infringed. A life? A human being? A fetus? Call it what you will. Just remove it.
Click to expand...

Please provide some evidence that we have a 'right to our bodies.' Secondly, removing an unborn directly results in its death, and is thus murder.
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see if I can explain it this way. I don't give a damn if it's called a "life" or not. As long as it's inside another person's body it is part of that body to the extent the host body makes all the decisions.

Maybe an analogy will help. Let's say 18 is the age of majority. Until a person is 18 they have to respect their parent's decisions. Even when they are 17 and 364 days old they are not adults. What happens the day they turn 18? Not much physically. It's merely a designated line. If a parent can not, or refuses to, look after their child they can have the child removed from the home. No court is going to insist on the child staying there.

The same idea applies to abortion. The parent is not demanding the fetus be killed. The parent is demanding the fetus be removed. The parent's right, the right to their own body, (to coin a popular phrase) shall not be infringed. A life? A human being? A fetus? Call it what you will. Just remove it.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this right that your body shall not be infringed upon? I don't see it codified in the text of the US Constitution.
 
WoLong said:
I'd be interested in hearing any credible science that suggests that an unborn is anything other than a human being at any point of development
Click to expand...

A non-viable fetus CAN NOT live outside the womb. The NON-VIABLE fetus is a growing extension of the mother's body.

BOOM!

END OF THREAD!!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...
 
hazlnut said:
A non-viable fetus CAN NOT live outside the womb. The NON-VIABLE fetus is a growing extension of the mother's body.

BOOM!

END OF THREAD!!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...
Click to expand...

Having a distinct genetic code proves that an unborn is not 'a growing extension of the mothers body.' Please feel free to provide some evidence that a fetus is not a person because it's dependent upon its mother.
 
hazlnut said:
A non-viable fetus CAN NOT live outside the womb. The NON-VIABLE fetus is a growing extension of the mother's body.

BOOM!

END OF THREAD!!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...
Click to expand...

But in that time between cutting the cord and getting home, the fetus is outside the woman's body, why is it still not considered a life?
It can still be aborted because it is not fully born until it gets home, according to barbera boxer.
 
007 said:
But in that time between cutting the cord and getting home, the fetus is outside the woman's body, why is it still not considered a life?
It can still be aborted because it is not fully born until it gets home, according to barbera boxer.
Click to expand...

Thread is over dope.

I won.

It wasn't really fair, but I still won.

So, I'm cutting the cord on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top