If Life Begins at Conception
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
20th week fetuses can't scream either. An unconscious person can't scream. IE you're a moron appealing to emotion.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
You can believe life begins at conception and still be pro choice ya know. It's just one of those gray areas of life which should always carry a certain amount of shame. You do more harm to humanity by damaging the language and dehumanizing live humans.
Then why is it okay to take actions which we know are likely to jeopardize these innocent human lives? All because you conveniently deem these deaths natural you evade the willful negligence involved.
I have not even addressed abortions. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. Since pregnancy begins at implantation not at conception/fertilization, no abortion is possible during the stage to which I am referring.
No more amazing then the hoops pro-lifers jump through to justify the willfully negligent actions that lead to death.
Which is why I have been specifically referring to the legal definition of life. What you believe on the science is irrelevant.
C
Cancel3
Guest
If science proves that a fertilized egg is a separate life, then the laws will have to change.
At one time it was legal to kill minorities, women, slaves ect.
What the law says is not always what is right.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
No they won't.
It is wrong to deny an individual the right to control what goes on inside their own body. Abortion should always be legal.
They do not.
And that was backed by science???
Of course not. Criminal law should not prevent one from drinking, smoking, cheating on their gf or wife and a host of other things that may not be "right."
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I can (rightly) conclude that a fetus has nothing to do with a human besides the fact that it will develop into one and say that it's OK to abort.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
things that develop into humans are also humans. Bet yes, you can say it's ok to abort.
It is funny to hear this debate again and so often but when we grew up age seven was the age of reason, before then if you died anytime after being baptized you went to heaven. If you weren't baptized you went to purgatory. These arguments are similar to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The only relevance for me is do we care for living breathing children. Let God sort out all the cells that never made it.
"A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears."
"A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears."
Things ???
Humans develop.....into various physical shapes and sizes....
Humans are humans at ALL STAGES OF LIFE
Science is irrelevant only when you find it convenient to ignore. Flat-Earther...
Seriously though, it is relevant to the topic at hand. The idea is to change the legal definition to include those unprotected. Now one can set an arbitrary time line based on philosophic insistence of "personhood" or one can determine the time that a new life is created scientifically. You describe a world in which definitions cannot change, that they must continue to be what you want them to be. We cannot use new technology that gives us a better view of when and what may be a "person" because it tends to make your argument useless. We know it is alive, regardless of whether the fetus has rights.
I believe that in the future humankind will look back on the 'barbarism' of abortion, with real methods of control available and options other than killing. I wish we could work towards bringing that future more quickly but too many people think on the lines of black and white. Either abortion or not, no other option can exist.
Science is irrelevant only when you find it convenient to ignore. Flat-Earther...
Seriously though, it is relevant to the topic at hand. The idea is to change the legal definition to include those unprotected. Now one can set an arbitrary time line based on philosophic insistence of "personhood" or one can determine the time that a new life is created scientifically. You describe a world in which definitions cannot change, that they must continue to be what you want them to be. We cannot use new technology that gives us a better view of when and what may be a "person" because it tends to make your argument useless. We know it is alive, regardless of whether the fetus has rights.
I believe that in the future humankind will look back on the 'barbarism' of abortion, with real methods of control available and options other than killing. I wish we could work towards bringing that future more quickly but too many people think on the lines of black and white. Either abortion or not, no other option can exist.
How you going to protect all these fertilized eggs?
I don't know, nor will we ever if we refuse to try. The goal would be to use them to create a way to allow women to choose to act as an incubator, or to choose to incubate ex utero. So, they'd attempt to incubate them.
Another line that would need to be followed is to create a far more effective birth control so that people also choose when to get pregnant to begin with, regardless of circumstance.
Of course, then I'm talking about something different than abortion that allows women to choose not to be forced to be incubators, so you must ignore the benefit or anything you agree with and make some silly statement now.
Yeah, everybody would be forced to remove foeti....
What rubbish! You enforce the other by law and the result for the woman would be the same. What right do you have to purposefully end a life for your own convenience if there is another option?