"So, supposing 'life' was based on the brain to you, in these cases, it would only constitute partial-murder. Well, I understand, that's not bad at all I guess. Lets use 'em for crop fertilizer LOLOLOL!"
More so than just a mere brain, it also takes a MIND and a unique persona.
"It IS** an actual human 'life'. It is the proper function of government to defend life**, liberty, and property."
Just the same as my skin cells are human life, so they should be protected as well from the government. But my skin cells aren't a human 'being', just as a fetus isn't a human 'being'. Protection comes for 'beings' with unique personas.
"Whether or not it is a 'life' or not depends on what you define as 'life'. The whole abortion debate stems from the question of when life begins."
Wrong, abortion stems from the question of when 'personhood' begins.
"Human fetuses are already 'here'. Unless to you life doesn't begin until the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body? Get real. Ok, so I guess fetuses/babies/whatever just suddenly come to life like a light turns on at the flick of a switch as soon as they are jettisoned from the woman's body."
But a human fetus isn't a human 'being', like you or me. Aside from that, to me, 'personhood', NOT life, begins when the fetus starts to develop a unique persona and personhood in the third trimester when the cerebrum begins to develop for thought processes. But even then, that's a very tiny fragment, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped.
"I'm not giving rights to the potential. I'm giving rights to the actual."
A fetus isn't an actual human 'being'. It's a potential human 'being'. You are giving rights to the potential.
""A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."
As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive', it has the right to live, period. It is the proper function of government to defend this right. The only room for debate lies in the question of 'when does 'life' begin'?"
If you are speaking in terms of when it develops a unique persona, then read what I said above. The government may protect it then, but it also may not cause endangerment to the woman, whose rights superceed that of the fetus. A living, breathing, voting, woman's right to her own life always superceed that of the potential. You can't sacifice the rights of the woman in favor of a fetus with no unique persona. Unlike a fetus, the woman has a MIND.
"No, you fail. Read what I said again - it is only provided I was given the choice between all abortions legal and unrestricted or no abortions legal period. I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely. I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."
>>333
"I guess this is where we disagree then. If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat."
" I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely."
Right. LOL.
"I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."
Being in favor of a fetus over the well-being of a woman is entirely absurd. You aren't for 'life' if you're willing to sacrifice a woman's right to her life in favor of a potential fetus, which isn't a human 'being' like the woman is.
"It is present, and consciousness has been attained. What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me."
You said that, not me. I never even thought of such a thing. Aside from that, a baby is a human 'being', it has rights, and it has a unique persona, and it has a MIND. It would be murder to kill a baby.
"Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition. From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."
Quite a fucking lame justification, to be in favor of a flawed ideological stance in place of a woman's right to her life. So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators, which wouldn't surprise me from your position. So you're willing to let women and mothers die. LOL.
"Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant."
This whole 'life' crap is getting redundant as well. What matters is personhood, a unique persona, and the mind and when it develops. Scientifically, this has already been solved, seventh month in the third trimester when fragments of the cerebrum finally starts to develop and emit genuine human brain waves.
"This has been discussed as well. You are wrong. The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing. Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship."
But the fetus doesn't have a will nor mind like the guy whom got thrown off the ship.
""Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."
Thank you!"
I have to agree here, unless the woman was having one hell of a time trying to find an abortion clinic, had to do lengthly travel, or had to face lengthly waiting periods that could've threw her into the next trimester. But from another standpoint, statistically, women who do have late abortions were expectant mothers, but whose fetuses developed a severe abnormality, or her health/life was in danger.
""On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."
Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable. I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are. There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation. If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner. If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me. They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit."
Thank you for admitting that your own 'pro-life' committee are the ones responsible making sex education and birth control so scarce. Thank you for admitting that your committee are also the ones responsible for making more unnecessary abortions due to the lack of availability of birth control and sex-ed.
"If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner."
Hard to find birth control in the when your own committee is making them so scarce and hard to obtain in the first place.
""I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."
Agreed."
Agreed as well, with input from above.
""7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."
I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population."
52% is a rather large 'segment' if you ask me. A fetus isn't a human 'being' with a unique persona like a woman is. It would be slavery to dehumanize all women.
"We have equal rights in the USA."
By Federal level, yes. But there is still a lot more work to be done at the state level. Such as employers discriminating against expectant mothers.
"Assuming it is, women wouldn't be dehumanized or devalued significantly by removing abortion alltogether. Anyhow, if losing rights is your criteria for devaluization, I'd think that a handful of individuals losing their right to life would be of far greater significance in terms of 'dehumanization' or 'devaluization' than any insignificant losses on behalf of women for the sake of protecting unborn human lives."
This guy just doesn't give a damn about women. I guess women aren't human beings but carriers by his standpoint.
""Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant,"
It is irrelevant. If it is a human life, it has a right to live, and this has nothing to do with the outside world, and decisions made by those in it."
It is relevant since your committee is making birth control and contraceptives harder to find and more expensive, thus in turn, there will be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies. Are you also saying that you're against contraceptives? Seems like it to me.
Also it is inside the woman, parasitically living off her nutrients and shitting in her bloodsteam. The women may decide what lives and what may not live inside her.