? Never said otherwise..................many are called, few answerWhich means no one is obligated to follow any religious doctrine, including those regarding abortion.
?? well, uh,,, yeah----------your point?Are not many or all of your arguments based on your beliefs?
???/ yes----quiteNot quite.
"fully human being??? "-----now we have very picky definitionsSo what? It's still not an actual human being as in a born person.
Believing oneself is "called" is just pure ego.? Never said otherwise..................many are called, few answer
So your arguments are irrational and based on feelings.?? well, uh,,, yeah----------your point?
No, not quite at all.???/ yes----quite
A ZEF is not a "human being." Merely one in formation, much like a car on an assembly line. But if you want to get specific, an unborn is not yet a person."fully human being??? "-----now we have very picky definitions
maybe----let me know when it happensBelieving oneself is "called" is just pure ego.
beliefsSo your arguments are irrational and based on feelings.
okay----I suppose. and??? What? Point??an unborn is not yet a person.
It's not. There's an unborn embryo or fetus...why do you feel that you must personify it?
Forcing suffering on innocent women when there is a safer medical procedure isnt justified.
And she wasnt trying to get pregnant.
No one said they do. But it has to be justified...and you havent done so. Women have rights that the govt is obligated to protect. The unborn dont. Women suffer, the unborn dont. The list is long, legally and morally.
That's your opinion. It's not necessarily hers, her loved ones, nor those she has those responsibilities to and for.
Who says? What authority? Not the federal govt and not the Constitution. Dobbs enabled states to allow women to kill their unborn with no due process, which many did/do. Right?
It happens whenever someone claims or believes to be "chosen."maybe----let me know when it happens
Tomato, toma-toe.beliefs
So it's not a "human being," does not have legal rights or protections, and can be allowed or removed at the choice of the gestator. Neither is there any rational or legal reason to restrict abortion.okay----I suppose. and??? What? Point??
CatholicVote.org PAC Contributions to Federal CandidatesName one lawmaker who got cash for that.
Not until it's born.Which is a human being.
Except the unborn are not yet persons.I personify it for the same reason I personify any other human being.
Not at the expense of the one gestating, especially against her own choosing.It is when said "safe" procedure means killing an innocent human being.
What is society's interest in someone's pregnancy? What demonstrable negative impact does abortion have on society? Sure, women can be penalized for harming their BORN children, but not the unborn, as the unborn are not yet children or persons with rights.You cited her right to "security in her person" which I took as the bodily autonomy argument. Impeding that right is justified as follows: When society has a compelling interest in doing so. Men can be conscripted and sent to war in defense of society, for example, and are penalized if they refuse. In this case, women can be penalized for killing their children, because society is interested in its own reproduction.
It's very relevant. If the unborn do not have legal rights, there is no legal reason to restrict abortion.That the unborn don't presently have those legal rights is irrelevant. Slaves didn't either at one point, yet we appealed to those rights to ultimately outlaw slavery.
Abortion isn't murder, so there's that. But the woman herself does suffer through pregnancy and birth.That the unborn may not suffer is also irrelevant. It's not less murderous to murder a kid if you give them an anesthetic first.
What is the justification for restricting abortion?No, that tends to be a legal fact. Society places very specific rules around when it is justified to kill someone, like self-defense. And when such justifications are claimed ("I had to kill him. He was trying to kill me."), they are closely scrutinized by the justice system.
You don't get to decide on what is proper "justification" for anyone else, especially in regards to their own body and medical decisions.You don't get to make up your own justifications for killing people.
What does biology/science specifically say about abortion? It makes no legal or moral determination. And cite where in the lawbooks the unborn have a "right to life!" Be specific!Biology says they are human beings, scientifically. As for what grants them the right to life, there's any one of a number of authorities that assign the right to life to human beings. The bible, the declaration of independence, the universal declaration of human rights - all of them cite a right to life before all other rights.
Let us know when it does and the arguments presented as to why legality should be changed.You might respond that none of these are legal authorities, and I agree. But what is legal may change.
Research clearly indicates that children in families struggling with the stress of instability, insecurity, poverty, abuse and/or emotional issues do not do well as children and their futures' as adults are often worse. Conservatives surely are aware of the statistics since they have been posted several times. In the face of such statistics why isn't banning abortion, insisting on birth and denying access to effective LARCs just plain cruelty to children?
They also do not seem to care about the pregnant woman's situation or choices retarding her bodily autonomy.People who believe life begins at conception do not care about statistics.
As someone Pro-choice, I do not agree, but understand where they are coming from.
correct---let me know when that happensIt happens whenever someone claims or believes to be "chosen."
It IS human, yes............but not a person (agree)So it's not a "human being," does not have legal rights or protections, and can be allowed or removed at the choice of the gestator. Neither is there any rational or legal reason to restrict abortion.
anyone can donate to that fundCatholicVote.org PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
J.D. Vance $5000
Certain theists here on DP have made the assertion (or at least heavily implied) of being "chosen."correct---let me know when that happens
Since it's agreed it's not a person, there is no rational or legal reason to restrict abortion, as said non-person has no rights or recognition.It IS human, yes............but not a person (agree)
No, it's still in production, like an auto on the assembly line.
Thank youOh my god, that's perfect! And accurate.
Which is a human being. I personify it for the same reason I personify any other human being.
It is when said "safe" procedure means killing an innocent human being.
You cited her right to "security in her person" which I took as the bodily autonomy argument.
Impeding that right is justified as follows: When society has a compelling interest in doing so. Men can be conscripted and sent to war in defense of society, for example, and are penalized if they refuse. In this case, women can be penalized for killing their children, because society is interested in its own reproduction.
That the unborn don't presently have those legal rights is irrelevant. Slaves didn't either at one point, yet we appealed to those rights to ultimately outlaw slavery.
That the unborn may not suffer is also irrelevant. It's not less murderous to murder a kid if you give them an anesthetic first.
No, that tends to be a legal fact. Society places very specific rules around when it is justified to kill someone, like self-defense. And when such justifications are claimed ("I had to kill him. He was trying to kill me."), they are closely scrutinized by the justice system.
You don't get to make up your own justifications for killing people.
Biology says they are human beings, scientifically.
As for what grants them the right to life, there's any one of a number of authorities that assign the right to life to human beings. The bible, the declaration of independence, the universal declaration of human rights - all of them cite a right to life before all other rights.
You might respond that none of these are legal authorities, and I agree. But what is legal may change.
Brilliant post. notWhy not?
Probably. Life can be a real bitch.
Thank you.Brilliant post. not
Research clearly indicates that children in families struggling with the stress of instability, insecurity, poverty, abuse and/or emotional issues do not do well as children and their futures' as adults are often worse.
Easier, safer, cheaper, and more practical to do it before birth.knowing this, at what point in development would you draw that line at eliminating human life ? 1 year? 3 years ?
I mean .... gotta kill off all those poor kids right? just the right thing to do, isn't it ?
Easier, safer, cheaper, and more practical to do it before birth.
Sounds like more paperwork would be involved. But sure, whatever.yeah but if you don't decide until 6 months or 3 months that's ok too right ?
Exactly. I also support euthanasia, assisted suicide, pallative/hospice care and such.I mean, if killing the innocent life makes everyone else better why not, right ?
thank you for your honesty and finally admitting itSounds like more paperwork would be involved. But sure, whatever.
Exactly. I also support euthanasia, assisted suicide, pallative/hospice care and such.
Admit what? Your emotionalism aside, I simply stated a fact.thank you for your honesty and finally admitting it
horrible, but honest
Depends on the situation. The pregnant woman gets to decide whether to continue gestating or not. Ideally, a patient has Advanced Directives to make their healthcare wishes known. Barring that, it falls to the legal next of kin.I'm curious who gets to decide when to have another person killed ? what are the limits etc ? has to be a parent or ??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?