Nope , you have not shown where a fetus has rights....saying "they're inherent" doesn't prove a thing.... There's that "god" thing AGAIN.. That you obviously believe that having rights mean you can do anything you want.....with no restrictions.... NOW you say it's OK to kill an innocent person!!!!!! So you deny the science that shows how much harm pregnancy does to women...well, I can't fight that... YUP, and a fetus is not a person until birth. A human fetus is human(adjective) it is NOT A human (noun) as in legal person. No tax deductions for it...no SS number for it. Yup, but a fetus isn't a "person". I answered that question but you have NEVER shown proof that a fetus has rights...you just say "inherent, inherent!!!"....which is not proof... If they have rights then why is abortion legal? If they have rights then they would have the same RETSTRICTIONS everyone with rights also has......they canNOT use another's body to sustain their life. If they are harming another they can be killed.
I thought you were trying to make a case against abortion. Yes, it is more or less exactly how it went and anyone can indeed go back and see for themselves.
By "pro-choice", do you mean that you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die? Is making some third living human's life "more convenient" the justification for approving this choice?
It is nothing at all like that question. That question is useful as a retort to one making a "guilty until proven innocent" argument. This is nothing like that. This is just asking whether or not you are in support of a particular thing. It is a simple straightforward question. Do you support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die?
No, I'm just asking you whether or not you support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die... The location or developmental stage of the 'living human' is completely irrelevant to my question, as it is still a 'living human' all the same.
A fetus has a heartbeat, right?? And having a heartbeat means that something is living, right? So, now that we've established that a human fetus is a 'living human', answer my question: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die?
AGAIN, it's a trick question because you believe a fetus is A living human as in a legal person...and it isn't. Here's a question for you , let's see if YOU answer it : Say Person A shoots Person B, and B is wounded and requires a blood transfusion to save his life. Can Person A be FORCED to give him their blood ?
Creating a false dilemma isn’t logic, it’s sophistry. Mask wearing and abortion cannot used as an argument for or against bodily autonomy based on spurious reasoning. Being in favor or against one does not serve as an absolute in favor or against the other. That is why we have areas of degree and exceptions to the majority of rules.
It is not a trick question, and that is (once again) not at all what I believe. I did not say "as in a legal person"... I said that a fetus is a 'living human', meaning that it is of the homo sapien species and that it has a heartbeat (and that it is developing). [1] A human fetus has a heartbeat, does it not? [2] A human fetus is of the homo sapien species, is it not? If you agree that both are true, then answer my question. Yes. Now answer my question.
No one in here is in support of that. Actually it is essential to the question and the fact that you cannot see that it is relevant is the reason nobody wants to answer it.
So do cows and I had beef today. Am I murderer for that? Furthermore, no one is arguing that a fetus is not alive. We have not established that. Btw, are you aware of that you are now saying exactly what I paraphrased you as saying? No, I do not approve of that, but I do approve of abortion.
I think there is a Law & Justice-sub (or something like that) on this forum, if you want to ask "Do you think murder should be legal?", I think that would be the right place to do it.
Ok, let’s flip the script. I’ll ask you this question. Should a pregnant victim of rape or incest be forced to give birth?
You answered "Yes" to: FoxHastings said: ↑ Here's a question for you , let's see if YOU answer it : Say Person A shoots Person B, and B is wounded and requires a blood transfusion to save his life. Can Person A be FORCED to give him their blood ?"" You are, as usual, wrong. NOW show an example of someone being FORCED to give their blood... Or show an example of a person being FORCED to sustain the life of another with blood, a heart, a kidney, ....SHOW IT BTW I DID answer your question and asking again is harassment.
This will not serve to create any clarity at all. The poster clearly thinks a pregnancy and an abortion is the result of a woman forcefully grabbing a fetus from the fetus-tree and swallowing it whole to keep it trapped in her body to then go to the clinic to ask to have the pregnancy terminated so that she can frame the murder as an abortion. But, who can really blame him? He never had any sex ed because his peers are against it and he believes water can be turned into wine with the snap of a finger.
