It has to be BORN....something you've been told about a thousand times.....why can't you get it?? Can a woman claim her fetus as a tax deduction?
A human fetus is human (adjective). A living fetus is living. Why do you have to ask? You don't KNOW!!!!! Too bad you don't have any point after stating the obvious
Uh, YOUR hypotheticals are all derived from science fiction or your imagination so have no basis in real life or anything important or meaningful.
Yes, this is a general problem on this topic. Like many, Kazenatsu wants her personal imaginative desires to supercede the full range of situations faced by women - everything from the results of rape to the desires of a couple building a family.
What you just stated is illogical, and an equivocation fallacy. The term "have no basis" has a vague meaning in this statement. If it can display the falsity of your logic, then it is relevant, even if the hypothetical could never happen.
And it seems you want to conflate all of the separate factors together, to try to overwhelm us. Your individual reasons don't seem to hold up very well when we try to look at them by themselves. Imaginary situations can be a great and very convenient tool to look at individual claims by themselves. Since often the reality is rarely ever that simple.
Isn't that kind of an extremist position? And a little bit ridiculous, if we view it logically. What happens if, for example, they need to temporarily take the fetus out (umbilical cord still attached) to perform a fetal surgery, and then afterwards they put it back in. Has the fetus been "born"? Does it now qualify for rights, according to your logic?
You are still being disingenuously vague. Her right to what? The issue isn't whether or not her rights have been violated, but exactly which of her rights have been. Are you arguing that commiting murder against a fetus is, in a way, somehow analogous to commiting a form of murder against the woman?? Or is it more like running over her little pet dog?
I do not know. You tell me. Definitely not ridiculous at all. I do not think that is even possible, but as long as it attached to the woman and lives within and of her, it has no rights. Not if it is "put back in". Nope because it is still part of the woman's body.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you ban abortion it is all of them. Murder only applies to actual human beings. Hmm... What breed is it? Joke aside, what in the blue, blue hell are you talking about?
It seems like when you use the term "born", you are actually using it to imply something else, that is not technically exactly the same as whether the fetus has been born or not.
Once it is out of her body and can freely and independently interact with the world. Birth is not just some vague or arbitrary term, it is very clear what it means and throughout history and in all cultures it has been celebrated as a major event.
Tell me, is what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did really that wrong, from your perspective? Since those fetuses had only been "in the world" for a few seconds. Is it really that great of a sin to do something that only a few seconds before would have been completely okay? (extreme sarcasm here)
How about if the woman gives birth directly into a black trash sack. Then it has not really "come into the world" yet, has it? (And once again, this is not merely a hypothetical, there are accounts of it happening in some medical settings where they did not want the baby)
You have to do better than wave your hands lke that. And, that there are several serious lines of argument doesn't make your opposition weaker - it makes it stronger.
Not if none of those arguments are enough to adequately hold up your position individually by themselves.
