You're comparing an IRREPARABLY DESTROYED BRAIN (since I ASSUME you refer to people we remove from life support), to a HEALTHY brain that's just developing! Comparing a brain that's gone kaput ..............................to something that's just beginning! BIG DIFFERENCE. NOT THE SAME.
How would abortion damage society - or is this another assumed premise with no back-up. Can think of a few points for the other side. 1) Population growth is destroying the planet 2) bringing a Child into a disfunction environment can do a whole lot of harm to society - 3) financial cost of 2 to society 4) harm to the mother - numerous 5) harm to essential liberty
[ Why don't you cite something scientific to support your argument? As far as I'm concerned, what you claim so far is just your opinion. Why ask me? I asked you. Are you afraid to answer it? Or......you don't know?
Nothing here, with the possible exception of principle 4, declares that the woman's right of bodily autonomy is suspended during pregnancy. That being said, anyone can make a declaration, but it does not actually confer any rights. Only the law of the country in question. In the end, that is the only source of actual rights. We can all claim about what is supposedly natural rights, but in the end there are none. Where are the natural rights of animals, especially their right to life, as another animal kills them? If rights are natural, they are natural across the board, and will be supported regardless of any religious teaching. Rights in the US are limited to what the Constitution and the laws give us, no matter what we might claim. Now under most circumstances, when we say something about having rights, such as the bodily autonomy rights, there is an implied context to the law of the land. But there are no actual natural or human rights. And a declaration by the UN is not binding to the US. You might as well claim that a person has a right to the labor of others without compensation.
I'm not asking you to agree with me.....nor do I seek your "validation." I'm just showing you the facts! Take it, or leave it.
You are still the one who made the argument of the woman not using precautions. No matter what and how many, you are still saying, who cares if your precautions failed. The woman can put the condom on the man and the man stealth it off. So now who's fault is it she is pregnant? She took her precautions. Something tells me that even if the woman had an IUD, took the pill, used a condom AND spermicide, as well as Plan B the morning after, you would still blame her for not taking precautions if she got pregnant.
I disagree. I would say that the main contention is over whether anything overrides the woman's right of bodily autonomy. With that in mind, it doesn't matter if the ZEF is human or not, a being or not. It's rights, assuming it had any, do not override the woman's bodily autonomy. All the rest, human or not, life or not, sentient or not, definition of murder, etc, are all red herrings to this one key point.
That assumes the error is notice before the editing period is over. Even if I had caught whatever it was that I did, I wouldn't have caught it before that period was past, because I went away from the site to o other work. I don't hold to his position anymore than you do, but if you declare honest error as dishonest, then you are dropping to their level of misinformation.
Which one is not like the other - A) Human B)Ape C) Zygote - a 5 yr old is able to solve this problem that seems to vex you .. the answer is C. LOL - you want proof that the 5 different perspectives on "When human life begins" exist .. what a joke .. you have no clue about the abortion debate - no ability to form a coherent argument - no ability to support your nonsense claims with anything but fallacy. and btw - it is up to you to support your claim - not me to refute it .. but, since your google skills may be limited I will help with your education. "Current scientific thinking regarding when "human life" is considered to have started falls into five categories which are outlined below. " https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin? The article then goes on to describe each of the 5 different perspectives given you previously - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.
I gave you the facts. I don't need your validation nor the opinion of the UN. Fact remains, all rights in the US are based first on the Constitution and then on the laws or state constitutions. No other country's or organization's claim of a right confers that right in the US.
I should have said one of the main contentions . but maintain my claim that this is the main one - as this claim is critical in deciding whether or not something over-rides the rights of the woman. On that note however - as you infer even if we decide that the Mighty Zygote - is close enough to a Person to be granted rights - including the right to life - we are now left with the problem of conflicting rights. From a legal perspective - we must then weigh the value of the rights of one against the other on the scales of justice. On the side of the woman the scale is heavy - the right of a person over their own body On the other side it is not easy. There is no consensus among subject matter experts - that a living human/person exists .. so we are left with "Experts Disagree" "We don't know" How does one ascribe a value to "We don't know" - it is no contest - the rights of the woman prevail.
Are you afraid to answer it? What rights do you want a fetus to have THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHTS? Why do you want fetuses to have more rights than anyone else???
Is it not still human life ? much bigger difference between a Zygote and a born human than between a born human and a born human on life support. You have refuted yourself Remember the game "Which one is not like the others" !?
I don't see how. Her right of bodily autonomy applies whether that which is taking from her is human or not, sentient or not, alive or not. And it works both ways as well. If she has an actual parasitic organism that is slowly killing her, her right to bodily autonomy allows her to choose not to remove it. The only time the rights of the ZEF would be pertinent would be in a situation where the woman's right of bodily autonomy is not in play. Not really. I've given that example several time. Take for example organ donation. I could be on the table and just before thy put the mask on, withdraw my consent to the procedure and the donation. Even if that means that the person who would have received it will die because there is no time to get another. Their right to life does not override my bodily autonomy. If for some reason an already born human was hooked up to my body for life sustaining purposes, I could at anytime end that procedure, even if it meant killing them. Even though the conflict is acknowledged, the precedence is still already in place. I kinda got lost on this part. It seem that you started out with a premise (assumed for an example) of the ZEF is a human, and then slipped back over to we don't know.
Lol - you can't use "it's her body" argument if you're not going to give her full responsibility for her own body! Like I said - there's nothing that says she can only rely on ONLY one contraception. Pro-choice loves to use the argument that condoms can be faulty and unreliable - the same goes as to whether the man can be trusted or not! THE WOMAN DOESN'T HAVE TO RELY ON ONLY THE USE OF CONDOMS! I gave dealing with covid as an example. You're not only frequently washing your hands, you're also doing safe-distancing....and wearing masks! Not only that - in the end, it's up to her if there'll be any sex happening at all. If she lets her partner talk her into having sex without the use of condoms - then yes, she is not using precaution! Anyway - nothing is 100% guranteed in life. There is no justifiable excuse to GREEN-LIGHT the slaughter of the unborn.
And whether she uses BC or not has NOTHING to do with her right to her own body. Bodily autonomy does not hinge on birth control use.....nor do any other rights....it's a ridiculous idea. You: ""if you're not going to give her full responsibility for her own body!"" It is Anti-Choicers who do not want to give her full responsibility for her own body.
Hahaha- you give me RATIONALWIKI?" IS that your source? OH, boy..... Did you see this pasted on your source? "This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved. When does life begin? could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed." https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin? hahaha - maybe you should use the argument - LIFE BEGINS AT FORTY!
It is her body and her life. If she does not want to give children, the rationally responsible thing to do would be to have an abortion. Of course, understanding something as simple as this is very difficult for mystics like you since all your beliefs are completely second-handed and solely based on faith. Bro, stop being a friggen creep and get out of her bedroom already! Or how about you just let her enjoy sex if she wants to have sex? Hopefully. How she conceived the child is completely irrelevant as it does not change the status of the fetus. The stadnard of value is always the woman's life. How about we call them "the undead" instead? Does that change things?
Yes, they're both human lives. However, they're non-comparable. They're not on the same page. Read my explanation again. You're missing the point. Yes. It's your way of deflecting from having to answer a very simple question. And, who can forget your source - RATIONALWIKI? Lol - that will haunt you. I mean.....you gave THAT for a source? REALLY? Hahaha - what credible debater gives rationalwiki? Let alone - a scientist to boot? Not meaning to be disrespectful - but I have to wonder how come....for a scientist, you're not observant? You missed that warning in red font! Priceless!
You have no real argument and have presented no facts yet you think you are right about something ….....priceless!!!
Do you know what Wiki is mate ? - its people like you and me . but - this does not make the source flawed - except in your world of Ad Hom Fallacy .. where we attack the messenger because you can't handle the message. 5 Different Scientific Perspectives were given - your claim that these "Don't Exist" - is laughable denialism on steroids - akin to denial that the sun will rise tomorrow. Whats laughable - is that you demonize Wiki - presenting textbook information - yet the site you posted from was a completely biased abortion apologist site .. one with 100 times less credibility - and the stuff you posted from that site was full of falsehood and deception. It is up to you to prove that a single human cell - Zygote - is a human .. not up to me to prove otherwise. That said - you did not even know that other perspectives existed - never mind be able to refute them .. but here is your chance .. the Metabolic perspective on when human life begins.. Tell me - is a human sperm not both human and alive ? This will be fun watching you squirm
You don't give opinions to support your argument that's being challenged in a serious discussion. Yada-yada-yada........I take it you can't support your claim. Okay, I'm busy.....so I'll ignore for now until you've got something.
