Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!Post 160OK well youāre almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.
The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone elseās convenience.
I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
All parts of a single body share the same DNA. Difference bodies have different DNA.What āpart of her bodyā has a distinct DNA?
I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!Post 160OK well youāre almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.
The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone elseās convenience.
I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
ok answer me thisI support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!Post 160OK well youāre almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.
The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone elseās convenience.
I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
All parts of a single body share the same DNA. Difference bodies have different DNA.What āpart of her bodyā has a distinct DNA?
Science much?
The abortionist goes to prison.What then? A fine?And they get jailed when caught, right?The wealthy women will still get abortions if illegal. They go into a hosp. and get a D & C.
NO.
Its called a surgery and they have it get paid for via ins, and they (the obstetrician) do not go to jail.
No. I'm going by the fetus cant live without the mother. It depends on the mom for the most basic human functions like breathing. It cant even consume.I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!Post 160
I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
I thought we already went over that. YES, single or individual, but not in the way youāre thinking. A pre-born baby is a distinct individual human life that has a separate set of DNA, THAT is what makes the pre-born an individual, a single human life.
You seem to be going by physical separation which is asinine. You say you arenāt but yes, you ARE going by location as your determining factor for personhood, which is arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and simply false.
I was referring to the fetus needing the mother for basic survival. Such as oxygen and consumption. Dependency.ok answer me thisI support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!Post 160
I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
are conjoined twins two individual humans or one?
No. I'm going by the fetus cant live without the mother. It depends on the mom for the most basic human functions like breathing. It cant even consume.I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
I thought we already went over that. YES, single or individual, but not in the way youāre thinking. A pre-born baby is a distinct individual human life that has a separate set of DNA, THAT is what makes the pre-born an individual, a single human life.
You seem to be going by physical separation which is asinine. You say you arenāt but yes, you ARE going by location as your determining factor for personhood, which is arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and simply false.
So my separation is BIOLOGICAL.
I was referring to the fetus needing the mother for basic survival. Such as oxygen and consumption. Dependency.ok answer me thisI support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!I just read it, nice try but thatās not the way reality works. We donāt get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isnāt a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.
You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone āseparateā which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like youāre just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, heās not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. Itās silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again itās just an opinion.
Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word āindividualā is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.
As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
are conjoined twins two individual humans or one?
Conjoined twins are 2 individuals.
theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very differentthe new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the wombof course it can survive without the mother after itās born... happens all the timeActually Iāll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.Yet again you completely misread my statement. Iām not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and rereadwell I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,
iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,
in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument
OMFG but it functions on its own!No. I'm going by the fetus cant live without the mother. It depends on the mom for the most basic human functions like breathing. It cant even consume.I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
I thought we already went over that. YES, single or individual, but not in the way youāre thinking. A pre-born baby is a distinct individual human life that has a separate set of DNA, THAT is what makes the pre-born an individual, a single human life.
You seem to be going by physical separation which is asinine. You say you arenāt but yes, you ARE going by location as your determining factor for personhood, which is arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and simply false.
So my separation is BIOLOGICAL.
hate to brreak it to you but a new born child cant live without its mother,,,
Again, I am referring to biologyI was referring to the fetus needing the mother for basic survival. Such as oxygen and consumption. Dependency.ok answer me thisI support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.
Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
are conjoined twins two individual humans or one?
Conjoined twins are 2 individuals.
you left out food for basic survival,,
theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very differentthe new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the wombof course it can survive without the mother after itās born... happens all the timeActually Iāll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.Yet again you completely misread my statement. Iām not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread
iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,
in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument
I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?
Legally 'pre-borns' are not considered to be a human life.
I've often suggested that a fetus or embryo be considered an individual when it has DNA that is unique from the Mother's. But for some reason the 'right-to-life' groups haven't taken interest in that approach.
Perhaps they really do not want abortion to be made illegal. Ulterior motives?
What the fuck are you talking about?
If "pre-borns" are not considered a human life, then why are people who assault pregnant women and kill their unborn child charged with homicide?
And per your DNA argument - are you fucking kidding me? WE POINT THIS OUT ALL THE TIME. The child's DNA is unique from the mothers the MOMENT it is conceived.
The ignorance of you baby killers is truly astounding.
theres a big difference as with newborns there are many more options for care. The father, family or state are all options for care and support. With the unborn the mother is the only one who can nurture and grow the baby at the expense of her body and health. The baby is literally a part of her body living off of her 24/7. So the situations are very differentthe new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the wombof course it can survive without the mother after itās born... happens all the timeActually Iāll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.Yet again you completely misread my statement. Iām not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread
iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,
in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument
please tell me how a 1 hour old child performs the function of feeding itself???OMFG but it functions on its own!No. I'm going by the fetus cant live without the mother. It depends on the mom for the most basic human functions like breathing. It cant even consume.I support a womans right to get an abortion while it's in the womb. Once it comes out,Youāre not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now youāre saying that youāre going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because Iām pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.
Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.
Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by locationā¦ Do you see how idiotic that is? Thatās not scientific at all, itās completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.
Its different.
It's not location. Do you know how many times I have heard that stupid argument? Its biology. Its the way the female body and fetuses work. It is not "location"
perĀ·son
/ĖpÉrs(É)n/
noun
inĀ·diĀ·vidĀ·uĀ·al
- 1.
a human being regarded as an individual
/ĖindÉĖvij(oĶo)Él/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
That's oxford dictionary. Take it up with them
- 1.
single; separate
I thought we already went over that. YES, single or individual, but not in the way youāre thinking. A pre-born baby is a distinct individual human life that has a separate set of DNA, THAT is what makes the pre-born an individual, a single human life.
You seem to be going by physical separation which is asinine. You say you arenāt but yes, you ARE going by location as your determining factor for personhood, which is arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and simply false.
So my separation is BIOLOGICAL.
hate to brreak it to you but a new born child cant live without its mother,,,
You people are fucking idiots. Shouldnt humans understand basic biology?
Goddamn
