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.
However, just because we all have the same DNA from conception to death is not a reason to deny a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body.
Not to get too dramatic here, but:
She chose the moment she willingly (key word there, willingly) opened her legs, she chose. She decided that she would use her body in the commission of sexual intercourse; to take the risk of becoming pregnant, either through a failure of the condom or through unprotected sex.
I really cannot equate a right to make a choice with the right to exist. The baby doesn't get to choose. Thusly I see the pro-choice stance to be quite self centered.
I clarified it:You seem to have a problem with accurate terminology.
They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."
I will give you bonus points for using it correctly though. That's almost as rare as knowing that life actually is pretty well defined.
Secondary comes the right of her fetus.
Wow. No. Stop.
The fetus HAS no rights, therefore the child is neither the primary, secondary, nor tertiary concern for the mother in your argument...
You know, come to think of it, it's probably not a good idea to argue with a mod. The last time I argued science with one I got a lifelong ban from Conservapedia.No. You just ASSumed to know what another is thinking
but legally speaking
"Separate" is just a modifier of "life" in the question of whether they have a separate life. Please give me the definition you are using for "life". What defines whether something is alive or not? There is a correct answer, but I want yours.Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.
Let's go even further back. How do you define "separate"? The fetus and the mother share a fucking organ, its called the "placenta" - maybe you heard of it. That's quite a strange definition of "separate".
You've been indicating all along that the fetus has rights. Has something changed?
You know, come to think of it, it's probably not a good idea to argue with a mod. The last time I argued science with one I got a lifelong ban from Conservapedia.No. You just ASSumed to know what another is thinking
I clarified it:You seem to have a problem with accurate terminology.
They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."
I will give you bonus points for using it correctly though. That's almost as rare as knowing that life actually is pretty well defined.
No. You just ASSumed to know what another is thinking
It's not about the science, though. It really isn't. It's about ideology. That's amply demonstrated by their refusal even to provide what they think that scientific definition is. I mean, hell, just think about how many don't believe there's a standard definition at all. It's all "we don't know when it begins or what it is so someone's alive when you believe they are".That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.
The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.
I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.
It's not about the science, though. It really isn't. It's about ideology. That's amply demonstrated by their refusal even to provide what they think that scientific definition is. I mean, hell, just think about how many don't believe there's a standard definition at all.That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.
The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.
I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.
You've been indicating all along that the fetus has rights. Has something changed?
No, you have. If you can read, which I know you clearly can, you'll see the words "in your argument" at the tail end of the sentence.
I've yet to make a claim about that yet. I asked for your definition of the term we're arguing about. You're still failing to provide this. Please tell me what you think it is.Your claim that the fetus constitutes a "separate life" is wrong regardless of how life is defined because it is not separate. Whether we use your definition of life, mine, or Santa Claus's - your claim is still not true.
I've yet to make a claim about that yet. I asked for your definition of the term we're arguing about. You're still failing to provide this. Please tell me what you think it is.Your claim that the fetus constitutes a "separate life" is wrong regardless of how life is defined because it is not separate. Whether we use your definition of life, mine, or Santa Claus's - your claim is still not true.
It's not about the science, though. It really isn't. It's about ideology. That's amply demonstrated by their refusal even to provide what they think that scientific definition is. I mean, hell, just think about how many don't believe there's a standard definition at all. It's all "we don't know when it begins or what it is so someone's alive when you believe they are".That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.
The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.
I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.
No, again - you're assuming I'm saying or implying something I'm not. I say exactly what I mean here. You've argued that a fetus has rights. I'm going along with that argument. I think ALL living things have rights but not all rights are equal
No, again - you're assuming I'm saying or implying something I'm not. I say exactly what I mean here. You've argued that a fetus has rights. I'm going along with that argument. I think ALL living things have rights but not all rights are equal
I'm only working off of what I'm reading Coyote.
The moment the vascular endothelial cells fully form and begin to pulsate within the fetus, that constitutes a heart, and a heartbeat. We normally associate a heartbeat with life.
It will not become a human being. It might
I clarified it:You seem to have a problem with accurate terminology.
They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."
I will give you bonus points for using it correctly though. That's almost as rare as knowing that life actually is pretty well defined.
No. You just ASSumed to know what another is thinking
Coo, now we're calling people names.
It will not become a human being. It might
It WILL become a human being, if given the chance.
