Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

Take a moment to stop playing semantic games and think about what I said real life. Your arrogant pious certainty regarding the behavior of others is dangerous. .

Seriously. Have a bloody good look at yourself. Let some critical self-analysis temper your religious zeal for a minute. .

You could actually become a better person....or at least one that is more useful to humanity, rather than to your imaginary friend.

As for your semantic games...you show me scientific evidence that an apple seed is an apple tree, or that a maggot is a fly.

For your word games, these are the names ALWAYS used OUTSIDE the church's propaganda

1. Conception

2. Zygote (first through third day).

3. Blastocyst (second day through second week)

4. Embryo (third through eighth week)

5. Fetus (9th week until birth)

Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'

In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country

A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.

Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.......

Eorl wrote:

For your word games, these are the names ALWAYS used OUTSIDE the church's propaganda

1. Conception

2. Zygote (first through third day).

3. Blastocyst (second day through second week)

4. Embryo (third through eighth week)

5. Fetus (9th week until birth)

Nice definitions. Any medical evidence yet?

-------------------------

Is there any difference in the human status of an 'infant' or a 'toddler' as compared to a 'youth' or a 'teen' ?

Why (just because a different word is used to describe a different phase of physical development) are you trying to imply based on semantics alone that the unborn at one or more of the stages you listed is somehow not a living human being?

Humans, or human beings, are biologically classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

For your word games, these are the names ALWAYS used OUTSIDE the church's propaganda

1. Conception

2. Zygote (first through third day).

3. Blastocyst (second day through second week)

4. Embryo (third through eighth week)

5. Fetus (9th week until birth)

Nice definitions. Any medical evidence yet?

-------------------------

Is there any difference in the human status of an 'infant' or a 'toddler' as compared to a 'youth' or a 'teen' ?

Why (just because a different word is used to describe a different phase of physical development) are you trying to imply based on semantics alone that the unborn at one or more of the stages you listed is somehow not a living human being?

The foetus is a thing that is in the process of becoming a living human being in the same way that an egg is a thing that is in the process of becoming a bird. Your game is the semantic one, not mine. If choose to define a fertilized egg as a "living human being", you can. No medical evidence is required to do so, or not.

Immature human beings (google "children" for an explanation) are not complete human beings either. They lack many of the capabilities of adult human beings and many of the rights human beings expect. Nearly all of these rights are arbitrarily assigned by age. Under some definitions of what constitues a "human being", like this one from Wiki, a one-year-old child would fail to meet the criteria. Words games can backfire that way real life.

Wikipedia wrote:

Humans, or human beings, are biologically classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

not complete human beings

not complete human being

not complete human beings

not complete human being

they lack many of the capabilities of adult human beings

many of the rights human beings expect

You know perfectly well you are jumping to conclusions I did not make real life.

Do you agree that Wikipedia says that a one-year-old is not a human being?

The question at the heart of it all, as you know, is:

When does a foetus reach the point where it's right to life supersedes the rights of the mother?

The answer is arbitrary, and depends on your point of view, in your case, religious (a complete "soul" from day one), in my case, medical and scientific, and the ethics of "the greater good" for all concerned....I trust educated people to find a practical balance, just like you do with the legal driving age.

Yes, below a certain IQ level, I have no problem refusing the right to drive a car or own a gun. Certainly I don't think my three year old deserves such rights. Do you propose that she should?

Of course, you PRETEND to be the morally superior by claiming to have all the answers and you PRETEND to have the backing of medicine and science to help disguise what is a completely RELIGIOUS agenda.

We have been through this many times, real life. You are just preaching for the sake of the propaganda.

Your statement about children 'are not complete human beings' is extremely worrisome as it is very similar to the position taken by Peter Singer and others to justify infanticide.

I have never claimed to have all the answers and my consistent position has been that anyone who is unsure when life begins (which is the overwhelming majority of the population) should be pro-life, giving the benefit of the doubt to the unborn.

You think morality is objective. However, you won't find me FORCING my ethics and morals on others.

Actually you are right to a degree. I agree to allow others to formulate laws with which I mostly agree to be enforced, which is not quite the same thing but I accept your point.

So let's take a look at how far you would go. Let's say you are a policeman in a state that follows your ideal law.

Someone tells you she plans to have an abortion. Would she be arrested and watched for 9 months to ensure her "threat to murder her child" was not carried out?

I agree to allow others to formulate laws with which I mostly agree to be enforced, which is not quite the same thing but I accept your point.

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. " -- Genesis 1:27

nick17 wrote:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. " -- Genesis 1:27

Which leaves one wondering as to the function of gods penis.