Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

real life wrote:

Why is it ok for you to advocate that YOUR perception of right and wrong is enshrined in the law of the land, but it's wrong if it's the other way around?

Because enacting a law that allows a CHOICE is different than saying you can only do it one way. That's why.

real life wrote:

What if my idea of right and wrong included the notion that it's ok for me to steal your car, and so I was able to get the legislature or the court to implement my idea of right and wrong to the exclusion of yours?



Should my position be 'if you don't believe stealing cars is for you, then don't do it' ?

How is that any different from the philosophy supporting legal abortion?

Abortion is the killing of a living human being, unless you have MEDICAL evidence to show why the unborn is NOT a living human being.

Do you?

Yes. A fetus cannot survive without the mother until 26 weeks of age therefore it is a part of the mother. And the mother has all rights to her body and what is part of it. Is that MEDICAL enough for you?

So where is YOUR medical proof that it is a living human being?

In my opinion, yes. And the law can change accordingly.

When a fetus can survive without the mother, then it should legally be considered a human.


(by the way, my personal belief is that a fetus is a human being. I however, don't feel it right to push my beliefs on others and force them to believe)

Bella Dea wrote:

In my opinion, yes. And the law can change accordingly.

When a fetus can survive without the mother, then it should legally be considered a human.


(by the way, my personal belief is that a fetus is a human being. I however, don't feel it right to push my beliefs on others and force them to believe)

So then, a fertilized egg that is growing in the lab and has never been implanted should legally be considered a human?

It should be illegal to kill it? Are you sure?

(Hint: This is a trick question.)

real life wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

In my opinion, yes. And the law can change accordingly.

When a fetus can survive without the mother, then it should legally be considered a human.


(by the way, my personal belief is that a fetus is a human being. I however, don't feel it right to push my beliefs on others and force them to believe)

So then, a fertilized egg that is growing in the lab and has never been implanted should legally be considered a human?

It should be illegal to kill it? Are you sure?

(Hint: This is a trick question.)

First, would you please explain how you made the leap from what Bella Dea said to you saying fertilized eggs in a lab being considered human?
I must have missed something.
P

Pauligirl wrote:

real life wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

In my opinion, yes. And the law can change accordingly.

When a fetus can survive without the mother, then it should legally be considered a human.


(by the way, my personal belief is that a fetus is a human being. I however, don't feel it right to push my beliefs on others and force them to believe)

So then, a fertilized egg that is growing in the lab and has never been implanted should legally be considered a human?

It should be illegal to kill it? Are you sure?

(Hint: This is a trick question.)

First, would you please explain how you made the leap from what Bella Dea said to you saying fertilized eggs in a lab being considered human?
I must have missed something.
P

Bella Dea said if it is surviving without the mother then it should legally be considered a human being.

I don't see what's so mysterious here.

A fertilized egg that is growing in a lab is certainly surviving without the mother, correct?

Bella Dea wrote:

In my opinion, yes. And the law can change accordingly.

When a fetus can survive without the mother, then it should legally be considered a human.


(by the way, my personal belief is that a fetus is a human being. I however, don't feel it right to push my beliefs on others and force them to believe)

So then, a fertilized egg that is growing in the lab and has never been implanted should legally be considered a human?

It should be illegal to kill it? Are you sure?

(Hint: This is a trick question.)

Baddog1, I read the articles. People change their minds about issues...

Quote:

Baddog1, I read the articles. People change their minds about issues...

Your statement above says it all about you and this subject. The "people" (person) you're referring to is not some unrelated woman off the street - now is she? Minimizing the role this person played in your entire personal agenda speaks volumes about "digging your heels in" on an issue. The facts are - there is no amount of evidence, factual information, testimony and/or basically anything in the world that you will consider - if it goes against your chosen belief. It's a pretty common psychological phenomenon really. I am unclear though as to why you would engage in discussion about it. You are not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence. So why discuss it? What's your pay-off?

baddog1 wrote:

Quote:

Baddog1, I read the articles. People change their minds about issues...

Your statement above says it all about you and this subject. The "people" (person) you're referring to is not some unrelated woman off the street - now is she? Minimizing the role this person played in your entire personal agenda speaks volumes about "digging your heels in" on an issue. The facts are - there is no amount of evidence, factual information, testimony and/or basically anything in the world that you will consider - if it goes against your chosen belief. It's a pretty common psychological phenomenon really. I am unclear though as to why you would engage in discussion about it. You are not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence. So why discuss it? What's your pay-off?

ROFLMBO... Talking to yourself there Bad?

You sound like a broken record baddog. Is that your only argument for parados? answers yet? boring

www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html

No baddog, you are boring. I don't know why parados bothers replying to you.

Terry, I understand and agree, but the problem with that argument is that logically it can be extended to allow you to drown your 2 year old and molest your 6 year old. I think your position is only viable if the foetus is not a full-human-rights-bearing person.

That's why the only point worth debating is...when is it?