A human birth is the optimal, natural outcome of a conception. That is all. Some want to "determine" when humanity is attained so that they can retain the right to dispose of the conception if it pleases them. They accomplish this by rendering definitions that make the victim child not an individual life. They do this with no proof. I urge all to err on the side of right to life.
I have no idea why the hell we are discussing this for the billionth time, but here goes. I can see this argument early in the pregnancy. However, it starts to feel very different to me when the body parts are identifiably human (fingers, etc). At that point, it just feels like something different. As for the concept of a woman deciding what her body is used for, that cuts both ways. When she decides to have unprotected sex, she knows what the result could be. When she takes that gamble and loses, it should not be up to the taxpayers to help cover the cost of her mistake. When tax dollars are used to fund abortions, it is those folks forcing their definition of life on me.
I have always said that the mother has a choice to make when her own life is obviously at stake due to some unusual circumstance.
You are so delusional. Here is what I posted (#92): The last line, especially, is on point with the thread about promoting points of view based on lies which are based on religiosity usually. You ratcheted it up from there into your usual arguments.... but you blame me?! and here is what you posted (#93):
It isn't a "person," it is a fetus. You don't get to force your definitions on other people, that is the entire point.
Because it is up to that woman to decide whether she wants use her uterus to bring a fetus to term and bear it as a child. Her choice, not yours.
It isn't "murder" if SOCIETY doesn't consider it so. Given that wide swaths of society don't consider abortion murder, your "argument" falls flat. It is a "kid" when it is born, once it can survive outside the fetus. Again, that is my own, personal "line" in this debate.
I think it would be nice for posters to refrain from derailing threads with off-topic rants, like giddy did with the comments with which I started this thread.
You defend your imagined right to apply the word "baby" to fetuses, zygotes, and embryos and in so doing, remove the choice of the woman in whom it is developing to decide whether to bring it to term. You don't have such a right, it isn't your body, it is the woman's. As such, the decision belongs to the woman, her doctor, and her God, not some idiotic anti-choicer trying to force their morality on other people.
You are attempting (unsuccessfully) to apply the words "baby," "child," and "kid" to fetuses, embryos, and zygotes. No pro-choicer made up any of those three terms, they were created by scientists to describe stages of fetal development. You're the one trying to force other people to live up to your own, personal moral code. STOP
You're turning it around. Some want to determine when "humanity" is attained so that they can end the right to abortion at that point. You don't get to determine for another person when the fetus becomes "human" to them. It is their own personal morality, they are within the law, and you don't get to force your moral code on others, period.
Since, in my experience, you are interested in reasonable discussion, here goes. I am perfectly OK with restricting taxpayer funding of abortion, it is a personal responsibility issue and the woman (along with the man who contributed, IMO) should bear the entirety of that responsibility. I also believe that the decision should be made long before the fetus begins to resemble a "baby," that decision should be made as early as possible. If various birth control options were ubiquitous and, preferably, extremely inexpensive, I would be much more on to the personal responsibility angle that you take. However, with the exceptionally poor sex education and horrifically low access to birth control that many young people have, it is no surprise we have so many unwanted pregnancies. We could dramatically reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies (you know, the root cause of abortion) if we actually pursued policies that have been shown to be effective. Unfortunately, the same people that tend to be pro-life also tend to oppose such policies. "The United States rate of unintended pregnancies is higher than the world average, and much higher than that in other industrialized nations.[34] Almost half (49%) of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, more than 3 million unintended pregnancies per year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy HALF of the pregnancies in the US are unintended, compared to 33% in France. The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, but pro-lifers choose to continue their Quixotic quest for a paper ban that would be exactly as effective as the War on Drugs (because of RU-486), which is to say, not effective at all.
I'm sorry you can's accept facts, but that makes YOU delusional, not me. Yes, I blame you for redefining words, then accusing others of redefining words.
I'm not eating any. I asked you not to derail that thread and, when it became apparent you intended to continue with the derail, moved the discussion to a new thread so that the other one wouldn't get further sidetracked.
My son and his wife were able to see their baby's heart beating on an ultrasound at around five weeks.
Yes and that was after you and CometsWin had derailed the thread. I did respond but response is not initiation. That's on you two...
You miss the obvious. It all started with simple "baby" and remained that way for thousands of years. Then science started inventing (i.e. defining) terms such as fetus, zygote, embryo et al. See the pro-Life crowd has defined NOTHING. We have just observed that a human child (alive or dead or damaged) proceeds from conception. The pro-Choice crowd has embraced all these definitions to dehumanize the child in utero in order to have control over that creation. And that, in fact, is the only fact that is indisputable.
My argument was that it's not a personal distinction, since it's a legal definition agreed upon by society. I wish it were a more expansive definition to protect the unborn. I treasure my own existence. That others would deny it to someone of their own creation makes me sad. You've defined life two different ways here (at birth vs at viability). Also interesting that dependency on others determines one's humanity. This circumstance would apply to infants and the infirm/elderly as well. Yet their lives are protected.
