Carrying the child to term is the natural course of events. Unless it's one of the 30-40% percent of pregnancies that don't result in a baby being born (you know like in a hospital with a "birth" certificate).* *this doesn't even factor in abortion. Every living thing is going to die. Some seeds will never sprout life. That is the natural course of events.
Here is what you wrote just a few posts earlier. This is totally consistent with your argument.... it matters!
Of course. But being aborted is not a natural death. It's a deliberate and calculated decision that requires a medical procedure, paperwork and payment-- a manipulation of the law even.
Having cancer and dying from it is a natural course of events. Getting chemo to save your life is a deliberate and calculated decision that requires a medical procedure, paperwork and payment.
Yes and the article he posted were all about fetuses. Not zygotes. I could understand an atheist seeing a fetus as a human life. But a zygote?
What separates a zygote from a fetus but a very small amount of time? At any rate, who's trying to abort zygotes? So what's your point or are you just being argumentative?
Hardly a "conniption fit," though I fully admit that when you use inaccurate language in order to introduce emotion into the argument, I call you out on your inaccurate use of language. I disagree that a fetus should have the same rights as a baby. Says the man who would bully half of the women in the country to follow his moral code. I'll take empowering women against people like you, every single time.
If, after participating, the woman decides that she would never want to be tied to that man in any way, that the action was a complete mistake, but she got pregnant, doing what you posit as a solution would force that woman to bring the results of a mistake to term and bear it, even though it would tie her to two people she didn't want to be associated with. In that instance, and a plethora of others, forcing a woman to bring a fetus to term and bear it would be seen as punishment by a very high percentage of women.
At a certain point, they are protected. The insane part of your position is that you would protect them at conception, which is just plain wack-a-doo.
An egg and a sperm combined to eventually becomes a baby is a natural process following law of nature. Part of this natural process, very frequently, ended up in an abnormal embryo, one that the body self abort. Carrying a human embryo to full baby stage is a process that at current involve the person carrying the embryo. Any natural course of events involve not just the embryo but the carrier of the embryo including the carrier's actions. If the carrier is removed and the embryo can becomes a baby without one, it then can becomes a baby in its own natural course of events.
I'll give credit to giddyup, he's a very relentless opposer of abortions and his stance hasn't wavered in this debate one bit. It's tough to hold firm against an onslaught of pro-choicers like us, so for this I salute giddyup. Lively debate encourages both sides to think more critically.
What is the point? The creature has not been a zygote for a long time once you even realize that is had been one at one time. Much ado about nothing.
And your language is designed to de-humanize the child in utero. It's inaccuracy is a stark contrast to your preferred choice of language which reduces the child to different categories of existence with varying legitimate status in your mind. I'll stick with the compassion for the defenseless. Better than having all the dead.
1. Adoption... for a fee even... is better than aborting or keeping a child she doesn't want. 2. A punishment worse than Death? I think not!
Why? Has a conception ever turned into a smart phone? No. Those are children in there and there are those looking for an opening to go in and hack away. Did you watch those videos? A great number of "successful" abortions come out in pieces. There's a noble action for us to embrace!
