-->
@ethang5
How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview that requires them to dodge questions? Where is their internal integrity?
How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview based entirely on the imagination of the IPSS.
How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview that requires them to dodge questions? Where is their internal integrity?
Why would a miscarriage be automatically a crime?
Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.32,000 a year is few?Relative to all births, yes. Making laws on exceptions is silly. You talk as if most births are due to rape. The aren't.
You think the floozy who voluntarily spread her legs should escape the responsibility of birth. You want the scuzzy drug addict to escape the responsibility of addiction. And you want others to pay for it.
I'm saying it is not possible to help all of them.
I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.Why not?
Is it sensible to base personhood on technology?
Arguments are not paintings, they are knives. Tools.
Because you said the baby is not human, AND, it is part of the mother.
The only example you gave was of a baby.
I cannot save everyone. So I take care of my citizens first.
What a people do with their country (and what they discuss with their politicians) is a matter of privacy
Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you....often contribute to miscarriage
It is not a crime to get pregnant...
having children is not a punishment.
This argument is nonsensical...
We can never fix all road damage, therefore why bother?
Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.
....these are all potential murder cases that should be investigated.
If you want to cut the cord at 5 months, that's fine with me baby!
Your conjoined twins example is exceptionally rare
PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?
In the same way that a genetically mutated tumor is technically "NOT an individual human being with the full protection of the law" and simultaneously "part of the mother".
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
Embryos are not citizens. True Fact.
Have you heard the term "public policy"?
I've honestly never even heard anyone suggest that a nation (itself) has some sort of right to privacy.
Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you.
But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.
having children is not a punishment.Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.
No one can help everyone.
I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me...
Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.Then there is no problem with them.
How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported?
I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother.
The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins.
PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.
There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.
Embryos are not citizens. True Fact.I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.
Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.
What if we deport a criminal from, say, New York to Chicago? They're futher apart than London and Paris.
What I actually said was that (IFF) an individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the moment of conception (THEN) all miscarriages are potentially crimes and should be investigated as such.
...preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about.
Give me a call when being selfish and stupid become crimes.
If the mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and ran a marathon every month, would that be a-ok in your opinion?
But using that (raising the bar to 100%) as an excuse to not even try is ridiculous.
Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.
By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...
An embryo is not an individual human being with the full rights of citizenship and protection of the law until the cord is cut. True Fact.
Nobody wants to kill embryos.
...take those embryos to a doctor, a no-kill-doctor
...nobody will have any desire to abort embryos of five months or older.
The mother and the embryo are one person because the embryo is 100% dependent on the mother.
The conjoined twins in your example are 50% dependent on each other.
So now are you suggesting that "making laws on exceptions is sometimes perfectly logical"?
Full stop
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
Red herring. Nobody claimed a zygote/embryo is not comprised of human cells.
..that have the DNA of their prenatal sibling.
Unfortunately your opinion has nothing to do with who is legally considered a citizen and who isn't.
When a woman deports a foreign invader from her sovereign body, what happens to it outside is nobody's business.
You just added in "potentially". Your concession is noted.
If it is noticed. If it is reported. If it is suspicious. Sure.
I did not say preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about. Lying will not help you.
Concession noted. Abortion is immoral.
What business of mine are marathon runners and heavy drinkers
Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.If they are undetected and unnoticed, no one is going to know Einstein.
By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...Stop being stupid. We don't do that for adult people now, why would we do that for the unborn when we don't know if the miscarriage was anyone's fault? And what would you learn from the zygote? Expecting to find knife marks? We don't assume foul play unless something is suspicious.
Truth joined to a lie are still lies. An embryo is an individual human person . That is a scientific fact. The law does not change reality.
OMG rational, logical common sense being used to counter irrational, illogical lack of common sense fundamentalist. Thank you for that one Bru7(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
is it though? The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm. The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system. Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does. Consider organ transplants for example.(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
More honest people call it lying.It's called "communicating".
Your opinion that abortion is immoral is also noted.
...they are guilty of at a minimum, child endangerment and potentially manslaughter and or murder.
Now, if only we could grant women and doctors some kind of right to privacy....
I can guarantee that there are zygotes in the sewers.
We can match the DNA to the mother....
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader...
....a woman has the right to deport them from her body.
(IFF) an embryo is an individual human person (THEN) they are a foreign invader (AND) a woman has the right to deport them from her body.is it though? The egg is made by her, part of her, the "foreign invader" would be the sperm. The body naturally attacks/rejects or in other ways attempts to rid itself of "foreign invaders" via the immune system. Granted the immune system doesn't always work in some individuals as it should, but in general it does. Consider organ transplants for example.
the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused. Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim. Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim? Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
It isn't part of the mother anymore?The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.
The sperm and the subsequent mutation of that sperm into a blastocyst/zygote/embryo is a (non-citizen) foreign invader.the other stuff I'm not discussing so trying to keep this focused. Since the body doesn't reject it as a foreign body and in fact evolution has designed the body to actually keep and protect it, I'm not convinced of your claim. Is this just your opinion or is there some proof to your claim? Nature and evolution doesn't see it as a foreign body, normally.
that's all well and fine, but again, nature and evolution have sought to protect it as similar things like normal flora.
The context of foreign invader I don't believe is correct in your usage. Foreign invader is generally a pejorative. If you'd like to call it a foreign body that may be more appropriate.
Regardless, a voluntary abortion is an unnatural thing going against the primary purpose of humans and evolution, which is to reproduce. Or do you disagree that it's natural for humans to reproduce as it is their primary purpose?
You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.
so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?
You can't argue that one particular activity that you personally believe is undesirable is primarily "wrong" because it is "unnatural" without addressing every other "unnatural" activity we commonly participate in.never said it was right, wrong or undesirable did I?Many things are considered unnatural w/o any moral judgement.
now your insistence that it is a foreign body/invader means it's not part of the woman's body, and because it is foreign and not part of her body, she should be able to kill it, or are you claiming that it's both her body and foreign at the same time, which seems rather impossible.
(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].
There is no intrinsic purpose to being human, and if there were, reproduction ain't it as those who are incapable of reproduction will agree.so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?
I'm talking about pure biology, at this point morality is irrelevant.
(IFF) the embryo is part of the woman's body [100% dependent] (THEN) only she can decide to keep or discard it [like a genetically mutated tumor].except that the comparison is grossly inaccurate, abortion in the context of what we are speaking is for convenience, choice, whatever the non medical reason is, removing a tumor is totally unrelated.
if you'd like to pick a position of whether it is or is not part of the woman's body we might be able to continue, but bouncing back and forth between the 2 isn't anything I'm interested in doing.
PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
On both sides of this conversation.there are plenty of things selectively ignored that didn't go unnoticed ;)
calling the fertilized egg an invader.