Aside from your insults, it seems you have posted comments about the wrong poster. I have never made any of the statements or "promotions" to which you refer.

It's DNA code does all that.

DNA does not instantly make you self aware. It instantly makes you a member of the homo sapien species yes, but it doesn't instantly make you a fully developed, independent being.

If I chopped off my finger, it has my DNA. If the DNA code "does all that" then why is my finger not self-aware? Why is it not capable of self-governance?

Self-awareness is not necessary for the growth and development of the human zygote/embryo/fetus.

Of course not. But you were claiming that a fetus IS somehow capable of making decisions for itself. This implies a level of intelligence higher than a fetus between the ages of 6 and 12 weeks is capable of achieving.

BANG!! You killed another strawman!! Good shot!!

NO, I never made any such claim.

The what the heck was all of this about? You JUST said that the fetus' DNA code makes it capable of self direction and governance. There is no other way to interpret what you have written.

So, no bang, and no strawmen here.

Read an embryology text. It would take too long to explain the how our DNA guides our early development. But I suspect you know already, don't you?

I know how it GUIDES our early development. It does not, however, instantly make the 8 week old embryo capable of making its own decisions. WOULD it be able to make its own decisions if allowed to be born and grow to the age where children become capable of this? Yes. But it is NOT a born child. There is a difference.

Just because I COULD learn how to fly a plane doesn't mean I should be given a license right NOW.

And I did NOT say it did....... so?

You clearly implied that possessing human DNA instantly makes something capable of making its own decisions. Everyone will agree with me on this; you're not going to get away.

Sorry, but I would argue that it is an integral feature of the debate when a person says there is no difference in the immorality of killing a foetus and a newborn.



You misunderstood; the delegalisation of abortion will lead to the deaths of thousands and thousands more women than the thousands and thousands who already die evry year.



Please elaborate on what you mean. Aren't these salues subjective to everyone (if I'm understanding correctly what you intended to connote)?



Precisely! The imaginary pro-life idea that foetuses are of equal worth to born, sentient, thinking, non-parasitic persons.



This is neither logically coherent with your views nor is it commonsensical. Morality is based on value - they are inextricable ideas.

Furthermore, if our instinct is to self-preserve you will understand fully why abortion is acceptable - because women want to preserve their own bodies, minds, and lives. Foetuses are incapable of feeling the need of self-preservation and do not have the mental capacity to even contemplate such a thing.

See how it is not hard at all for pro-choicers to debunk pro-lifers' ideologies even with the very words they [pro-lifers] themelves say.



Erm. No.



It doesn't make any difference whether it's in textbooks or not - that's utterly irrelevant. You said that "one is either a person or not a person": foetuses clearly aren't persons, but to differentiate their nature between that of a boiled egg we use more discrete descriptions. This is the function of adjectives, hence "potential person". This is shockingly basic.



I didn't intentionally leave out anything. I wrote down everything I intended to. But I'm interested to know exactly what "common, older definitions" you mean in order for me to give an answer.



So don't try to reconcile being pro-life with supporting equal rights for women.



Exuse me, yes you did. o read some of the older pages. You said all laws giving an unequal relationship between the born and the unborn should be repealed. I said so "do you accept that pregnant woman should be banned from driving with the punisment of imprisonment for endangering the life of an unborn baby just as she would if she was driving with a newborn in her arms" and you agreed, adding that "anything and everything should be done in order to safeguard foetuses".



Pathetic. Not only have you totally changed your opinion from foetuses "having full rights and enforcing any and all laws to protect their rights" to "just the right to live", but you're also condoning drinking excessive alcohol during pregnancy, drug abuse, unhealthy diet, the mother punching her stomach etc. providing the baby doesn't die.

You've gone from "I'm proud to be the only pro-lifer who supports that" ("that" referring to the implementation of ridiculous laws like stopping a pregnant woman from driving as she is endangering the foetus's life") to hippy-style liberal .



Fair enough, but as you say, these are all subjective values. At the ed of the day they don't really matter because the abortion debate is not a debate of science

You clearly imagined that I "implied" that, and I am not responsible for what you imagine. Quote me, if you dare.

On what basis do you make that prediction? And who will be killing those women, btw? You do know that we prolifers do not do any abortions, right?


Yes, those are subjective judgments, and therefore not very convincing as a justification to take an innocent human life, IMO.


Those terms are so general and non-specific that they could refer to almost anything.


"Boiled egg"? And textbooks are "utterly irrelevant"? I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.


Those like this (and there are several):
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617252 17/person.html


"Equal rights" does not entail the right to kill another human.


Indeed. What rights for the unborn, other than the right not to be killed, would result from that sort of an action?


Hardly. Removing the legal distinction wouldn't do any of that, all it would do is make it illegal to intentionally and electively kill an unborn baby.

I have already many times and other people have agreed with me. I don't need to do it again because I know I'm right.

No the DNA code is the blueprint.. Self direction is a psychological process of a brain developed enough to give commands to the body to follow.

He seems to think that he never actually said what you just quoted. He seems to think that these words of his do not mean "DNA makes the embryo capable of self direction and governance".

If what he meant is "DNA will eventually lead to the born child being capable of self-direction and governance" he would have been right. But that's not what he said.

look I quoted you saying it.

It isn't a prediction, it's a fact. It occurs worldwide in countries with restrictive abortion laws. You would've already known this if you had studied the abortion debate more rigorously. This is why the Women on Waves organisation exists.

I urge you to do a bit of research on illegal abortion (and also the many pro-life women who have aborted and pro-life doctors who perform them ).



Sorry, I don't fully understand what you mean. What exactly are you connoting by "subjective"? I obviously comprehend that because of their being subjective, you profess that morality, value, worth, and nature are not convicing enough arguments for justifying abortion. In that case, they are equally not convincing enough arguments to oppose abortion. It is our idiosyncratic thoughts on nature, morals, and status that have formed our opinions on abortion, so whatever goes for pro-choice goes for pro-life too. You are nullifying your own stance.

I personally consider that saying that subjective ideas aren not convincing enough is itself not convincing enough (although I would like you to explain a little more on what you intend to mean by "subjective").





So why mention it in the first place?



Stop purposely setting up strawmen. I don't think that text books are utterly irrelevant - whether or not the word person pre-modified by potential appears in text books or not is irrelevant.



Why do I need to include these meanings when I am only concentrating one the one, legal denotation of the term? I was referring explicitly to the law, so I cannot back up my argument using a scientific or philosophical explanation.



Equal rights do not entail the right to parasitically occupy the body of another human being, disallowing the host any legal right to practice bodily autonomy because it may harm the said parasite.

In truth, the concept of equality is used as a politically correct means of cowing people from speaking out and expressing their views. No one person is equal to another and I certainly do not think that foetuses and women should have equal rights.



I went over this before quite a few times. It is illegal to drive a car with a newborn baby in your lap, therefore it must be illegal for pregnant women to drive cars as the unborn need the same rights as the born; it is illegal to force-feed headache tablets to a newborn baby, therefore it must be illegal for pregnant women to take headache tablets because this could endanger the foetus and the unborn need the same rights as the born; it is unacceptable to take a newborn baby to work as a secretary, therefore it must be unacceptable for pregnant women to work as secretaries because the unborn require equal rights with the born; it is illegal to force newborn babies to drink three glasses of red wine in a restaurant, therefore it must be illegal for pregnant women to do so as the unborn require equal rights with the born.

I could go on and on and on. The whole idea of equality between a foetus and a five-month old born child is so nonsensical that if laws reflecting this notion were implemented nearly every single pregnant woman would be imprisoned, fined, or somehow reprimanded by the legal system for neglect and placing the life of another human being in grave danger. Equality between foetuses and the born is as ridiculous asoutlawing the wearing of green shirts except for Wednesdays between 8:06PM and 10:42PM.



No, I'm going on the hypothesis that the foetus hasn't died from all of these things. Thus you would be condoning such actions as no unborn child has been electively killed.

Can I ask you, do you think abortion should be legal for women who were impregnated due to rape? And what are the (very few, I would imagine) circumstances in which you feel abortion should remain legal and why?

The exact same is true for every single cell in our bodies. The dna in every cell directs that cell's development.