I do. They have a difficult time understanding that a fetus is not a person. They also have a hard time understanding that a fetus is simply a member of the woman's body. Just like an arm or a leg. Many people fail to understand the fetus is only a potential Person/Human Being.

A fetus is what a person IS after being conceived. You can think this is not valuable but to many of us it is.

Yoda you can't have equal rights for both mother and parasite. The rights of one must trumph the other; either the woman has her rights or the parasite has more rights then the woman who supports it. You cannot have both.
Personally I think the post birth gestating woman's rights are more important then the non sentient little proto-human parasite.

So is a paraplegic. They are parasitic upon whoever is caring for them.


Anytime the effort to save an innocent life is "ridiculous", then just include me in that category, proudly.


You haven't defined what you mean by "the same". A newborn and a two year old are not "the same", is that what you mean?


That's why I say the abortion debate/war really isn't between the prolifers and the prochoicers, it's between the prochoicers and the babies that are dying every day. Sure, every prolifer could "make a truce" with every prochoicer, but the babies would still be dying by the tens of thousands. That's not much of a "compromise".


I do not oppose abortion to save the life of a mother, but I would rather see it done as an "early delivery", rather than as a deliberate killing of the unborn baby. And location is not the point in an ectopic pregnancy, it is the threat of death to the mother.



No, a fetus is NOT a "part" of an organism. Surely you know better than that.

If they were, every pregnant woman could be both male and female, have two different racial classifications, be both sick and well, have two heads, four arms, and four legs, not to mention two separate nervous and circulatory systems, and last but not least, two different DNA codes.

The zygote floats freely down the fallopian tube for a couple days, attached to nothing. How is it that a free floating creature with a different DNA code from it's mother can suddenly become a "part of" it's mother again?

1. There is no such creature in all of creation as a "potential person". That term cannot be found in any legitimate textbook or reference source.

2. Regardless of how you personally see the word "person", the ONLY "right" an unborn human needs is the right not to be electively killed.

3. A fetus is NEVER a "part" of a woman's body. It is not in any way connected to the woman's nervous system, it has it's own. It controls it's own growth and development. It has a distinct DNA code. Body "parts" do not have those characteristics.

Don't want them. I just want ONE right for the "parasite", the right not to be electively killed.

It cannot breathe on its own; it cannot obtain nourishment or eliminate waste. "It" does NOT control it's own growth and development. If a pregnant female does not eat, the fetus will not grow.

It DIRECTS it's own growth and development, with the nourishment it takes from the mother's blood.

It governs it's own destiny, as long as it has the nutrients and environment it needs, just like ANY OTHER LIVING CREATURE.

'Parasitic' in a very metaphorical sense. They do not literally depend on their mother's body to survive. If a paraplegic newborn's parents die, another individual takes care of it. It does not have to live from its mother's bodily resources in order to remain alive.



I guess I'm ridiculous then for wanting to save the lives of all pregnant women who wish to have an abortion.



A newborn and a two-year old are not the same in the very literal meaning of the two. Newborns and the unborn are not of the same nature, not of the same status, not of the same worth.



That's silly. The abortion debate is about science, philosophy, morals, and ethics. If you think that the debate is about "pro-choicers and murdered babies" then I will say it is about "anti-choicers and misogyny".



So what, in such circumstances, makes a woman more valuable that an unborn baby? Why only in this situation and not any other? If unborn babies are of equal worth to born babies, then allowing abortion to save the life of the mother would also mean that born babies could be murdered to save the mother's life.



Erm, surely you know better than that.

a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes;

a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran;

a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.



No, that's utter rubbish ! Where on Earth did you find that bull



Person is in legititmate textbooks. Potential is an adjective to give a more discrete, specific description of the said person. Biologically, foetuses are persons; philosophically, sociologically, and legally, they are not (and this is what pro-abortionists mean when they use the word):
"Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.

Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties."

Foetuses can only potentially be of these descriptions.



Why? Firstly, to give unborn humans this right their hosts' rights to bodily aunomy are immediately nullified. Stop evading this fact.

Secondly, you are contradicting what you said to me previously; you tod me the unborn should have equal rights as the born and that pregnant women should be arrested for doing to the unborn what they cannot do to the born. I'm sure you remember. I gave you the long list of ridiculous, everday things pregnant women would be arrested for.

Thirdly, why is the right to life the only right they should have? There is no logic to give them just one right but not any others. No other person has such an inferior existence.



Yes it is. Blood is stored within the body although not attached to any other part, although it still remains a part of the body and the body is partly composed of it. Why can body parts not have a distinct DNA code? Show me some proof.

Foetuses don't really control their own growth. If the pregnant woman stops eating, the foetus will die. The fact that the foetus requires the mother's body in order to survive proves that it is not in control of its own growth and survival.

He proclaims a person is a murderer when they get an abortion. Yet, he proclaims them justified in killing a fetus formed because of rape or incest. I must ask that person, how he can justify either of his decisions. Has he promoted himself to the lofty position of GOD.

You are asserting that a nonviable embryo is capable of self direction and governance?

Certainly, this particular fetus has GOLD-PLATED CHROMOSOMES.

I thought some of the 16 and 17 year old kids were funny.

This would mean a Zygote at implantation would have a working brain. Well, that would be one healthy and large embryo. Nothing but twaddle. Do you ever have anything to post that would lead to serious discussion.

I don't like abortion, but I will never resort to this form of nonsense. And, I can't even say a mildly bad word. Well, maybe one. BALDERDASH!!!

I am sorry to anyone who has actually engaged in philosophical/ethical discussion regarding abortion, but I feel that some people on this board may not have really learned much about the issues surrounding this debate, which has been important in the US for decades.

Wiki "abortion debate" and look it over. It's a good read.

Then perhaps this discussion will get a little more interesting and a little less frustrating.

It also has some very nice articles and references for both sides.

I have dropped in on a few abortion topics in gaia.com (a children's site mostly, but with adults mixed in). I find myself debating and refuting the pro-choicers more often than the pro-lifers!!! I had one young man attempting to say that abortion wasn't homicide because there was no body as proof. Aside from the legal incorrectness of that claim (you can accuse someone of homicide without a body) it's also biologically false.

Abortion is not Homicide, it is Feticide. Killing of a Fetus, or performing an abortion.

What the legal definition is I can not tell you. It may be included in the Statutes regarding homicide, as is, infanticide, the killing of an infant.

I'm not saying abortion is homicide.

Well, Pardon the out of me for attempting to tell you what the actual word is and how it should be used. Unless, a particular state classes feticide as a homicide in the criminal statutes.

Because, abortion is a legal medical procedure neither term is appropriate.

Duh. I'm pro-choice. I agree with you. I don't think it's fetucide or infanticide or any "-cide". I just found it offensive that you jumped on me like that, and I responded the way I did to prove that point.

That distinction hardly seems appropriate to a discussion about the morality of electively killing an innocent human being.


The intended purpose of abortion is to kill the baby, not the mother. And statistics bear that out.


"Nature", "status", and "worth" are apparently all subjective values to you.


No real scientific issues are disputed in this debate. Only imaginary ones.


Nothing. It's not a matter of value. Our basic instinct of self-preservation should not be forbidden to a woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy. It is an amoral decision, IMO.


It's common sense.


And yet that two word phrase does not appear in any reference source. One is either a person or not a person, according to whether any definition of person fits their circumstances.


And yet you intentionally left out the more common, older definitions that a human fetus does fit. Why?


There is no evasion, there is my belief that "bodily autonomy" is of much less importance/value than innocent human life.


No, I did not.



It's all they need.


Yes, they do. Since there is no neural pathway between mother and embryo/fetus, their DNA code must direct all their growth and development. It contains the entire biological blueprint of a human being.