[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes, but he doesn't hold that position for other situations.

What do you mean?

We went over this last time you were in the thread. Every example I brought up of someone needing a medical procedure because of something that was their fault you said you were fine with allowing. Except abortion.

Because reasons?

[Greater Gilead]

What do you mean?

We went over this last time you were in the thread. Every example I brought up of someone needing a medical procedure because of something that was their fault you said you were fine with allowing. Except abortion.

Because reasons?

REASON: All other medical procedures don't include murdering someone, abortion does.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We went over this last time you were in the thread. Every example I brought up of someone needing a medical procedure because of something that was their fault you said you were fine with allowing. Except abortion.

Because reasons?

REASON: All other medical procedures don't include murdering someone, abortion does.

Objectively false.

[Greater Gilead]

REASON: All other medical procedures don't include murdering someone, abortion does.

Objectively false.

Are you trying to tell me abortion does not kill the baby? I know it does, I'm not stupid.

[Alvecia]

Objectively false.

Are you trying to tell me abortion does not kill the baby? I know it does, I'm not stupid.

No more than my masturbating murders millions of innocent sperm cells.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Objectively false.

Are you trying to tell me abortion does not kill the baby? I know it does, I'm not stupid.

A fetus is not another human being and by definition since it's legal it cannot be murder.

[Greater Gilead]

Are you trying to tell me abortion does not kill the baby? I know it does, I'm not stupid.

No more than my masturbating murders millions of innocent sperm cells.

They are not alive, Life begins at conception, not before, not after.
I am NOT condoning masturbation.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No more than my masturbating murders millions of innocent sperm cells.

They are not alive, Life begins at conception, not before, not after.
I am NOT condoning masturbation.

Are you now an Iranian mullah?

[Alvecia]

No more than my masturbating murders millions of innocent sperm cells.

They are not alive, Life begins at conception, not before, not after.
I am NOT condoning masturbation.

They objectively are alive, actually. Much like a skin cell is alive.

Or are you suggesting that all sperm is dead?

[Greater Gilead]

They are not alive, Life begins at conception, not before, not after.
I am NOT condoning masturbation.

Are you now an Iranian mullah?

NO! I'm NOT Muslim!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Are you now an Iranian mullah?

NO! I'm NOT Muslim!

You are sharing the dearly held beliefs of Iranian mullahs.

[Greater Gilead]

They are not alive, Life begins at conception, not before, not after.
I am NOT condoning masturbation.

They objectively are alive, actually. Much like a skin cell is alive.

Or are you suggesting that all sperm is dead?

No, but they are part of you. The baby, even in the womb, is a separate human being.

[Sanctissima]

Are you trying to tell me abortion does not kill the baby? I know it does, I'm not stupid.

A fetus is not another human being and by definition since it's legal it cannot be murder.

It... kind of is a human being, by definition.

And calling something murder does not inherently mean there needs to be a legal basis for it. There's a lot of things that historically were not legally considered murder at their time, but that we most certainly would call murder today. Speaking in strictly legal parlance is nonsensical.

[Greater Gilead]

NO! I'm NOT Muslim!

You are sharing the dearly held beliefs of Iranian mullahs.

SOME of their beliefs are correct, but not all. (Murder is Murder, religion war or not.)

[Alvecia]

They objectively are alive, actually. Much like a skin cell is alive.

Or are you suggesting that all sperm is dead?

No, but they are part of you. The baby, even in the womb, is a separate human being.

Technically not. It cannot survive without being attached to the womb wall.

[Sanctissima]

No, but they are part of you. The baby, even in the womb, is a separate human being.

Technically not. It cannot survive without being attached to the womb wall.

That's... an odd definition, since following that line of thinking Siamese twins would inherently be the same person.

[Alvecia]

Technically not. It cannot survive without being attached to the womb wall.

That's... an odd definition, since following that line of thinking Siamese twins would inherently be the same person.

Hmm...not quite. I think personhood is somewhat different from being "a part of someone". But then at the point where a foetus is still part of the mother, it isn't a person anyway.

[Greater Gilead]

That's... an odd definition, since following that line of thinking Siamese twins would inherently be the same person.

Hmm...not quite. I think personhood is somewhat different from being "a part of someone". But then at the point where a foetus is still part of the mother, it isn't a person anyway.

At what point then, do you say it becomes a person? I say it happens when the sperm and egg meet, and the egg starts the 9 month journey to birth.

[Alvecia]

Hmm...not quite. I think personhood is somewhat different from being "a part of someone". But then at the point where a foetus is still part of the mother, it isn't a person anyway.

At what point then, do you say it becomes a person? I say it happens when the sperm and egg meet, and the egg starts the 9 month journey to birth.

I'd probably say when it's fully concious, or when it is able to be. So about the age of viability.
As far as I'm concerned, a just fertilised egg is about as much as a person as my sperm or skin cells.

[Mayakava]

it could only be my point of view but science has prove that point and it's the woman right to give life or not her reasons are not needed

[Sanctissima]

That's... an odd definition, since following that line of thinking Siamese twins would inherently be the same person.

Hmm...not quite. I think personhood is somewhat different from being "a part of someone". But then at the point where a foetus is still part of the mother, it isn't a person anyway.

Eh, it's not like a baby suddenly becomes biologically a human being the moment it is born. Legal definitions aside, it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being quite a bit beforehand.

Think what you will about abortion, but the whole "a foetus isn't really a person" argument shouldn't be considered anything other than a means to dehumanize the foetus to make the pro-choice stance more palpable. It has very little basis in actual human biology.

[Greater Gilead]

it could only be my point of view but science has prove that point and it's the woman right to give life or not her reasons are not needed

The right to do anything is politics, not science.

[Alvecia]

Hmm...not quite. I think personhood is somewhat different from being "a part of someone". But then at the point where a foetus is still part of the mother, it isn't a person anyway.

Eh, it's not like a baby suddenly becomes biologically a human being the moment it is born. Legal definitions aside, it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being quite a bit beforehand.

Think what you will about abortion, but the whole "a foetus isn't really a person" argument shouldn't be considered anything other than a means to dehumanize the foetus to make the pro-choice stance more palpable. It has very little basis in actual human biology.

I think the distinction needs to be made between human and person.
Technically, my right kidney is human, but it isn't a person.

[Greater Gilead]

Eh, it's not like a baby suddenly becomes biologically a human being the moment it is born. Legal definitions aside, it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being quite a bit beforehand.

Think what you will about abortion, but the whole "a foetus isn't really a person" argument shouldn't be considered anything other than a means to dehumanize the foetus to make the pro-choice stance more palpable. It has very little basis in actual human biology.

I think the distinction needs to be made between human and person.
Technically, my right kidney is human, but it isn't a person.

Correct. The baby is human, and it's a person as well.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, it's not like a baby suddenly becomes biologically a human being the moment it is born. Legal definitions aside, it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being quite a bit beforehand.

Think what you will about abortion, but the whole "a foetus isn't really a person" argument shouldn't be considered anything other than a means to dehumanize the foetus to make the pro-choice stance more palpable. It has very little basis in actual human biology.

I think the distinction needs to be made between human and person.
Technically, my right kidney is human, but it isn't a person.

Eh, rather the distinction between a human being and a person.

The former is biological fact, and applicable to the foetus from fairly early on in its stage of development. The latter is merely a legal definition.