What do you all think?

your "facts" are nothing more than beliefs, beliefs which cannot and should not be legislated. A zygote is no more a human than an egg is actually a chicken. It has the genetic potential to become a human, but is not one yet. It is not a human until it is born.

another good example. If you take an egg, some flour, milk, and oil and mix it all together, you have the potential to make pancakes. But it isn't a pancake until after it has been cooked. Just the ingredients is not enough, you also need time and heat to put it all together properly before it can become a pancake. Same is true for people. Just having the genetic material mixed together does not make a human being. It has to cook first.

 

There is no genetic change between conception and birth, only growth and development, i.e. life. That is simple fact, not "belief."

 

and there is no integral change between what makes up pancake batter and a pancake, other than the chemical reaction brought about by the heat of the frying pan. A clump of cells is not even close to being a person, no matter how you look at it. If you want to believe that life starts at conception, that is entirely your business, but keep your beliefs off other people's bodies, ok?



If I cut off a finger, right now. The cells in it would still be technically "alive" for a while before the flesh dies from lack of blood circulation. It would genetically be exactly the same as the rest of me. But it is not a person. There is more to being a person than our genetic material.

 

Whoa, thats a very dangerous statement.

 

what? you gonna accuse me of murdering my finger? OH, premeditated finger murder, that's what it is!

 

I am pro-choice.

I do have a "personal" problem with partial-birth abortion (and really any after the first trimester), but it IS the Woman's Choice. Period.

I haven't known any fetuses to be born and survive while in the first trimester, thus I have NO problem with 1st trimester abortions. And absolutely no problem with the pill.

Just my two cents.

BTW, sperm are alive and contain DNA. Am I committing murder when I jerk off?

 

That's true. These cells from your finger cannot develop as human beings in any environment, unless they are genetically altered through some sort of cloning technique involving DNA from an ova. However, a human embryo will develop as such, unless he/she is cut off from the necessary life support system in the womb.

 

the necessary life support system being a woman's uterus, over which you have no control and no say so, it's hers to do with as she wishes.

 

The very thing that defines us as human beings is our genetic material. You just said that alone doesn't make us a person. THAT is what's dangerous

 

my point is that genetic material alone does not make a person. My finger is exactly the same genetically as the rest of me, but it is not a person. what defines us as human is much more than what is in our DNA. Look at identical twins, who are usually genetically the same. Are they one or two different people? Genetics is only one small part of who we are.

 

legally though, it matters a great deal.

Now i have a question. Most Pro-Choice people admit that there is a 'blurry area' between fertilization and when an unborn baby 'actually becomes human.' If scientists can not agree exactly when an unborn baby becomes a human...should we be aborting what could be a human?

That is like executing a person before trying them for guilt or innocence. Should there not be a moratorium until we can get down to the bottom of this question and answer it once and for all?

p.s. the whole egg and the chicken thing is a little weird. I dont think anyone would approve of me stomping on baby eagle eggs just because they're not 'eagles yet'

 

What bias?

Thise logic justifies abortion until the minute before a child is due. It is human, regardless of semantics, and as such, has a right to life (ie: you do not have the right to kill it). However, it also does not have the right to use your body, and this right overrides a child's right to life.

You're stating opinion as fact. Regardless of the term "child" it is still human, and has all of the rights of a human.

This argument is irrelevant - the mother loses the right to abort the day the baby could survive outside of her body (I can't put a day to this off the top of my head, I know little about premature babies).

I don't care about your miscarriages.

Way to enter a debate with an open mind.

 

That's a perverse heirarchy of rights. I think most pro-choicers realize this, which is why they generally resist your honesty in acknowledging that abortion is killing.

 

So is eating meat...so you better stop doing that too

 

What pill are you referring to? Morning after? Birth control Pill? Or RU486? Just wondering before I go on a quick rant about the morning after pill...

Peace and love

 

Not particularly - lets use an analagy. Say one day you woke up from sleep to find yourself attached at the hip to another person (whose kidneys did not work). In the middle of the night, doctors, without your permission, had attached him to use yours. After 9 months, he would live and be fine, but you would not be able to leave the bed for those 9 months. Would you detach and let him die?

 

Obviously the moral thing to do is to let him use your kidneys for 9 months. However, he has no claim over your body, and you have no responsibility towards him.

 

In this bizarre analogy, who does the villainous doctor correspond to? Your analogy might be valid for cases of rape, which account for less than 1% of all abortions.

 

The doctor is irrelevant - merely backstory for how such odd circumstances could arrive.

However, I think it justifies any accidental pregnancy as well.

 

It's a fatal flaw in your analogy, except for the statistically rare cases of rape. Your fanciful scenario has no bearing on the other 99% of abortions.