Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[bergmann620]

The likelihood is higher with IVF than 15%, but that's another discussion for another day. I know how the process works, we don't need to argue language and semantics. You know what I was talking about.

The reason it's higher is because most transfers involve multiple embryos.

Great. Your initial implication was that if we were to make abortion illegal, as a society, we had to provide for all of the children who would have been aborted. Secondarily, most likely, you would not go to jail, but the child would be taken away by the state. Either way, the right to life of the individual is not in question.

No, that was another person's implication. Mine was that society should be legally obligated to take care of all those that require it. As to the above, however, you're countering your own point. In the case of birth, there is a legal expectation in regard to providing for that entity. it can be transferred, but it must be upheld.

In relation to the abortion question, if you force women into carrying babies to term, you need to also address what happens after birth. To not do so. you're essentially saying that abortion is murder, but death by negligence/starvation is of no concern.

[Endus]

Look. It is patently obvious that a piece of tissue such as skin or liver, or unfertilized gametes lack the ability to develop into a complete organism. An embryo is different. We learn this at a very young age. I don't think this needs to be explained, right?

Well, you're wrong, with regards to gametes; you're just pushing it back past a certain stage (fertilization) for no justifiable reason. We're also right on the cusp of being able to use skin or liver cells to create a workable new organism.

But in general, no, it doesn't need to be explained; it's just completely irrelevant.

I don't see how I'm guessing at possible imaginary futures when, if you have an implanted embryo, especially past a relatively modest state of development, it is very likely that that pregnancy will be carried to viability. [/quote]

Because it isn't "very likely" if that person has an abortion. So you're using an imaginary future that you've invented to deny someone their rights in the here-and-now. That future does not exist, it's something you are imagining.

Or are you trying to make some other point? You seem to be implying that any "imaginary prediction" has no validity in the world.

In terms of human rights? Yes, imaginary concepts have no validity. It doesn't matter if you think someone's kid will grow up to be Hitler 2.0, your imaginary future does not mean you can pre-emptively kill them to prevent that. Because your imagination has no validity when it comes to his rights.

It's particularly ridiculous with regards to abortion, since you're talking about a potential future that only exists if people accept your imaginary argument. If they refuse it, that future doesn't and will never exist. So beyond just being a ridiculous argument, it also, to make matters even more irrational, is irrevocably circular in nature. You presume your own conclusion in making it.

[Hammerfest]

I think someone needs to speak for the fetus.

[Santti]

I think someone needs to speak for the fetus.

That would be the mother, like it is today.

[Elim Garak]

I'll speak for the fetus.

Here goes:










And I'm done speaking for the fetus

[Naxere]

I think abortions should be free to anyone that wants one.

[Hotmail]

If you are telling someone what to do with their body based on their gender, isn't that the definition of bigotry? As far as I know no one is debating the right to impregnation.

[Elim Garak]

I think abortions should be free to anyone that wants one.

I want one, gimme gimme!

[bergmann620]

Because your imagination has no validity when it comes to his rights.

Well, you just killed almost every gun control advocate's position. Well played =)

[Deleted]

That "potential" is something you're imagining. I'm not going to give much weight to fictions you invent, no matter how much you want to use them as an argument.

No its not imaginary, i will grant you its hypothetical, but its not imaginary.
A unicorn is an imaginary creature, a foetus developing into a person is not even remotely imaginary.

Thanks for admitting that your "independent respiratory function" doesn't have anything to do with personhood, then.

three posts ago i said, and the last 5-6 times we have been over this, medical science does not have any relevance to the question of what a person is.
It can say if something is alive or dead and that is about it.

Since that is what's in question. Not whether something is alive.

then what part of your person hood alters week 22 to week 25?
In what way is a one month old baby a person? its brain has developed in no real way the month its spent 'alive' and does not have a personality.
its about as much a person as a sea slug is.

This is objectively false. You are lying, at this point. The laws on fetal homicide only grant that the fetus may be treated as a person, for the purpose of those charges, not that it is a person in any other manner whatsoever.

In 1762, English jurist and judge William Blackstone wrote that an "infant in its mother's womb" could benefit from a legacy and receive an estate as if it were actually born

The law does not define a fetus as a person. That's simply, blatantly, incorrect. You're pulling from the Wikipedia for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which in no way grants any form of personhood whatsoever. Indeed, if fetuses were, considered to be "persons" under the law, that very Act would be completely unnecessary. It's existence as a form of law is proof of how completely incorrect you are on this point.

I do not argue the law defines the foetus is a person, i argue that the definition they are using is plainly absurd, with the foetus's person hood being conditional on the whims of the mother.

[Endus]

No its not imaginary, i will grant you its hypothetical, but its not imaginary.
A unicorn is an imaginary creature, a foetus developing into a person is not even remotely imaginary.

When you're talking about the invented future of a fetus that is to be aborted, a future that will not exist, yes, it's exactly as imaginary as unicorns.

three posts ago i said, and the last 5-6 times we have been over this, medical science does not have any relevance to the question of what a person is.
It can say if something is alive or dead and that is about it.

We have two possible sources to pull from to determine where personhood should begin;

1> Medical science, or
2> Some random person's wild imagination.

I'll lean towards the former, thanks.

I do not argue the law defines the foetus is a person, i argue that the definition they are using is plainly absurd, with the foetus's person hood being conditional on the whims of the mother.

Again, this is just objectively incorrect if you actually bothered to read the laws you're citing. This isn't a case where we're disagreeing on something; you are flat-out stating something that is obviously and completely false.

[Citizen T]

Because it sounds like you just ignored everything I just linked you.

So you are just going to ignore that they linked the decline to numerous other sources because actual behavior of teens did not change? In fact kids who do abstinence only still learn and use condoms because so much information is available to teens now. Abstinence does not work as intended because it simply cannot. Too much information is available. If the states were bubbles and people could not learn on the internet, maybe abstinence could matter, but it simply does not. Teens have sex, teens use condoms, teen pregnancy goes down.

You posted a few opinions with no supporting data or even statistics. How about this then?
http://recapp.etr.org/recapp/index.c...ail&PageID=555
Between 1991-2013, the proportion of students who ever had sexual intercourse decreased from 54% to 47%. This is the time period we've been discussing. The proportion of students having sex has decreased. I'm pretty sure this isn't due to them leaning to use a condom on the internet. It is exactly what an abstinence program would create.

[heerobya]

People really haven't learned that both extremes (left and right) are bad? Huh...

People REALLY don't now there are more choices than yes and no? Black and white? Huh...

You know, on a scale of 1-10, there are ACTUALLY numbers BETWEEN 1 and 10? They are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9! It's amazing!

(Point is - OP: duh?! of course being opposed to something doesn't automatically make a person for something else)

[Elegiac]

People REALLY don't now there are more choices than yes and no? Black and white? Huh...

They do; they're called 'pro choice'.

[Deleted]

We should be doing this either way as a matter of right.

But the right to be cared for would be a new right wholly separate from your existing 'right' not to be murdered, regardless of its possible extension to cover foetuses

[Zyster]

A fetus, by definition is human.

[Elegiac]

But the right to be cared for would be a new right wholly separate from your existing 'right' not to be murdered, regardless of its possible extension to cover foetuses

There's as much legal foundation for a right to assistance as there is for a right to 'protection from murder', so.

- - - Updated - - -

A fetus, by definition is human.

Your point being what.

[Zyster]

Should be called pro-taking choice away. Not pro-choice.

[Elegiac]

Should be called pro-taking choice. Not pro-choice.

If a choice is not capable of being made then there is no choice to be taken away.

[Zyster]

If a choice is not capable of being made then there is no choice to be taken away.

Were you once a fetus?