Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[ironsides]

Anna, I looked at the website, and it is a very long article. I skimmed through it, but nowhere it says that fetus is a human being since conception. However, it did say something else:

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning.

How perceptive. That is exactly what anti-abortionists are doing here, they confuse ‘human’ with ‘human being’. Fetus is human, it is not a human being.

Now your saying a human fetus is a human, but not a human being? Please explain, what is the difference, how can one be a human yet not a human being?

 

[JLM]

Now your saying a human fetus is a human, but not a human being? Please explain, what is the difference, how can one be a human yet not a human being?

Now we are getting into semantics, which is nothing more than the way people choose to express things and is not a part of logic.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now your saying a human fetus is a human, but not a human being? Please explain, what is the difference, how can one be a human yet not a human being?

Difference is simple, ironsides. Fetus shows some human characteristics such as human DNA. At conception it doesn’t show much more than that. But it can develop into a human being, if many conditions are met.

That is what makes a fetus a human, but it is not a human being. It does not have the shape and size of a human being for one. It cannot survive outside the womb, as any human being can. It can only live a parasitic existence inside the womb, drawing on its mother.

It is dependent upon one and only one individual, unlike a human being. An invalid, a cripple can be looked after by any person, not just his mother. So fetus lacks several human characteristics, although no doubt it displays a few. So it is human, but not a human being.

And that is why it is not protected by the Charter of Rights (or the Bill of Rights), only human beings are protected.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

JLM, ironsides, standing back and looking at the thread as a whole, I see that the thread has deteriorated, gone bad. Perhaps that is the inevitable fate of any thread on abortion. We have been going in circle for a long time now, everybody stating their opinion again and again, and not getting anywhere.

I think it is time to bury the thread; at least I am done with it (as I am done with the other abortion thread). Let me just post a few closing thoughts.

Current scientific and legal opinion is that fetus is not a human being, in spite of claims to the contrary by religious right. Women have the choice to have an abortion or not. I am glad to be living in a world like that.

I would not want to live in a world where abortion is illegal and doctors and women who participate in it are locked up for life without parole (or given the electric chair in USA). To me, that is a nightmare world, though no doubt a paradise to religious right and other prolifers.

If that ever happens, if scientific consensus shifts to the position that fetus is a human being since conception and having an abortion is tantamount to killing a human being, my hope is that I am dead and gone long before that.

There, I have said my final thoughts; I am done with the thread.

 

[JLM]

Difference is simple, ironsides. Fetus shows some human characteristics such as human DNA. At conception it doesn’t show much more than that. But it can develop into a human being, if many conditions are met.

That is what makes a fetus a human, but it is not a human being. It does not have the shape and size of a human being for one. It cannot survive outside the womb, as any human being can. It can only live a parasitic existence inside the womb, drawing on its mother.

It is dependent upon one and only one individual, unlike a human being. An invalid, a cripple can be looked after by any person, not just his mother. So fetus lacks several human characteristics, although no doubt it displays a few. So it is human, but not a human being.



And that is why it is not protected by the Charter of Rights (or the Bill of Rights), only human beings are protected.

Ooooh a couple of flaws here- a two week old infant can't survive outside the womb without help. The fella who devised that Charter of Rights (perhaps contrary to his own biased opinion) wasn't perfect.

 

[Kreskin]

Ooooh a couple of flaws here- a two week old infant can't survive outside the womb without help. The fella who devised that Charter of Rights (perhaps contrary to his own biased opinion) wasn't perfect.

But no single person is forcibly required to care for it. Just about anyone can and they can give it up for adoption. That isn't an option when one is 10 weeks pregnant.

 

[JLM]

But no single person is forcibly required to care for it. Just about anyone can and they can give it up for adoption. That isn't an option when one is 10 weeks pregnant.

That is true, kind of gives credibility to my own beliefs.

 

[Francis2004]

But no single person is forcibly required to care for it. Just about anyone can and they can give it up for adoption. That isn't an option when one is 10 weeks pregnant.

Is that true or do we ALL become responsible for the child ?

Does Social Service thru our taxes then become the parent of the child.. What about crack kids that suffer endlessly in that same system ? Even the adoption agencies costs a fortune to run and are a nightmare in bureaucratic paperwork..

Nothing is free including the Abortion.. It really is a nightmare issues that education is best to resolve..