Abortion -The poll is not based upon Religious belief - It is based ethics
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Don't think they have anything to do with abortion or murder or what is considered a human being under the law. They certainly do not say an ear grown artificially on a rat's back is a human being.
They define something you falsely called tumours and parasites as human. Ears included.
Obviously not, since this is not the first time you have threatened me with bodily harm for my opinion. You really should do something about that anger issue. It's gonna end up getting you in trouble one of these times.
I haven't done it, that's how the argument's phrased by others and it's not one I would use. In my view you can't have a right to do something that's in fact not possible to do.
Lack of bodily and mental control are what causes unwanted pregnancy and spreads potentially fatal diseases in the first place.
Grow up buddy.
Obviously I am happy that I exist rather than don't exist, but I also wouldn't exist if my mom had used a condom.
Does that mean we should ban condoms too?
Last edited:
You missed the point.
The pro abortion side is arguing that late term abortions do not happen in Canada because no doctor would perform them.
I am merely pointing out the stupidity of that assumption.
Just because something is human(adjective) doesn't necessarily mean that it is a human(noun).
Are you claiming that there is a law that says ears are humans(noun) or simply that they can be described using the adjective human(aka, human ears, human hair).
It is a pretty big difference, since there is nothing wrong with chipping off human hair simply because it is human(adjective), but it is illegal to kill a human(noun).
I have never heard of a law that grants individual personhood to individual body parts, so I would be interested to see what law you are talking about.
Your example wasn't even from Canada, and it is clearly already illegal in Canada.
It doesn't prove that late term abortions happen in Canada. It doesn't prove that laws need to change to prevent stuff like that.
What exactly do you think it points out?
No it's not "illegal to kill a human". If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Fetuses are not humans, at least as far as the law is concerned.
I know you are going to flip your **** if I mention this, so that is pretty much why I am going to mention it, but you are imposing your personal morals on this again.
Your personal belief that a fetus is a human doesn't make it so.
I'm still waiting for the answer to "can you read and do you comprehend what you read?" Can you? Yes or no?
Hey hey hey. No reality gerryh.
They are fetuses.
You can refer to the adjective vs noun post above if you want.
They are human fetuses, just like I have human hair on my head, but neither the hairs on my head or fetuses are humans(as in the noun).