emy
Convicted murderers in a court of law facing a possible death penalty have MANY more rights than,unborn babies in their mothers' wombs.
Because even after you 'load the language' convicted murders are human beings with personalities, and 'unborn babies' (are eggs 'unborn chickens'?) of an age where abortion would be given for social reasons in a well-regulated healthcare system are not human beings with personalities.
If someone doesn't have a personality, then they are not someone.
Moral equivalency is neither moral or equivalent, i.e., convicted murderers being compared to unborn children.
Actually, you can't compare them, for the reasons given above. And yes I am being semantically awkward. It's a gift
And don't try to distort what I say by using 'loaded language' - I'm sure you don't do it deliberately. You feel strongly and see a fetus and think of something with a personality or a brain that could even begin to sustain one of any comparison to an adult, even if this belief means cats should have human rights.
I make it very clear I think abortion at an early stage is not a moral issue. I state why. You have no answer to the grounds I state why (you don't have to, that was my initial point, my argument is irrelevant to you so why should you bother responding to it?).
I am saying (to put it clearly) that comparing humans with low active neurological complexity (early term fetuses and before, brain dead, et. al.) - I use the phrase as I believe it is self explanatory and highlights what I think is important - to humans with high active neurological complexity (even if they are low functioning or criminal) is not right. To make a fuss about the death of something with as much brain tissue as a rabbit and apparently calmly accept that INEVITABLY the death penalty kills innocent people is to me nonsensical. The potential to kill innocent people is one of the reasons why most civilised countries have abandoned it, apart from the big killers, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and the USA - I guess 'axis of execution' is a good term for that group, although seeing two 'mad' Muslim states and the last resting place of the 'red menace' grouped like that with the USA MUST give you some pause for thought.
You bandy around 'unborn children' like it is anything more than emotive loaded language as there is no 'child' there in any meaningful sense of the word in the examples I have given, and have nothing to say about the 'innocent but executed'. See how easy and pointless it is to get away from facts? I won't if you don't.
And if your beliefs are not FACTUAL, then fine, have them, but don't pretend it would then be reasonable to force another to share them.
I know you can gave me reasons why you think abortion is wrong all day long. What I want is for you or another anti-choicer to give me reasons why I would think an early-term abortion would be wrong, or why I would think it was fair and reasonable for you to prevent another from seeking the same. You don't approve, like nor will ever have an abortion. I'm never going to force you.
What makes your opinion better than mine (or more accurately of woman seeking an early-term abortion)?
Skimmer
It would be nice if you debated more and cut and paste less. I appreciate you have strong opinions about this but would rather I heard them from your own fingers instead of having you wave your mouse around and try and 'win' (an unwinnable debate, LOL) by sheer weight of verbiage. By all means cite fact, but use largely your own words or be ignored - something which you pretty obviously don't want to be on this issue.
Your mention of how black people (and other racial groups) were considered of less worth than European or 'whites'; and what has that to do with anything? Black people had personalities then as they do now, just like the Europeans who held themslves superior, so such an attitude was unsupportable. Early term fetuses will NEVER have personalities like even a new born can be said to have a personality; even in a million years time they won't have the brains for it (although cats might evolve by then, it's quite unlikely fetus brains will be bigger or more complex than now, there's no selection pressure for this).
Why not a straight answer to a straight question? Do you feel the Bible prohibits abortion? If so, why? Chapter and verse please. That one is obviouly open to all and sundry; and if any one sees sundry, tell him he owes me a fiver
And yes everyone, maybe humour is inapproriate in an abortion rights debate, but it's sorely needed. I mean, it's not like we were talking about people*, is it?
*people; entities with active neurological complexity and personalities
Which of course goes back to my point.
Anti-choicers believe early term fetuses are 'people'. Some even believe embryos, gamates or blastocysts are 'people', some want spermatozoa to have rights too (the Roman Catholic Church, or 'Free the Sperm Society').
And not one can show (demonstrate, prove) that spermatozoa, gamates, blastocysts, embryos or fetuses are 'people'. All they can do is say that they are 'people'.
Because it is a belief, and yet they want to impose this belief on what are definately people; women.
It would be nice if an anti-choicer actually made an attempt to get at the core of the argument for this pro-choicer.
Of course, you don't have to, my argument is of no relevence to you. And yours thus far is of no relevence to me. Which in a secular stte is entirely the point.
Only you can change that!