If one can show this V3, then abortion rights need to be tossed out the window. The moment someone can show that an unborn is in fact "human" is the moment where the rights of that being supercede the right of choice. Pretty much a summation of what i've been saying the past few pages. hehe.
Well, this was in reply to Tagrineth, which I assumed she already accepted that its human. But Vince adress this response already so I'll adressed your reply to that instead.
If that isn't circular reasoning.
Seriously though V3, tumors are known to release chemicals and hormones that promote blood vessel growth. Is it therefore self-aware?
No is not circular reasoning.
Tumors don't have a biological make up of unique human being. So tumors can grow and become self aware, but since its not human, you can kill them. A child in the womb is human however, its murder to kill the child with intent.
The problem Vince is that you get people who say we aren't just the sum of our genes and hormones. What do many anti-abortionists say? The fertilized egg has the potential to become a human life.
They're not pontetial, sperms and eggs are potential human life. Once the woman becomes pregnant there is another human being, different from the woman, living inside of her.
In your earlier post you've bring up the point about legislation about obtaining sperms, etc, because they maybe potential human being and we're killing them if not.
This is not right, sperms and eggs have limited life span. So when women discharge, the egg already had its life span. You're not killing a potential human being. The potential dies naturally.
The same with miscarriage. Woman who suffer miscarriage is not the same as abortion. Abortion has clear intent to end pregnancy, miscarriage is an unfortunate accidents. Woman who suffered miscarriage normally goes through grieving period. I am not sure about women who have abortion, if they go through the same period of the loss one.
Sarcasm aside, I've said and will continue to say that I don't like the idea of terminating a pregnancy unless it's in the case of forced sex or the mother's life is in danger.
In the case of rape, its still murder to kill the child.
In the case of the mother's life in danger, you're saving the mother's life, the death of the child is an accident that can't be avoided. Its an unfortunate circumstances that happend. Different from abortion, where the intent is to end the life of the child.
But until we have a rock solid definition of what a human being is, I can't personally see legislating against the right of a woman to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to term. Frankly it's going to take technology to answer that question imo, and at that point, I believe the right to an abortion will fall away. We just aren't there yet.
Science is useless isn't ? Several hundred years until now, we're still asking what's a human being ? We know more about Mars, than we know about ourself, and this lack of knowledge isn't helping when innocent humans are being killed daily.
Beside with this lack of knowledge, wouldn't it better to legislate against abortion, woman has 9 months of discomfort and lack of freedom Vs a whole life time of an innocent child ?
