Abortion

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If its alive and within the homo sapien species, you're simply using political jargon to designate it as something else
:shrug:

LG do you support fetal stem cell research? I ask this because it is possible to cure disease from the stem cells harvested from terminated pregnancy or in vitro.

 

[visceral_instinct]

So LG, you honestly can't see a difference between aliveness and personhood?

The LINING of your RECTUM is alive. Doesn't mean it has rights that are distinct from yours.:frust::frust:

 

[lightgigantic]

So LG, you honestly can't see a difference between aliveness and personhood?


The LINING of your RECTUM is alive. Doesn't mean it has rights that are distinct from yours.:frust::frust:

If the lining on your rectum gave rise to life akin to your own, perhaps you would have a point

 

[lightgigantic]

LG do you support fetal stem cell research? I ask this because it is possible to cure disease from the stem cells harvested from terminated pregnancy or in vitro.

yes and no

to the degree that it creates an "industry" for terminating pregnancies, I don't support it

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

yes and no

to the degree that it creates an "industry" for terminating pregnancies, I don't support it

But it doesn't make an industry of terminating pregnancies. Termination was going on long before there were strides in stem cell research. In what way do you support fetal stem cell research?


As a complete side issue:
What of sperm? Do you think that with every ejaculation there is a waste of life?

 

[lightgigantic]

But it doesn't make an industry of terminating pregnancies. Termination was going on long before there were strides in stem cell research. In what way do you support fetal stem cell research?

That doesn't mean it stands outside of creating an industry

As a complete side issue:
What of sperm? Do you think that with every ejaculation there is a waste of life?

only one's own

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

In order to argue that it actually helps create the industry you would have to find some evidence that women are having abortions to fuel the industry and none exists. There is no connection to the rate of abortion and fetal stem cell research. You answered 'yes and no' in terms of your support of fetal stem cell research. You have explained the 'no' but not the 'yes'. In what manner would you support fetal stem cell research?

So are you guilty of crimes against humanity every time you have a wet dream?

 

[lightgigantic]

In order to argue that it actually helps create the industry you would have to find some evidence that women are having abortions to fuel the industry and none exists.

once again, that says nothing about its potential to create an opening

There is no connection to the rate of abortion and fetal stem cell research. You answered 'yes and no' in terms of your support of fetal stem cell research. You have explained the 'no' but not the 'yes'. In what manner would you support fetal stem cell research?

in the sense that it improves lives without destroying others

So are you guilty of crimes against humanity every time you have a wet dream?

It was more like one is wasting one's own things and not some one elses

 

[iceaura]

Why would I use evidence to back up my statements? No-one else on this thread has, including the pro-choicers.

I have. Tiassa has. Others have. You haven't. Light gigantic hasn't. The pro-lifers in general haven't.

There are no graves in the cemeteries for early miscarriages, no funerals for ectopic pregnancies, no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances that treat an early embryo as a child in any way, except one; no one - not the most rabid and rigid of the "prolifers", not you, not l g, no one - has ever in history treated a three month embryo as a child in any circumstance, except - -

voluntary abortion, instigated by the pregnant woman.

Your claim to consider such an embryo a human being in general is obviously false, and your insistence on it as a basis of argument blatantly dishonest. Whatever objection you really have to women having abortions, should be rephrased in some way that is not fraudulent from step one.

 

[mordea]

Not really. I asked you to define a human.

You failed to deliver.

What the hell? I explained *numerous* times as to why a fetus qualifies as human.

So which human do you think should have a priority to "life"? Which human should have a greater say?

As the saying goes: Every man for himself.

How do you think I define a "person"?

You adopt a definition which precludes a fetus from being considered a person, that much I know. From what you have stated in recent posts, it seems clear that you define personhood as viability outside the womb.

So we should use uneducated racists as examples?

Not just uneducated. Historically speaking, many leading thinkers were racist.

Why do pro-lifer's always bring on the 'black' argument?

Because it highlights how arbitrary the definition of 'personhood' actually is. What one considers a person varies from individual to individual. Some consider anything human to be a person. Some consider non-humans to people. Some require that the organism be viable outside the womb before considering it a person. Some require a certain degree of mental function before granting the life form personhood.

Personhood is so poorly defined, that it is apparent to me that it should *not* be used as means of determining whether someone is entitled to the right to life.

A black person has rights.

Currently, yes. But they didn't always have rights in certain areas of the world. They were worked to death by colonists in the Congo, and had their body parts harvested as trophies. Such a thing was done under the presumption that they were not people, but ignorant savages with a reduced mental capacity.

See, the definition of 'person' is so flexible, that it can be modified whenever convenient to justify denying certain segments of society basic rights.

A 12 week old embryo does not have rights.

Not currently. Which, as I have explained many times, I find incredibly hypocritical.

In a life or death situation, the medical profession aren't even going to consider it. Why? Because it has not attained the status of "person" yet. It is not a person.

Some don't consider them people simply because it is convenient to do so. The convenience of a vocal woman who can vote apparently trumps the right to life of a defenseless fetus who is out of sight and mind.

It is not viable.

Nor is a patient with renal failure if they do not receive dialysis. Nor is a patient who requires enteral feeding. Nor is a patient who requires life support. Nor is a physicall or mentally handicapped individual if you throw turf them out into the wild.

It can be aborted naturally at any point in time.

And a baby can die in its cot at any time. Better yet, a baby will be 'aborted' naturally if it is not breast or bottle fed. You've just given deadbeat parents the perfect excuse to neglect or outright murder their child.

It cannot exist outside of the womb.

A baby can't exist without the support of a guardian. Most Western adults can't exist outside of civilization. Many elderly individuals can't exist without a carer or extensive medical support. All humans require some degree of external support, some more than others. Why draw the line at the placenta? Sounds like an arbitrary justification.

If the mother does not want it there, she should have a say in that, don't you think?

No.

Or are her rights to her body nul and void as soon as she becomes pregnant in your opinion? Does she cease to be a person when she becomes pregnant and the embryo becomes the person instead?

She has no right to terminate the existence of another life form, unless her life is immediate jeopardy (ie. in self-defense). Dialysis patients can't kill other renal failure patients to jump ahead in the kidney transplantation queue, so I don't see why women should be able to kill a human life form for convenience either.

But they are people and they have rights. Rights which embryo's do not have and will not have until they become viable or can exist outside the womb. It's really not that hard you know..

I understand what you are saying. But I don't agree with you. Fetus' are not regarded as people by some out of convenience, not because there is any decent justification for doing so. This is highlighted by the observation that whenever someone claims that the fetus is not a person, they usually follow with "... and it's the woman's body!" in the same breath. The woman's body has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus, so I'm going to assume that such a statement is made in consideration of the woman's convenience.

Deny women the right to choose or the right to a say over their own bodies?

Yes. When what you do with your body affects another, then your freedoms must be limited for the good of all.

Should we then expect women to get tested each time they bleed? Be investigated if they miscarry just in case they did something to end the pregnancy? That is what extending "life" to "all humans" will entail.

Simply because rights may be difficult to enforce does not mean that we should deny them to the deserving. Furthermore, abortion is prohibited beyond a certain point, and yet the difficulties you describe have not become apparent for miscarriages that occur beyond this point.

So who should have the priority to life? The mother or the zygote?

Neither.

It would be convenient for the mother to remain alive.

It would also be convenient for the mother to not have to worrying about changing her life to cope with pregnancy and childbirth. The vast majority of abortions are performed for personal reasons, not medical ones.

It's happened to 4 women I know thus far.

Like I said, it's very rare.

You mean she exercised her right to choose for herself and not have society choose for her? My, how novel.

Yes, she chose the life of a 'non-person' over her own. You don't consider this foolish in the slightest?

It is not for me to say whether it was appropriate or not.

Why not? Do you lack the intellect and conviction to formulate and stand by an opinion, no matter how controversial it might be?

She had the choice and she made it. Her choice should be respected regardless of what it is.

Emphasis added because 'choice' and the right to exercise it either way is what the actual debate is about.

Your choice stops at the point where you are taking another human life.

 

[mordea]

I have. Tiassa has. Others have. You haven't. Light gigantic hasn't. The pro-lifers in general haven't.

Are pro-choicers so delusional, that they would engage in such monumental self-deceit? Tiassa and yourself have offered nothing more than shit logic and appeals to authority, while slathering at the mouth like enraged zombies.

There are no graves in the cemeteries for early miscarriages, no funerals for ectopic pregnancies, no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances that treat an early embryo as a child in any way,

So? How is 'having a funeral' a measure of being human? Are you saying that I cannot be considered human until I am six feet under? Wow, the arguments put forward by pro-choicers become more retarded as the years go by.

Your claim to consider such an embryo a human being in general is obviously false, and your insistence on it as a basis of argument blatantly dishonest. Whatever objection you really have to women having abortions, should be rephrased in some way that is not fraudulent from step one.

My observation that a fetus is human is based on genetics and biological science. Last time I checked, the taxonomical classification of species didn't have 'funerals' as a prequisite for regarding an organism as Homo sapiens.

Ie. Your 'argument' chokes balls, as is typical of a pro-choicer.

 

[mordea]

If the "pro-life" crowd could actually answer the implications of their assertions, they would not be viewed as behaving so stupidly.

Such as the implications of using mental function or viability as a measure of personhood? Oh, wait, sorry. It is 'pro-choicers' who continually evade those implications.

For all their hope invested in fugly excuses for pretty rhetoric, they have steadfastly refused to consider the implications of what they consider.

It is little wonder that you consider the claims of pro-lifers 'fugly'. Quite often, doing the right thing can seem pretty damn ugly to the morally bankrupt.

At worst, women become mere baby factories.

Nonsense.

At best, men don't get laid unless they are specifically trying to father a child.

More nonsense. Instead of fantasising about absurd scenarios, you should invest that time in actually coming up with a sound argument to justify your ridiculous worldview.

You know, I've long disdained the idea of Obama nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, but it only now occurs to me that he should have nominated you instead. After all, you know so much more about biology, theology, history, law, and whatever else you wish to claim knowledge of, than any Supreme Court Justice in history.

...

That constitutes little more than an appeal to authority. You can't support your own beliefs with semi-convincing rhetoric, so you need to fall back on the opinion of a deceased judge from a country I do not reside in. I'm less than impressed. But hey, what can I expect from an individual who believes that citing liberal blogs and individuals whose opinion agrees with their own constitutes convincing evidence?

 

[lightgigantic]

I have. Tiassa has. Others have. You haven't. Light gigantic hasn't. The pro-lifers in general haven't.

There are no graves in the cemeteries for early miscarriages, no funerals for ectopic pregnancies, no procedures or routines anywhere under any circumstances that treat an early embryo as a child in any way, except one; no one - not the most rabid and rigid of the "prolifers", not you, not l g, no one - has ever in history treated a three month embryo as a child in any circumstance, except - -

maybe not in this thread, but it certainly got a mention (in response to yours truly, I might add) in its sister thread

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2511128&postcount=76

there are some traditional customs in other cultures that recognize the embryo at different stages through different ceremonies (or "samskaras") ... before western models became more popular, new born children were aged at 1 (since it seemed quite absurd to think it was 0 up until it came out the womb ) and similarly, in the case of twins, the first born is recognized as the youngest (since the second born is actually conceived first)

 

[iceaura]

maybe not in this thread, but it certainly got a mention (in response to yours truly, I might add) in its sister thread

So? Nothing there actually deals with the matter at hand, notice. Religious rituals to increase the odds the child will be born male, for example, clearly presume the sex is not established - no actual human being is yet present, in other words.

Mention away. Meanwhile, the flagrant and fundamental dishonesty of your arguments and assertions on this subject is something you should correct in the future - you have never in your life shown or advocated general behavior consistent with the belief that a three month embryo is a human being, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman. Neither has anyone else, in all of human history AFAIK. Such a belief cannot be the basis of any argument you make honestly on this forum.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

once again, that says nothing about its potential to create an opening

in the sense that it improves lives without destroying others


It was more like one is wasting one's own things and not some one elses

What do you mean that 'that says nothing about its potential to create an opening'? How can it create an opening? They take advantage of terminated fetuses that's all.

Yes it improves the lives but the fetus was destroyed by means you consider immoral or anti humanitarian or what have you.

Well don't you think that a woman who has an abortion is wasting 'ones own thing' and not someone elses?

 

[lightgigantic]

What do you mean that 'that says nothing about its potential to create an opening'? How can it create an opening? They take advantage of terminated fetuses that's all.

and there's your opening

Yes it improves the lives but the fetus was destroyed by means you consider immoral or anti humanitarian or what have you.

hence its a yes and no

Well don't you think that a woman who has an abortion is wasting 'ones own thing' and not someone elses?

not unless we are suggesting that someone "owns" another

 

[lightgigantic]

So? Nothing there actually deals with the matter at hand, notice. Religious rituals to increase the odds the child will be born male, for example, clearly presume the sex is not established - no actual human being is yet present, in other words.

erm - do you know what a samskara is?

Mention away. Meanwhile, the flagrant and fundamental dishonesty of your arguments and assertions on this subject is something you should correct in the future - you have never in your life shown or advocated general behavior consistent with the belief that a three month embryo is a human being, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman. Neither has anyone else, in all of human history AFAIK. Such a belief cannot be the basis of any argument you make honestly on this forum.

I don't think you understand much of other cultures ... what to speak of people from other cultures

 

[mordea]

erm - do you know what a samskara is?

Clearly he doesn't. Neither did I, which is why I went to the effort of spending 20 seconds to Google it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃskāra#The_16_Samskaras

The Samskāra are a series of Sacraments, Sacrifices and Rituals that serve as rites of passage and mark the various stages of the Human life and to signify entry to a particular Ashrama.

...

Garbhadhana
Garbhadhana (IAST: Garbhādhāna) (literally, gifting the womb), is the act of conception. This is the first sacrament which followed immediately on every marimonial union. There are a number of rites performed before conception. The act of first sexual intercourse or insemination is known as Nishekam. (Garbhdhanasamskaram is cited in Manusmrti, 2.27)

Pumsavana
Pumsavana (IAST: Puṃsavana) (literally, engendering a male issue) is a ritual conducted in the third month of pregnancy. If it is the first pregnancy, it can be in the forth month also. The pregnant woman consumes one bead of barley and two beads of black grain, along with a little curd. This is accompanied by religious chanting. (in SED Monier-Williams cites Grihya-Sutra,MBh.)

So it appears that adherents to the Vedic rites of passage do consider human life to begin at conceptus.

 

[Bells]

What the hell? I explained *numerous* times as to why a fetus qualifies as human.

Really? I must have missed it in all the backstepping and strawman arguments.

As the saying goes: Every man for himself.

Of course. But when it comes to abortion, it is unfortunate that it is not every woman for herself, eh Mordea?

I guess one has to have a penis for your "every man for himself" to apply.

You adopt a definition which precludes a fetus from being considered a person, that much I know. From what you have stated in recent posts, it seems clear that you define personhood as viability outside the womb.

Do you consider a fetus to be a person as you are a person?

Should a fetus have the exact rights that you have from the moment you are born? What about a zygote? Embryo? Should it have the exact same rights as you have?

Should its rights be greater than that of the mother's?

Not just uneducated. Historically speaking, many leading thinkers were racist.

A living, breathing person is a "person", regardless of colour. I'm sorry, but I don't equate a 12 week old embryo, for example, to be as much of a person as you are. I would not give a 12 week old embryo the same rights that you as a person should have.

Because it highlights how arbitrary the definition of 'personhood' actually is. What one considers a person varies from individual to individual. Some consider anything human to be a person. Some consider non-humans to people. Some require that the organism be viable outside the womb before considering it a person. Some require a certain degree of mental function before granting the life form personhood.

Personhood is so poorly defined, that it is apparent to me that it should *not* be used as means of determining whether someone is entitled to the right to life.

But it is the determining factor for pro-lifer's. The argument of "it is a child" shows a determination that that "child" is a person and thus, should have equal rights to life as the mother or anyone else.

When someone is labelled a murderer, one is deemed to have killed a person or ended the life of a person. When pro-lifer's scream and rant "murderer" at pro-choice's, they are saying that pro-choice equates to supporting the termination of a person's life, that person being the "child".

See, the definition of 'person' is so flexible, that it can be modified whenever convenient to justify denying certain segments of society basic rights.

Personhood is only attributed to the zygote or embryo or fetus if a woman elects to exercise her right to choose and terminate her pregnancy.

Not currently. Which, as I have explained many times, I find incredibly hypocritical.

Do you think a 12 week old embryo should have the same rights as you do?

Think of what that would entail in full. Do you think it is acceptable for a woman to be investigated each time she menstruates or miscarries to ensure she did not voluntary 'end a life'?

Some don't consider them people simply because it is convenient to do so. The convenience of a vocal woman who can vote apparently trumps the right to life of a defenseless fetus who is out of sight and mind.

Of course.. how dare women who vote have a say over what happens to their bodies..

The medical profession consider the living and breathing person, ie the mother, to have priority. But apparently it's because women who you say want convenience have made them that way.. Damn women! Not only do they vote, they also demand to have a say over their own bodies..

Nor is a patient with renal failure if they do not receive dialysis. Nor is a patient who requires enteral feeding. Nor is a patient who requires life support. Nor is a physicall or mentally handicapped individual if you throw turf them out into the wild.

One can treat renal failure, one can feed a patient who needs to be fed and one can provide life support. One should never ever "turf" a handicapped individual into the wild. But one cannot keep a 12 week old fetus alive outside of the womb as yet.

A bit of a difference, don't you think?

And a baby can die in its cot at any time. Better yet, a baby will be 'aborted' naturally if it is not breast or bottle fed. You've just given deadbeat parents the perfect excuse to neglect or outright murder their child.

Actually no. That "child" has rights upon birth. Starving or harming that child is illegal. Hard for you to grasp, I know.

A baby can't exist without the support of a guardian. Most Western adults can't exist outside of civilization. Many elderly individuals can't exist without a carer or extensive medical support. All humans require some degree of external support, some more than others. Why draw the line at the placenta? Sounds like an arbitrary justification.

Do you think an embryo or fetus should have a higher right to life than the mother? Should its rights suddenly be greater than the mother's rights over her body?

No.

Why not? Why does the mother's rights suddenly become secondary? Why do her rights over her body suddenly cease to exist? What in cases of rape or illness? Where do you draw the line and give women rights over their own bodies?

If a fetus has priority over a woman's body, should men also have priority over women's bodies and deny them the right to say 'no' to sex for example?

She has no right to terminate the existence of another life form, unless her life is immediate jeopardy (ie. in self-defense). Dialysis patients can't kill other renal failure patients to jump ahead in the kidney transplantation queue, so I don't see why women should be able to kill a human life form for convenience either.

Can she take anti-biotics to kill off a bacterial lifeform? Would you grant her that?

You bring up an interesting argument. What if her convenience is her life? You have just contradicted yourself.

I understand what you are saying. But I don't agree with you. Fetus' are not regarded as people by some out of convenience, not because there is any decent justification for doing so. This is highlighted by the observation that whenever someone claims that the fetus is not a person, they usually follow with "... and it's the woman's body!" in the same breath. The woman's body has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus, so I'm going to assume that such a statement is made in consideration of the woman's convenience.

And that's what gets to you, isn't it? That a woman should not dare do what is right for herself or if it is convenient. How dare a woman have the rights to her body for her own convenience..

It is not for you or anyone else to say why a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy. At the end of the day, it is her body, not yours or mine. It is therefore ultimately her decision. And that is what causes so much angst for people like you. I mean, not only can she vote, but now she wants to have a say over what happens to her body.. how dare she?

Yes. When what you do with your body affects another, then your freedoms must be limited for the good of all.

Lets just say that tomorrow, I find out I am pregnant and decide to abort it. How is that going to affect you, as another person? Will it affect you or any other "person"?

Simply because rights may be difficult to enforce does not mean that we should deny them to the deserving. Furthermore, abortion is prohibited beyond a certain point, and yet the difficulties you describe have not become apparent for miscarriages that occur beyond this point.

You do realise that in a large number of cases, if the cause of death in the fetus or subsequent miscarriage is not obvious in late term pregnancies, autopsies are performed to determine the cause of death? You know that, right?

The mother is questioned as to what happened or what she ate, drank, activities, etc, to determine what may have happened. You are aware of that, right? So do you think that women should be made to undergo blood tests, pelvic exams and urine tests to check her hormone levels every month to ensure she was not pregnant and if she had conceived, then further tests done to find out how she miscarried or if she aborted and face possible arrest? What about if she miscarries during the first trimester? Should she be questioned like a criminal just in case she had an abortion?

Neither.

Again, you contradict yourself.

It would also be convenient for the mother to not have to worrying about changing her life to cope with pregnancy and childbirth. The vast majority of abortions are performed for personal reasons, not medical ones.

But you just said above that neither the mother or the zygote should have priority to life. If the mother deems that her life is more important as it would be inconvenient for her to have a child, you have admitted yourself that the zygote doesn't have priority when you used the word "neither". So you are pro-choice after all.

Like I said, it's very rare.

Go to any gynae ward in any hospital in the country. It's not that rare. I was just in one for a week and there were many women there facing that choice.

Yes, she chose the life of a 'non-person' over her own. You don't consider this foolish in the slightest?

Not at all. She exercised her right to choose what she does with her body. How is that foolish?

Your choice stops at the point where you are taking another human life.

Thankfully you were not in this woman's life. If it were up to you, she may not have been given the choice or the right to choose as her choice was tantamount to taking her own life.

Are pro-choicers so delusional, that they would engage in such monumental self-deceit? Tiassa and yourself have offered nothing more than shit logic and appeals to authority, while slathering at the mouth like enraged zombies.

Tell me Mordea, do you agree with Lori's argument that anyone who is pro-choice is a whore and a murderer? Do you agree with her assessment about God and eternal damnation?

 

[mordea]

Really? I must have missed it in all the backstepping and strawman arguments.

Ahh, so you are openly admitting that you have been backstepping and erecting so many strawmen argument that you missed your opponent's main contention. Thank you. Honesty from a pro-choicer is so refreshing.

Of course. But when it comes to abortion, it is unfortunate that it is not every woman for herself, eh Mordea?

I guess one has to have a penis for your "every man for himself" to apply.

*sigh* "Every man for himself" is a figure of speech. Look it up.

Do you consider a fetus to be a person as you are a person?

We've been over this, Bells. How one defines 'person' is so arbitrary and vague that it loses all value as a term. I avoid using the term altogether. A fetus is human, as I am, and that will suffice.

Should a fetus have the exact rights that you have from the moment you are born? What about a zygote? Embryo? Should it have the exact same rights as you have?

They have a right to life. They don't (and shouldn't) have the same privileges I do.

Should its rights be greater than that of the mother's?

As I mentioned repeatedly, its right to life supercedes the mother's right to convenience.

A living, breathing person is a "person", regardless of colour.

Says you. Others might not, and have not, agreed.

I'm sorry, but I don't equate a 12 week old embryo, for example, to be as much of a person as you are.

Is a born baby as much of a person as I am? Does it have as well developed a personality and cognitive function? More importantly, does any of that matter when determining who has a right to life?

I would not give a 12 week old embryo the same rights that you as a person should have.

I would not give a 6 year old the same privileges an adult has. However, I would extend the right to life to both of them. I extend the right to life to *all* humans. This protects not only the weak and vulnerable, but also myself. A right which is universally applied based on an objective measure (ie. being human) cannot be taken away by redefining the term when convenient, as can be done with 'person'.

When someone is labelled a murderer, one is deemed to have killed a person or ended the life of a person.

That's not necessarily true. Murder could refer to what is considered to be an unethical act of killing, be it human or even non-human (witness vegetarians).

Personhood is only attributed to the zygote or embryo or fetus if a woman elects to exercise her right to choose and terminate her pregnancy.

Huh?

Do you think a 12 week old embryo should have the same rights as you do?

Think of what that would entail in full. Do you think it is acceptable for a woman to be investigated each time she menstruates or miscarries to ensure she did not voluntary 'end a life'?

Does this occur for late term miscarriages, which are illegal in many countries?

One can treat renal failure, one can feed a patient who needs to be fed and one can provide life support. ...
But one cannot keep a 12 week old fetus alive outside of the womb as yet.

And the fetus can survive if supplied with nourishment via the placenta. I fail to see any significant difference between that and using artificial technology to sustain life.

Actually no. That "child" has rights upon birth. Starving or harming that child is illegal.

Why? The parents are simply withdrawing external support and allowing nature to take its course. Why does a baby have more of a right to the teat than the fetus has to the placenta?

Do you think an embryo or fetus should have a higher right to life than the mother?

Already explained this 2+ times.

Should its rights suddenly be greater than the mother's rights over her body?

AE (already explained).

Why not? Why does the mother's rights suddenly become secondary? Why do her rights over her body suddenly cease to exist? What in cases of rape or illness? Where do you draw the line and give women rights over their own bodies?

If a fetus has priority over a woman's body, should men also have priority over women's bodies and deny them the right to say 'no' to sex for example?

AE. I've corrected these misrepresentations of yours in the past posts.

Lets just say that tomorrow, I find out I am pregnant and decide to abort it. How is that going to affect you, as another person? Will it affect you or any other "person"?

It will affect a living human.

You do realise that in a large number of cases, if the cause of death in the fetus or subsequent miscarriage is not obvious in late term pregnancies, autopsies are performed to determine the cause of death? You know that, right?

Right. So you acknowledge that it is not logistically implausible to investigate suspicious 'miscarriages'.

Not at all. She exercised her right to choose what she does with her body. How is that foolish?

She traded her life for what you consider to be a non-person's. That sounds just a little foolish, if you ask me.

Thankfully you were not in this woman's life. If it were up to you, she may not have been given the choice or the right to choose as her choice was tantamount to taking her own life.

Misrepresentation.

Tell me Mordea, do you agree with Lori's argument that anyone who is pro-choice is a whore and a murderer? Do you agree with her assessment about God and eternal damnation?

I'm not a theist.