It isn’t just “her body”.
There is no justification for taking the life of another human being except through the courts or when acting in self defense or defense of a third party.
Every successful abortion kills at least one human being.
Which still doesn’t change the fact that you have no right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. And you have yet to show that you do.
We have a right to protect innocent human life. Killing other than self defense or defense of a third party is immoral at every level.
You are the extremist here. Over 80% of the public in this country supports some limits on abortion as does our constitution.
I have no problem with limitations, but you still have not proven any “right” to do it.
Yes I have. We have a right to self defense and defense of third parties recognized in every state and by the federal gov’t which is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
So lets see it.
It’s already been provided to you literally dozens of times.
Read Scalia’s decision in the Heller Case.
Begging the question. It is disputed that a fetus up to X amounts of weeks qualifies as an “innocent life” in the same sense as an infant or a baby in the third trimester.
Science demonstrates nothing of the sort. This is a philosophical matter.
Fair enough point.
There is no disputing that a fetus at any stage is a distinct human being separate and apart from the parents.
“Fetus” is simply a stage in development like embryo or newborn.
As soon as the first division is complete it is a unique individual human being.
All you folks have to base your arguments on is the dehumanization of the unborn under the premise “it’s not a person”.
1 Like
No, it’s a scientific matter when life begins and what qualifies as a human life.
Personhood is not the same thing as a biological status. You’re being sloppy.
No I’m not, personhood is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.
The disease of scientism has finally infected conservatives.
1 Like
That has nothing to do with what I said. I said the notion of whether or not a thing is a “person” is philosophical. Here is an example: who do you see debating whether animals should be thought of as persons, philosophers or scientists?
Personhood is determine by law.
When human life begins is determined by science.
If you cannot recognize scientism, then you are pontificating on subjects you do not understand.
I recognize philosophical gibberish when I see it.
It is a fact that science can and has easily determined when human life begins.
False.
False.
Both are true.
From the first divison you have an individual unique human DNA signature.
That developing baby.
Moves
Assimilates nutrition from it’s environment.
Replicates/grows through cellular division.
Responds to changes in it’s environment.
By even the most basic definition of life it is alive. It’s inarguable that it is human.
By definition it is a human life.
