Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Your arguement is your arguement, I would never argued that a gamete of any species is the same as an fully form member of the species itself, so NO, I don't have to say that.
|
Actually, you did, because abortions kill life forms that are not fully formed members of a species. If an undeveloped fetus has the same value as a human in your mind then yes, you are in fact saying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Anyway, "life=life" is taking out of context of the arguement that an unborn child has life that should be equally protected like the mother's life should be protected.
|
Most abortions do not kill unborn children. I do not agree with aborting children that could survive if delivered - that is murder. In the United States only 1.4% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks or five months of pregnancy (which is one of the world's highest percentages), and no fetus can survive earlier than the 21st week. By 20 weeks, the bump is visible, you can feel it moving, and you can see the baby (and determine sex) on an ultrasound. If you haven't had an abortion by then, I think it should become illegal; you are so irresponsible to have waited five months before taking action when you had so many options leading up to this point. But the point is, before the 21st week, a fetus is not viable and is not a human. The fetus does not even gain a 50% survival chance until the 24th week. Therefore, it is not equal to another human life and therefore does not have rights as a human being. That is the
SCIENCE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Just because I believe women should be pro-life, and I don't believe in abortion, what I said is called naive and all these nonsensical analogies and unphilosphical arguement are brought up to disprove that an unborn child is a human being that has a right to life.
|
It is naive and incorrect to assert that a pre-human fetus has the same value as a human being. It is a bundle of cells in the eyes of science and the law. Our analogies are not nonsensical, though they may be "unphilosphical" because philosophy, in this case, is irrelevant. There are facts, and then there are beliefs.
The vast majority of pro-life arguments are not based in logic, so trying to contend with them using it will lead you nowhere. As long as Neapolitan is willing to accept that his point of view is not medically or scientifically based, he is perfectly justified in maintaining his opinion, and we are perfectly justified in disagreeing in the strongest manner possible since matters of faith or religion do not and should not affect matters of state or legality.