appolose said:
"You would agree that the government would have all the rights in the world to protect a fetus provided it is a human being, correct"? It is the anti-abortionists position that the fetus is a human, so they are not advocating that the government have direct control of the women's body. Again, would you consider it an encroachment of a person's rights if the government prevented a person from killing their six year old child? Of course not. Why? Because you consider the six year old a human, and thus it has it's own rights. And the anti-abortionists considers the fetus to be human, and thus think it has its own rights. So, they do not advocate the idea that the government can tell you what do with your own body.
|
Yes, however that fetus is inside of the woman and therefore you control her body and tell her what she does and doesn't. If you so want that fetus, get it out of her and support it elsewhere, but she has to have the option of not having it in her, plain and simple.
And to draw a comparison:
6-year-old: has legs, talks or makes sounds, comprehends surroundings, acts on stimuli based on something other than instinct, has a working brain with a measureable brainwave, conscious, has chromosomes, etc.
early fetus: clump of cells, no mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no sounds whatsoever, poentially turns into said 6-year-old.
sperm: clump of cells, has chromosomes, mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no speech or sounds, potentially turns into a 6-year-old.
Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."
HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374
Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420
gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835








