Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[appolose]

vlad321 said:

appolose said:

vlad321 said:

Yes, if it's proven they would harm disasterously the life of the others. More problems in your example. Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion. Your example is just bad through and through.

Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human.

So, you're allowed to ruin or end the life of one person if it makes another person's life better?

 "Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion".  What does this have to do with anything?  Rath and I were discussing the groups that support and oppose abortion, which, according to this Gallup poll, are about half-and-half.

"Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human".

I'll assume this in respose to my other post.  I'm not really sure what it is you mean in your second sentence.  Do you mean  differentiate itself from the fetus of a dog or cat?  If so, there's a huge genetic difference, so that's one way already.

Alas! I must be off to work, so I won't be responding for a while.

 

DNA is a blueprint, nothing more. It's like saying that 2 buildings are different when all they have laid down is the ditch for the foundations. However at that point they are obviosuly different because the blueprint is different? I call bullshit on that.

Furthermore the fetus is a parasite, and correct me if I'm arong but a normal human isn't. A human doesn't depend on anyone else to live and be well. They depend on food and water and that's it. Before they are sustainable outside the mother the fetus is not human, it's a parasite.

Since you are so much for its rights, does that mean that you will oulaw pregnant drinking? Or smoking? Or eating unhealthily? Or doing heavy exercise? Or anything that will cause her to miscarry or damage the fetus? How the fuck is that not controlling one's body? You just basically made her a slave to that fetus, legally. F that.

If she wants that parasite out of her she should be able to remove it, if you want to save it, go ahead and find a way to keep it alive and going, as long as it's no longer in her. I don't care how you do it, implant in another mother, machines, or not at all.

You asked for a difference, and there is a massive genetic difference.  And there is a considerable amount of difference between a dog and a human than there is between two buildings.

Parasites and humans aren't mutually exclusive.  You can be a parasite and be human at the same time (blood transfusion, for example).  Even if that weren't the case, so what?

I would disallow anything that would kill or harm the fetus, of course, just as I would for disallow an actions committed by one person that would kill or harm another.  If that's what you mean by controlling the body, then what's the problem?  Should we allow people to go running around spraying bullets into buildings because we would be "controlling their bodies" otherwise?  Are they slaves to everyone else because that can't fulfill that particular whim?