"The reason that I was not challengeing your three points was because I was not challenging your conclusion "that illegal abortions are less safe than legal abortions"."
That is good! You said that ANY part of my statement being true would make my whole statement 100% CORRECT (don't confuse this with SIMILAR posts!)! And then you said "The statistics show no such thing."!! Not hard to figure!!
Anyway--apparently we (finally!) agree that illegal (unsafe) abortions present a public health hazard. ;) ;)
You still seem to be opposed to the Alan-Guttmacher Institute's facts:
"The death rate associated with abortion is hundreds of times higher in developing regions, where the procedure is often illegal, than in developed countries (Table 1)."..."Although women in developing countries are much more likely than women in developed countries to live under restrictive abortion laws, levels of abortion are about the same for both groups (Chart C)"..."Yet, while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there"!!..."If legality is not the determining factor, what drives the rates at which abortions occur in a given country? If legality is not the determining factor, what drives the rates at which abortions occur in a given country?"
If you choose to disagree with me on this point, that is fine. But without any contravening data--I have no reason to chase a fly through a fog.
"If I am begging the question by considering an unborn human life to pocess rights and deserve protection, you are similarly begging the question by assuming the opposite"
NO. NOT TRUE. Social policy derives from facts. The facts of social interest are recorded in our dictionaries, encyclopedias, case law, social convention, etc. As I said: if you wish to discuss whether or not embryos should have rights...fine. That does not beg the question. You state that they have rights because YOU say they do. I find that very interesting, and I will get back to you on it. But in the meantime--your opinion has nothing to do with the fulfillment of social policy!
I agree they are not hobos, authors, philosophers or police officers, but most people are not any of these things.
Well, that is the POINT, twfowler :)...MANY PEOPLE are sometimes these things !;)---but embryoys are NEVER these things! They are never hobos! Because embryos are not "most people", are they?? They are not ANY "PEOPLE". Maybe you get my point, now!! Maybe you don't.
"They are sons or daughters"
Begging the question again. Maybe you should invest in a dictionary. If you make up definitions, we will not get anywhere. Don't you know that??
The two entities have two different bodies, and abortion destroys one of them (and in some cases both).
That is incorrect.
As far as "who says so", well if we are talking about my own opinion of it I say so
What kind of a justification is that?? Is your "say so" the "TRUTH"???
"if the organism entirely relies on outside support...and has no brain function, and has no chance to ever develop brain function, then even if the organism is still a human life and a member of the species homo-sapiens its right to life may not be very meaningful."
What is this supposed to mean?? Are you God?? How do YOU know what has a chance to develop "brain function"??? What the F--- do you have to do with determining this for millions of women??? Who are YOU to determine what is "meaningful"...especially for somebody else?? And why is "brain function" the determinant of life--for you?? (MASTER??). You may have forgotten it...but your sperm don't thunk.
I would say that sapient sentient alien species would IMO have the same rights as humans.
WHY?? What does sentience have to do with it?? WHY?? Why do you have sentience on the clothes line?? What does "SENTIENCE" have to do with your apology for embryos?? sapient sentient alien species would IMO have the same rights as humans.
citing authorities is not relevant to me in this context. What authority do you cite to show that you have any natural rights?
I don't have any idea what you are talking about. I only asked you a question--and suddenly you throw a bunch of shit on me...
"Not a subject that I have given too much thought to. I guess I would say that they have rights in proportion to the level of rights I would say their species has."
Which is WHAT??? What criterion are you using to differentiate between the rights of different species?? Clearly, you have the answer because you made the statement.
"As for "weaseling" and the statement that I am not arguing in good faith, yes I do consider that a cheap shot. You obviously disagree. I am willing to discuss it if you want or move on if you want.
Surely I will discuss it. Yes.
I think you have been intentionally "weaselling." I thing you have been evasive and insincere. Of course I could be wrong; but I would rather we wrong than a liar or a sycophant--both of which I would be if I let it pass... |
