That point is what the argument is all about. Supa thinks a single fertilized cell is that point. I think such cells are part of the host mothers body until capable of survival without the mother. Her body . . . her decisions.
Nevertheless, we are a democracy and Prohibition has already taught us that we cannot force a law that half the country believes is improper. There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists. yet, most would understand a human being to be an independent life form while a human embryo is not. I'm suporting the choice of a mother to make her own decisions concerning a part of her own body. Your inflammatory language does not make your position stronger. One must be born before one can be murdered. An embryo is not a baby, all hysterical raving aside.
Why would you say life begins at conception? And are you saying contraceptive pills do not murder babies? It seems if we have trouble defining what life is and when human life begins we would want to err on the side of life. Because we can't determine when life begins it seems strange to arbitrarily choose a time to allow abortions. Religion aside, life is precious and we shouldn't allow it to be terminated for inconvenience.
Then why put the potential life of a fertized egg over the very real life of a living mother? Is her life not worth considering? Everybody agrees on life (both lives) being precious. Where it gets in the way of ones constitutional rights is that some hold that life is sacred. They want their religion to be considered by everyone whether or not they also hold that belief. And who says anything about inconvenience? I'm saying that any abortion prohibition that doesn't take the life of the mother into account is not "pro-life". It's simply "anti-choice" and a reflection of someones personal religious beliefs.
I don't see abortion being an issue when the life or health of the mother is at stake. I can see a very strong argument for abortion in the case of rape. I don't think this is the argument. I think the argument against abortion for most people is that a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion simply because pregnancy doesn't fit into her life plans. In that case, the question of when the baby inside her constitutes life seems very important. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
What about the child who's being arbitrarily robbed of a life. Shouldn't he/she get a vote? That's what Pro-lifers are doing.
Yes, it is. Roe v. Wade (the law of the land) already has exceptions for rape and the health of the mother. The anti-abortion bunch wants this overturned. They wish to permit no abortions at all. Just ask Supa.
A cell isn't a child and neither is an embryo. No, they don't get to overule a real living breathing reasoning human being. Once it becomes a fetus with the potential to live outside the mother, then it becomes a potential human being and should have some rights. But when it is just a group of entirely dependent cells within the mothers body it is, in fact, a part of the mother who has the right to decide what she can do. This is the law.
It's the law but it ain't right. You can call it a cell or an embryo, but it's eventually going to be a living, breathing human being. It's not like some of them turn out to be rocks or coffee cups. When farmers plant their crops, does anyone have the right to destroy the fields? Hell, it's only seeds.
You guys are so anti-government regulation on everything . . . but this, most personal family issue, you want the government to interfere in. What's wrong with this picture?
