So does the bacteria living in her mouth and colon. DNA or not, fertilized eggs cannot survive outside of the mother. It makes sense to me. Third trimeter fetuses are viable and deserve the rights you suggest. No second semester fetus has ever survived, but ROe V Wade gives them that protection, too, just to be safe. But the first trimester embyro is not a human being yet and part of a mother's body. Abortion of an embryo is legal. You have no right to impose your religious moralities on someone else. Well, I disagree. Not all human tissue constitutes a human being.
Those things aren't human. Not relevant to the point of whether it is a human beign or not? Are you saying an embryo is not a human being? It sure aint a platypus. If it is not a human being what else can it possibly be? If you are aware of humans giving birth to kittens I would beinterested in knowing about it. Besides independence is not a good yard stick. It is a function of medical technology? If the technology exisits to incubate babies outside of the wound does abortion become bad in your mind? Try to keep up scooter. No one is talking about religious morality except you. I can agree with your statement. The bits of flesh on my finger do not represent a human being, but the embryo is a human being at the earliest stage of development. How many cells must human tissue contain before it magically becomes a human being? What if go bald or have my gall bladder removed and fall below the requisite number. Do I lose my rights? See why that is not a good measure?
Not until it is viable. It's the law that says this, not me. One human being does not become two at conception. Neither is fertilization. This technology already exists for babies. It will likely never exist for embryo's. I am not fooled. The mother is a fully developed human being. Why do you think you have a right to tell her what to do with her own body? It is not illegal. Your objection is religious. Don't be absurd. I told you my criteria. You disagree. So live with it.
That is the reason the law is so terrible. There is no logical justification for it. We just arbitrarily decided that at some point the rights of an individual are worth protecting and before that point they are not. Yes but cells from two human beings combine to form a third human being. That is a fact. Look it up. I thnk you are just being obtuse. Conception is the point when the human begins to exist. It is clear. It is provable. There were two, then, boom, there are three. Is that an answer or just a statement that you have no way of backing up? Someone who gets so uppity when they think others are putting words in their mouth should avoid trying to tell others what they think. I am not an expert in much, but I am certainly an expert in my own opinion. I don't think I have a right to tell her what she can do to her own body (even though tons of laws dictate what people can do to their own bodies). I am concerned with what the law allows her to do to the little baby's body. I think the law should protect the baby the same way it protects the mother. Stick to telling me the basis for your opinion and refrain from interpreting the basis of mine. I have laid it out rather clearly and it aint religious. You have to keep trying to throw in that straw man because you can't refute anything I am saying. What I want to know is the basis for this criteria being worth a damn. Just go on and admit it is arbitrary. It is the only thing you can say. martin does not agree with me on this issue, but at least he admits what the pro-choice opinion really it is. It is a position that based on an arbitrary measuring stick says it is ok to kill some people and not ok to kill others.
I have laid it out in 100 posts on at least twelve threads with you. You simply refuse to consider it. We are never going to agree on this and might as well move on.
Mea culpa, I should have said rarely. Survival rates are very low and complications high, especially for 20 weeks! I did not know that one that early has made it with no ongoing issues.
