Reply to NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before  you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

[/quote]

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science.  An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period.  They are "alive" by any definition.  The car analogy is laughable.  A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine.  Before that, there is no life -- by definition.  Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it?  And then when does it become a human being?  Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when?  Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.  [/quote]

The answer is actually not absolute.   Different faiths believe different things.  Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.[/quote]

We aren't talking about faiths.  This is science.  An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants.  That isn't debatable.  So what living things are they?  They are obviously human, by definition.  Again, this is science, not religion.  You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection? [/quote]

If there was a fire and a baby and an embryo were both in the building, we all know that you would be a monster for saving the embryo first. [/quote]

Not sure the point of this, but just because you may choose one person over another in a split second where you have no choice in no way equates to the other person having no value or not having the right to life.  If a man and woman were burning, I would probably instinctually grab the woman first, but that certainly says nothing about the man's right to life.

And if this is supposed to be an analogy for abortion, in 99.9% of cases, this is not the woman's life vs. the baby's life.  It is a woman having to carry the baby for several more months vs. the baby's life.  In the .1% of cases when the mother's life is on the line and you have to choose between the two, I have zero problem choosing the mother in that scenario and think all laws should reflect that.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics