Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

poll: abortion


PokerPacker

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Phat Hog

That is the whole unfortunate concept behind the pro-abortion crowd. It's never based upon clear evidence of what defines a human being.

Same concept that brought us the extermination of Jews and the enslavement of Blacks...when you make a segment of society less than human, then it's socially permissible to do what you will.

But we can all rest now because Predicto has informed us all that the fetus is not human - only potentially human, making a lot of scientists green with envy. :notworthy

Where is this hostility coming from toward me? I attempted to answer your loaded question as best I could and explain my views without rancor. Here's a loaded question for you, Phat Hog. What defines a person's own body?

I do you the courtesy of accepting that there are strong, legitimately held honest people out there that disagree with me on this issue. Please give us pro-choice persons the same courtesy. As I said before, this is the most difficult moral question of our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lighten up Francis! ;) That was obviously a facetious statement - hardly hostility.

Anyway, you asked what 'defines a person's own body'... in which there seems to be some redundancy (there's another word for it, but I'm drawing blank) in your question because a person's body is indeed their own. A better question would be, "what defines a human body". That's not an easy question either, but I would say that the human body is defined by it's unique structure in what we know to be the universe. Just speaking toward the body, there are appendages supported by a system of organs, vessels, bones, tissue (and other systems that are too many to name) - all constructed by the building blocks we call cells. But that is not at all what you are looking for - so let's get to the point.

What you want to say is that a fetus is merely a part of a woman's body. An appendage (internal), or an organ, or glob of cells, or whatever you want to call 'IT'. But this all goes back again to my original question, if 'IT' is fully human (that would have been a great question to ask me), then 'IT' is it's own person. Now you may say that viability outside the womb should have bearing on person-hood, but (assuming it's a human) location & environment is hardly a valid means of defining person-hood.

There are so many other examples that I have read in this thread and the 100s of others posted in the past - but everything hinges on the person-hood of the fetus. I know we like to ignore it, but the fact is that it's a woman's body with a child in it. And if that child is fully human, it is deserving of full protection under the same laws that protect you and I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by PokerPacker

sorry for the wrong forum, i forgot to pick one, (short term memory isn't the strongest portion of my brain)

Only if your parents were pro-choice. Maybe we wouldn't see this thread?

:point2sky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...