"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[Delmar]

:chuckle:

For similar reasons it's not a HE, it's not a person either.

Not if she is a girl

 

[quip]

Not if she is a girl

lain:

Stripe referred to this particular zygote as "he".

 

[Stripe]

At conception everything regarding it's potential is determined...yet, it's far from apparent. You have no way to ostensibly tell male from female at this state no more than you can call it a person.

Actually, everything that the person is can be determined. All that is required is time. Nothing else will be added, bar nutrition, that will determine any of his characteristics or nature.

Nice dodge. Think on it some more.

Think on what? A random set of questions you asked in order to dodge the real issues? No thanks. At conception what we have is a new, living human being. What reasons are you prepared to table that might justify killing that person?

 

[Stripe]

Not if she is a girl

Right. Half of all abortions are the murder of tiny baby girls.

So much for women's liberation.

I use "he" because there is no gender non-specific personal pronoun for a single person in the English language.

 

[quip]

Actually, everything that the person is can be determined. All that is required is time. Nothing else will be added, bar nutrition, that will determine any of his characteristics or nature.

Yea..that's what "potential" means....as in, potential boy or girl...as in, you can't tell whether a zygote is a boy or girl...as in, you're clueless. :chuckle:

Think on what?

:rotfl:

No thanks.

:rotfl:

A random set of questions

Well, if you read my questions and responded then I suppose they were not random at all as you and your ilk have strong issues with random things remaining intelligible. but I digress once again.

At conception what we have is a new, living human being. What reasons are you prepared to table that might justify killing that person?

Yes, a living human being where one cannot decipher its sex, name, personality...hell, even the fact that it actually exists at this nascent point of development. It's no more than a missed period at this point.

But keep up the useless person-assertion nonetheless.

 

[Stripe]

you can't tell whether a zygote is a boy or girl...as in, you're clueless.

Yes, "you" can.

The karyotype (XX or XY) does it.

I digress once again.

It's the best way you know how to engage without being exposed.

Yes, a living human being where one cannot decipher its sex

Wrong.

name

Wrong and irrelevant.

personality

Irrelevant.

even the fact that it actually exists

And therefore abortion should remain legal? You think this is a rational argument?

 

[quip]

Yes, "you" can.

The karyotype (XX or XY) does it.

You can't even read my post accurately, so how are we to believe that you have the capacity to distinguish the zygote's ostensible sex via their chromosomes?

It's the best way you know how to engage without being exposed.

Straight through the heart! Ouch.

Wrong.


Wrong and irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

:nono: :nono: & :nono:

And therefore abortion should remain legal? You think this is a rational argument?

I haven't even begun. I'm simply having too much fun shooting your ducks out of the water.

 

[Yorzhik]

It is not a "clump of cells" at that point.

You've simply restated your premise. But to argue a quality that makes the difference between a clump of cells and a person requires an objective standard, not the subjective one you came up with. Once you've argued that, you can see why the Japanese official that asked the old people to "hurry up and die" was not fired.

Your subjective standard cannot overcome the emotional counter-argument. Whereas, "a human begins at a single cell stage" is not subjective.

Where did I say that?

Killing a fetus that has achieved higher brain function is an "intrinsic" wrong, that is no longer outweighed by the need to protect the mother's rights to sovereignty over her own body.

The scales of justice have shifted by then.

There are laws against that, and such a woman would be thrown in jail.

Having said that , it's hard to judge what the macro effects are of either side of the decision.

So intrinsic wrongs can occur in society with no consequences? Then why say there are intrinsic wrongs at all? Or, perhaps, some intrinsic wrongs are worse than others? If some are worse than others, perhaps we can ignore the ones that aren't so bad?

 

[Yorzhik]

No. Where'd you get that?

It seems like the most popular arbitrary line. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Yorzhik]

Well, scientifically speaking, you could conceivably turn (not a toenail clipping, since toenails are pure protein rather than cells) but a small piece of skin into another human being.

Right. And as soon as it is a human it should be treated like one.

I don't see how a zygote, a single undifferentiated human cell is in any way a "human body". It's a potential human, under the right circumstances and treatment, but so is a single cell in the piece of skin . . .

You don't see it because getting rid of undesirable humans appeals to you. It is a human body because it is the complete cell package of a human that will grow just like a baby will grow into a toddler.

Both have 46 chromosomes and all of the information necessary to create another human being.

And as soon as we turn it into a human you should treat it as such.

The skin would create someone genetically identical to someone already around but, we already have those people. They're called identical twins and we don't discount someone's life because they happen to be genetically identical to someone else.

Except when they are at the single cell stage (and beyond) according to your standard.

The only difference between the two cells, is one is in a different physiological state than the other. And very soon the technology will exist to change that physiological state (we've already done so in many other organisms). So the argument becomes more complicated. And if we're willing to define single cells as "human bodies" it makes everything into quite a mess.

It isn't a mess. When you have a human you treat it as such.

The thing you should recognize is that the obvious "human body" of the embryo develops very rapidly, within about 8-9 weeks. So, i think you can make a strong argument for restricting abortion after a certain point, without asserting full humanity at conception. If you do that, you end up with a real mess in terms of the line between contraception and abortion as well as the issues with technology going forward.

And why, when this "strong" argument has been around for 40 years, are people still being murdered even by your standard? Because it isn't a strong argument... obviously.

 

[mighty_duck]

You've simply restated your premise. But to argue a quality that makes the difference between a clump of cells and a person requires an objective standard, not the subjective one you came up with. Once you've argued that, you can see why the Japanese official that asked the old people to "hurry up and die" was not fired.

Your subjective standard cannot overcome the emotional counter-argument. Whereas, "a human begins at a single cell stage" is not subjective.

In the same way that "a human begins at 24 weeks" is not subjective.

Attributing VALUE to the statement "a human begins at a single cell stage" is just as subjective as any other arbitrary line in the sand.

There is a separate issue that our line in the sand is blurry. That doesn't automatically make it bad.

So intrinsic wrongs can occur in society with no consequences? Then why say there are intrinsic wrongs at all? Or, perhaps, some intrinsic wrongs are worse than others? If some are worse than others, perhaps we can ignore the ones that aren't so bad?

In this case - there are two wrongs we must choose between - compromising the life of the fetus, or compromising the sovereignty of the mother over her own body. It is tricky balancing these two to achieve justice.

While I have some respect for those who claim the right to life outweighs the right to personal bodily sovereignty in this case,
most radical pro-lifers can't even acknowledge there is anything wrong at all with a system that tells a woman she no longer controls what happens inside her own body.

 

[alwight]

You don't see it because getting rid of undesirable humans appeals to you.

That was rather gratuitous and uncalled for imo but then you probably would want to demonize those who don't agree with you, those who may simply feel that we sometimes have a duty to make tough choices with the best intent not the worst.

 

[Stripe]

You can't even read my post accurately, so how are we to believe that you have the capacity to distinguish the zygote's ostensible sex via their chromosomes?

So you want me to guess at what you mean now?

I haven't even begun.

Let's keep it that way then, shall we?

In the same way that "a human begins at 24 weeks" is not subjective.Attributing VALUE to the statement "a human begins at a single cell stage" is just as subjective as any other arbitrary line in the sand.

Personhood is a subjective attribute. The question is, whose standard should we apply? Should we apply the one that says new people are created at conception (which makes rational sense) or should we apply one of the numerous other standards which turn a physical or metaphysical trait into the definition of a person?

And we've tried the latter plenty of times before. Yesteryear's skin colour, annual salary and national identity have morphed into today's heartbeat, brainwaves, sentience and "24 weeks".

There is a separate issue that our line in the sand is blurry. That doesn't automatically make it bad.

Not of itself. But the endgame of defining personhood is always to justify the elimination of those people you exclude. There is no need to define personhood unless you wish to use it to deny people their God-given rights.

In this case - there are two wrongs we must choose between - compromising the life of the fetus, or compromising the sovereignty of the mother over her own body. It is tricky balancing these two to achieve justice.

Nope. The baby is not the mother's body. From conception the baby has his own body. That it is too small is only to add body size to the list of physical traits you would use to define personhood. Yesteryear's skin colour has become today's body size.

While I have some respect for those who claim the right to life outweighs the right to personal bodily sovereignty in this case,
most radical pro-lifers can't even acknowledge there is anything wrong at all with a system that tells a woman she no longer controls what happens inside her own body.

There are plenty of things men and women cannot control within their own bodies. You need to present a rational argument for why we should accept one of your definitions of personhood. Until then, a person's right to life trumps every single emotional and irrational argument you make.

 

[mighty_duck]

Personhood is a subjective attribute. The question is, whose standard should we apply? Should we apply the one that says new people are created at conception (which makes rational sense) or should we apply one of the numerous other standards which turn a physical or metaphysical trait into the definition of a person?

Very well put!

And we've tried the latter plenty of times before. Yesteryear's skin colour, annual salary and national identity have morphed into today's heartbeat, brainwaves, sentience and "24 weeks".

There is a danger in both directions. If our standard is too narrow, we exclude important beings from being considered people.

If our standard is too wide, we include unimportant beings as people, and might consider their "rights" even if they infringe on other people's rights.

Just because one standard is wider than another, doesn't make it automatically better - else your standard would be trumped by one which considers ovums as people, which would be trumped by the monkey ovum standard, etc. etc.

As hard as it is for pro-lifers to admit, there is no automatic standard.

If you think your standard is right, you have to convince us why we should care enough about zygotes that we should ignore a woman's rights over their own body. All I see are variations of the linguistic argument and the slippery slope argument over and over.

Not of itself. But the endgame of defining personhood is always to justify the elimination of those people you exclude. There is no need to define personhood unless you wish to use it to deny people their God-given rights.

Unless the things you've excluded aren't people, in which case you've don nothing wrong. IOW, this is a circular argument.

Nope. The baby is not the mother's body. From conception the baby has his own body. That it is too small is only to add body size to the list of physical traits you would use to define personhood.

Does the uterus belong to the mother's body?
If so, is deciding who or what can use it a bodily decision?

Yesteryear's skin colour has become 6today's body size.

And today's zygote is tomorrow's pet hamster. I implore you, don't let PETA win!

There are plenty of things men and women cannot control within their own bodies.

Can you show an example where the state dictates to a person who can access their internal organs without their consent?

We can't even take blood or DNA samples, let alone life-saving blood donations, bone marrow or non-vital organs.

You need to present a rational argument for why we should accept one of your definitions of personhood. Until then, a person's right to life trumps every single emotional and irrational argument you make.

My definition of personhood actually encompasses what we value in a person. It does so even for beings we have never met. Like all definitions, it excludes things we don't consider as people.

I don't expect it will convince any hard core pro-lifer. It is not even a necessary component for pro-choicers (Roe V Wade did not go down this path), since even if a zygote is a person, it is still dependent on the consent of the mother for every second it is using her body.

 

[Stripe]

There is a danger in both directions.

Incomparable dangers. One involves inconvenience, one involves murder.

If our standard is too narrow, we exclude important beings from being considered people.

Which is not the issue. The issue is that the only reason to do this is to justify their murder.

If our standard is too wide, we include unimportant beings as people, and might consider their "rights" even if they infringe on other people's rights.

And all the emotionally charged hypotheticals you might use here can never come remotely close to the truth - abortion is murder.

Just because one standard is wider than another, doesn't make it automatically better - else your standard would be trumped by one which considers ovums as people, which would be trumped by the monkey ovum standard, etc. etc.

What nonsense are you spouting? There is no rational basis for including those as people and I do not argue the width of my standard as reason for its correctness.

People are conferred the status of person by God at conception.

As hard as it is for pro-lifers to admit, there is no automatic standard.

There is no automatic standard. Everyone is capable of asserting their own standard. The question is, can you rationally justify what you believe?

If you think your standard is right, you have to convince us why we should care enough about zygotes that we should ignore a woman's rights over their own body.

If I'm wrong, we make an unnecessary law that demands greater care over early pregnancy and demands the cessation of every non-chemical abortion.

If you're wrong you're murdering the tiniest of babies. Those that deserve the most protection. Have you ever held a newborn?

is deciding who or what can use [the uterus] a bodily decision?

Yes.

But the right to life from God trumps your idea that women have a right to deny accommodation to their children.

And today's zygote is tomorrow's pet hamster. I implore you, don't let PETA win!

:AMR:

Can you show an example where the state dictates to a person who can access their internal organs without their consent?

The right to life from God trumps state law and your arguments from silence.

My definition of personhood actually encompasses what we value in a person.

What is your definition and why do you need one?

Like all definitions, it excludes things we don't consider as people.

Which is why personhood cannot be defined. It must be conferred.

even if a zygote is a person, it is still dependent on the consent of the mother for every second it is using her body.

People are dependent upon others their whole life long. The right to life trumps your complaints about the inconvenience of this fact.

 

[Alate_One]

Neither are yours. But at least my assertions, if wrong, do not condone murder. They also have the advantage of being wholly supported by science. You just make up things that define personhood as you see fit.

But if you're incorrect you're needlessly taking away the rights of thousands, perhaps millions of women.

Evolutionists once used those things to determine personhood.

No they didn't. Creationists did that, using scripture as backing. You should be careful in accusing other groups of doing that, you'll find many Christians asserting those of certain skin colors were divinely predestined to be less than people of other skin colors.

You use brainwaves and consciousness.

Which are things we often consider as part of being a sentient being.

Who cares what the USA defines as a right? The "right" to drink or join the army are utterly vacuous. We are discussing the right to life which applies to humans from the moment of conception because it is conferred by God.

Really? Where's your scriptural source for that? Chapter and verse please.

Sounds like the words of a heartless person. Aren't you a mother yourself?

I'm heartless because I can't conjure sympathy for a single cell that may or may not have even been *capable* of turning into a baby? You realize only 40% of zygotes are able to implant under normal circumstances?

Yes, I am a mother both previously and currently. I happen to know, due to reproductive technology, that I produced two eggs but only one resulted in a child. Am I supposed to feel some sympathy for the other egg when I've no idea what happened to it, whether it had any potential at all? Do I wonder if it might have been something? Sure, but in almost the same sense as I might wonder what a clone of myself might have turned out to be.

Contrast that with my feelings toward my unborn child for whose health and safety I pray every day (in addition to my born child). I have loved him from the moment I was aware of him and the ultrasounds and movement reinforce that. I don't understand how a woman would want to abort at that stage, though I do know there can be extenuating circumstances, I could never see myself going that route.

While I also wouldn't want to use contraception that would prevent implantation myself for a number of reasons, I realize there are many women for whom that is the best solution. I don't see the point in demanding people produce children they don't want (and more importantly others don't want to pay for) just because you want to protect a single undifferentiated cell that might or might not become an actual fetus.

The bottom line is I see a difference between what I feel is morally correct and what I'm willing to state I want public policy to force on others. Because of the interests of two parties (potential mother and fetus) there's a balance that must be struck. I don't necessarily like where the balance is now, but personhood is right out in terms of any rational sense or more importantly, any possibility of implementation absent a totalitarian state. And even in such a case, it's almost unenforceable anyway.

But of course, you're heartless and will not comprehend that concept.

Apparently because you don't have an actual argument you have to resort to personal attacks. It's okay, it's obvious why you don't have kids of your own with this kind of attack against someone that disagrees with you.

I don't happen to attach meaning to something you want it to be attached to. You're almost as ridiculous as the PETA people demanding I feel that my chicken sandwich is murder.

 

[Stripe]

But if you're incorrect you're needlessly taking away the rights of thousands, perhaps millions of women.

Your invented rights do not trump the God-given right to life.

No they didn't.

Sure, they did. Hitler denied Jews personhood. African people were denied personhood with Darwin's ideas as justification.

Creationists did that, using scripture as backing

Then they were wrong and will pay for their words and actions. :idunno:

You should be careful in accusing other groups of doing that, you'll find many Christians asserting those of certain skin colors were divinely predestined to be less than people of other skin colors.

Difference being that the bible doesn't teach anything about favoured races and in fact teaches equality in Christ. Christians aren't immune to being dramatically wrong about perfectly obvious things taught in the bible.

Which are things we often consider as part of being a sentient being.

Only because you want to justify killing the unborn.

Really? Where's your scriptural source for that? Chapter and verse please.

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.​

(Psalms 139:13-16 NKJV)

I'm heartless because I can't conjure sympathy for a single cell

Yip.

For people who have hearts, a child is the most precious addition that can be made unto their lives. The loss of a child or less so the inability to conceive one (regardless of his size at conception) are the greatest pains one can endure.

You're a heartless cow with the sole determination to protect your precious ideals at any cost - including comparing babies to dead skin.

You need to go have a good long think through exactly what it is you want to believe, because Christianity ain't it. You should be an evolutionist instead. :up:

You realize only 40% of zygotes are able to implant under normal circumstances?

Another irrational argument. People die. That they die is not reason to deny their personhood.

Yes, I am a mother both previously and currently. I happen to know, due to reproductive technology, that I produced two eggs but only one resulted in a child. Am I supposed to feel some sympathy for the other egg when I've no idea what happened to it, whether it had any potential at all? Do I wonder if it might have been something? Sure, but in almost the same sense as I might wonder what a clone of myself might have turned out to be.

You should have taken more care for your children.

Contrast that with my feelings toward my unborn child for whose health and safety I pray every day (in addition to my born child). I have loved him from the moment I was aware of him and the ultrasounds and movement reinforce that. I don't understand how a woman would want to abort at that stage, though I do know there can be extenuating circumstances, I could never see myself going that route.

Your child's worth isn't dependent upon your feelings for him.

While I also wouldn't want to use contraception that would prevent implantation myself for a number of reasons, I realize there are many women for whom that is the best solution. I don't see the point in demanding people produce children they don't want (and more importantly others don't want to pay for) just because you want to protect a single undifferentiated cell that might or might not become an actual fetus.

And I don't see why you should be allowed to murder unborn children because you feel inconvenienced.

The bottom line is I see a difference between what I feel is morally correct and what I'm willing to state I want public policy to force on others.

Which is why women should not be policy makers. They are far too irrational.

Because of the interests of two parties (potential mother and fetus) there's a balance that must be struck.

Yip. Both should be afforded the right to life. You do not afford the right to life even after you admit the baby is a person. You're rationally excluded from any valid contribution to this thread.

I don't necessarily like where the balance is now, but personhood is right out in terms of any rational sense or more importantly, any possibility of implementation absent a totalitarian state. And even in such a case, it's almost unenforceable anyway.

Feel free to offer a rational argument any time you like. :up:

Apparently because you don't have an actual argument you have to resort to personal attacks. It's okay, it's obvious why you don't have kids of your own with this kind of attack against someone that disagrees with you.

Actually, I do have an argument. It is rational and compelling. And it is based upon biological facts:
God confers personhood at conception which is when the two parts from a mother and father (two people) unite to form a new person.

I don't happen to attach meaning to something you want it to be attached to.

I know. You think it's reasonable for a mother to murder her child even after you admit the unborn child is a person.

You're almost as ridiculous as the PETA people demanding I feel that my chicken sandwich is murder.

Not really. I just want you to feel that your children have worth no matter how small. You shouldn't blithely cast them aside based upon some feelings of inconvenience or insecurity.

 

[mighty_duck]

Incomparable dangers. One involves inconvenience, one involves murder.

I agree. One involves killing a cell, or a similarly undeveloped unfeeling unthinking being.
The other involved telling a fully grown woman that she can't decide who can or can't access her most private parts.

Which is not the issue. The issue is that the only reason to do this is to justify their murder.

And all the emotionally charged hypotheticals you might use here can never come remotely close to the truth - abortion is murder.

You're the one who is using emotional ploys here. No matter how many times you repeat your tired mantra, it is not true.

People are conferred the status of person by God at conception.

No, they are not. That was easy.
When you are done playing the assertion game, let me know.

There is no automatic standard. Everyone is capable of asserting their own standard. The question is, can you rationally justify what you believe?

I have. Can you?
All I see are bald assertions of your standard.


Stripe claims:There are plenty of things men and women cannot control within their own bodies.
MD Replies:Can you show an example where the state dictates to a person who can access their internal organs without their consent?

The right to life from God trumps state law and your arguments from silence.

So you can't show a single case where the law would intervene in such a manner.

This should give you pause, to at least consider that maybe, maybe, all of the pro-choicers are trying to protect something important. You may not agree with the conclusion, but if you were honest you would at least agree to the parameters of the argument - that compelling women to go through with a pregnancy against their will is a wrong that should be avoided.

You may claim that the right to life of the fetus trumps this, and that it is the best outcome. But to disregard the other side of the coin makes your side look like pompous idiots, who are not worthy to preach morals to anyone.

What is your definition [of personhood]

My definition for pesonhood is the combination of all the traits we value in a person - sentience, sapience, feeling, awareness, consciousness, empathy, etc. At the bare minimum, they require a working cerebral cortex.

and why do you need one?

For the same reason you need one - so I can tell a person from a hole in the ground.

People are dependent upon others their whole life long. The right to life trumps your complaints about the inconvenience of this fact.

There is a difference between bodily dependence and social dependence.

I can take your money in any number of ways so that others may survive. I can't take your blood or your bone marrow or a part of your liver against your will - even if the result is the death of another.

Because the dependence in question is one of bodily dependence, the state can't force its will here.

 

[Stripe]

I agree.

No, you don't. Try to be rational in your conversation, at least!

a similarly undeveloped unfeeling unthinking being.

Something like Alate then?

The other involved telling a fully grown woman that she can't decide who can or can't access her most private parts.

No, it doesn't.

You're the one who is using emotional ploys here.

It's an emotional subject. There's no way I can state my belief that abortion is murder without bringing an emotional element to the discussion. However, I do not invent arbitrary "rights" and absurd hypotheticals in order to generate an emotional setting.

No matter how many times you repeat your tired mantra, it is not true.

No matter how often you deny the truth, it is still true.

No, they are not. That was easy.

Yes, they are.

When you are done playing the assertion game, let me know.

I've provided reasoning. Feel free to read it and respond appropriately. :up:

Stripe claims:There are plenty of things men and women cannot control within their own bodies. MD Replies:Can you show an example where the state dictates to a person who can access their internal organs without their consent? So you can't show a single case where the law would intervene in such a manner.

You seem to be talking in non sequiturs. And I don't advocate a system where people cannot make medical decisions about their own bodies.

This should give you pause, to at least consider that maybe, maybe, all of the pro-choicers are trying to protect something important. You may not agree with the conclusion, but if you were honest you would at least agree to the parameters of the argument - that compelling women to go through with a pregnancy against their will is a wrong that should be avoided.

Sometimes the law requires a person to put up with inconvenience in order that justice be served. The right to life of the unborn supersedes any other right you care to invent.

You may claim that the right to life of the fetus trumps this, and that it is the best outcome. But to disregard the other side of the coin makes your side look like pompous idiots, who are not worthy to preach morals to anyone.

OK, so you don't like the way I sound. Have you got a rational argument, or is this it?

My definition for pesonhood is the combination of all the traits we value in a person - sentience, sapience, feeling, awareness, consciousness, empathy, etc. At the bare minimum, they require a working cerebral cortex.

When does a cerebral cortex start working? Is personhood a thing that grows with the cortex? Do people with a larger or better cortex have greater personhood? If your cortex is damaged, is your personhood damaged?

Personhood is conferred. It cannot be defined by any human trait.

For the same reason you need one - so I can tell a person from a hole in the ground.

I do not believe personhood can be defined, yet I can tell a person from a poodle.

There is a difference between bodily dependence and social dependence.

Well your definition of personhood doesn't include "dependence". But it seems clear you justify the murder of those you believe to be people because of their dependence upon a mother.

I can take your money in any number of ways so that others may survive.

No, you can't. :CRASH:

I can't take your blood or your bone marrow or a part of your liver against your will - even if the result is the death of another.

But you will advocate the death of someone because of his dependence upon his mother.

Because the dependence in question is one of bodily dependence, the state can't force its will here.

So your definition of personhood is meaningless. You do not believe in a right to life made equal for all people. You think some should forfeit that right for the convenience of a mother who does not want her baby.

 

[Alate_One]

Your invented rights do not trump the God-given right to life.

Still not seeing a right to life.

Sure, they did. Hitler denied Jews personhood. African people were denied personhood with Darwin's ideas as justification.

No, that was done long before Darwin. The Bible was used as justification.

Difference being that the bible doesn't teach anything about favoured races and in fact teaches equality in Christ. Christians aren't immune to being dramatically wrong about perfectly obvious things taught in the bible.

Tell that to the southern states and half of the US protestant denominations.

Genesis 9:20: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 ¶ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Only because you want to justify killing the unborn.

I don't want to justify anything.

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.​

(Psalms 139:13-16 NKJV)

It doesn't say anything about a right to life.

For people who have hearts, a child is the most precious addition that can be made unto their lives. The loss of a child or less so the inability to conceive one (regardless of his size at conception) are the greatest pains one can endure.

You don't know anything about that having never been in the situation. I do. Why do you think you're qualified to tell me what I should feel?

Which is why women should not be policy makers. They are far too irrational.

Wow. That's really the pot calling the kettle black. If anything you're a case in point for why MEN shouldn't be making public policy. :chuckle:

You're a heartless cow with the sole determination to protect your precious ideals at any cost - including comparing babies to dead skin.

So you're clearly a total waste of my time. Zygotes aren't babies. Never will be, no matter how much you stamp your feet and hurl insults at me.

Another irrational argument. People die. That they die is not reason to deny their personhood.

I'm saying they never got to the point of BEING persons. You can define it however you like, but is a cell that has no possibility of every becoming even a fetus, a person?

You should have taken more care for your children.

And what PRECISELY should I have done? You apparently have no idea how human reproduction works. :dizzy:

Not really. I just want you to feel that your children have worth no matter how small. You shouldn't blithely cast them aside based upon some feelings of inconvenience or insecurity.

Hello? You don't even know if it was a "child" even by your definition. *I* don't want to cast anything aside, I would have gladly taken two instead of one. However, as you may be unaware, women don't generally have control over that. However, I'm not willing to tell other women what to do before a certain point I'd consider personhood. You are and are willing to stoop as low as possible to attack your opponent.

If you really think zygotes are people, then what do you say to women that can form zygotes but know their uterus is incapable of allowing implantation? Are they mass murderers?