glassjester
Well-known member
What is it about mold that we don't consider it to have rights but humans do?
Its species.
Of which we do not belong. Nor does a human fetus.
You seem to think a human, in its earliest stage of development, is deserving of the same rights as a species of mold.
Strange.
Quip didn't say "merely". That was your addition. He said that a fetus is incipient life, which is true. So, you're tying yourself up over something that you said.
Wow. Read what I wrote. I said that I said it is not merely insipient. Yikes.
I know I am the one that said it.
In other words - it is not merely a fetus; it is a human fetus. My use of the word "merely" is synonymous with the word "only."
A fetus is incipient life. But it is not only incipient life. It is incipient human life.
An early stage. See the definition of incipient.
Right. A fetus is in an early stage of life. But it is not merely in an early stage of development. It is in an early stage of human development - a fact that pro-abortionists love to ignore.
See the definition of "merely."
(Again, I trust you to investigate this great mystery on your own)
So, what you are saying is that a woman who is pregnant is essentially a ward of the state, subject to regulation of her body for the benefit of the fetus.
How is this any different than your view of a woman in her 25th week of pregnancy?
That's not a rhetorical question.