An acorn isn't a tree...yada, yada, yada.
The stupidity of that is quite funny. As stated the other 100,000 times you use that pathetic analogy.... an acorn is like the EGG cell. IF fertilized, its gentics are most certainly that of an oak tree.
We could have this debate ad infinitum, and it seems like we have. There ARE different stages of human development. Whether you believe it or not, few would look at a microscopic zygote in a petri dish and say "that's a fully realized human being with all of the rights of a fully realized human being." Very few would also look at that & say "child," just as very few would look at a baby and say "teenager," and few would look at a teenager and say "adult."
Here is where you venture into the ACTUAL argument. I understand that there are different stages of development. But at NO time after fertilization of the egg cell by the sperm cell is it anything other than human.
The argument IS about WHEN human rights should be granted. My point is and always has been just that. Just quit pretending that by saying 'fetus' that it is somehow not a human child.
As you say, no one is going to look at a baby and say 'teenager'. Just as no one would look at a baby, toddler, pre-teen, teenager or adult and say 'nope, not a human'.
So, the question then becomes, at what point does a zygote or fetus reach a point at which we can say they have all of the rights we associate with individuals in society...at what point do their rights supercede the right of the woman to control her own body?
True. It is about WHEN human rights should be granted. But pretending it is about 'control' of the womans body is just nonsense from the left. Again, in all cases not involving rape, the woman (along with the man) has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. If the two CHOOSE to have sex, they have the right to CHOOSE to use protection or not. If the results of their actions result in a child, then they are responsible for their actions.
The childs rights do not supersede the womans. Nor should the woman's rights supersede the childs. She should not have the right to kill the child out of convenience. The child and its body have just as much right to exist. Especially when the woman (and man) KNOW that a child is a potential consequence of their actions.
You say conception...whatever. The Supreme Courts says after the 1st trimester, which to me, is a very good compromise. It takes into account sentience, viability & other aspects that we relate to a vague concept of "personhood," while also fully respecting the rights of the woman involved.
This is where we obviously differ. You are willing to 'compromise' with someone else's life. I am not.
It's easier to be black & white about it - life begins HERE, and it is "murder" from the get go. It takes much less thought & consideration. To me, it is lazy thinking.
That is just nonsense. I would be willing to bet I have put far more thought into my position than most who support abortion.
The 'lazy' are the ones who are willing to say 'hey, go ahead and terminate a human life. It isn't me, so what do I care. I am willing to compromise with someone else's life'
