Quite true. I actually spent a good deal of time in these facilities though haven’t actually worked in one. I’ve seen where a cow went down but got up again at the end of the chute only to have somebody left the chute door unlatched. Needless to say, the angry cow wreaked havoc through the facility until it was able to be subdued. Poor cow wound up going back through the kill chute again. Hey, can’t say it didn’t try.
You made absurd assertion that Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant because her parents didn’t set her down and teach her about birth control. And yet when John Edwards fathered an illegitimate child we didn’t hear any of this nonsense even though he he supported doing exactly what you suggested her mother should have done.
If there was only one opinion on this forum, it would soon get very boring, so bring it on!
We all were once embryos.
What’s unbelievable about this? That the Catholic Church alone defends this teaching? What’s your point - that if if Catholics are the only people defending this teaching it must be wrong? Well, then, the comment about popular opinion is right on topic.
I don’t argue that the fetus is a potential human being. What I argue from is a position of the woman’s property rights to her own body. Her womb is hers and if she wants to pierce it, decorate it, remove it, whatever, it is hers and remains hers through her lifetime. No one, not even her own fetus, has a legal claim on her womb for even one minute of one day. For someone to claim that the fetus has a claim on her womb is to state that she is inferior and has a lesser claim to her womb than the fetus does.
I argue from a purely rational and legal position. It is the pro-lifers I have seen who resort to emotional argumentation (tell your daughter you had the right to cut her up to bits, etc.) to make their point.
A woman doesn’t have property rights to her body.
The person who cuts his arm off and claims it was his to do what he wants with ends up in the insane asylum.
That makes any sense at all only if an unborn child were capable of taking legal action. Otherwise it is moot.
The child has no legal claim on a woman’s womb. Therefore it doesn’t state that a woman is inferior. The truth however is a child has a right to life pure and simple. And the right to life claims neither baby nor woman are inferior but respects all life. The mother has just as much a right to life as the baby and vice/versa.
It is totally irrantional and legal position doesn’t apply.
No, pro-lifers state facts, such as people have the unalienable right to life. Emotional arguments such as the one you just mentioned are posited to point out the hypocracy of the pro-choice person presenting that position. Go back to those posts to see the context in which it was presented.
My you have a very callous attitude towards children. So in addition to believing you had the right to chop your daughter into the little pieces you consider her nothing more than property. Sounds exactly like the way the plantation owners talked about their slaves.
It’s rational to advocate the killing of children for those who wish to do so? And if you’re so rational why don’t you tell your daughter that you believe you had the right to chop her into little pieces? Or are you unaware what an abortion procedure entails?
There IS a strong connection between abortion, and creating a society that views human beings as disposable…But we rely upon religion to declare a zygote to be a person.
I think the stage of development in which a embryo or fetus becomes a person is uncertain. Most Americans (I can’t speak for other nations) would say that personhood begins sometime after the first trimester.
I don’t think personhood is dependent upon the wishes or beliefs of others.
No, this isn’t word manipulation. Most Americans reject the notion of an embryo being a person, with the same rights as a baby. If, in fire, and given a choice between either saving a tray of frozen embryos or saving a three year child, most people are going to save the child.
You would be better off to say that some Jews, some Muslims and some atheists support your position. And with the exceptions of the atheists (who surely must be a minority of atheists), the pro-life positions of the groups you name probably are rooted in their religious views.
The idea of a zygote being equal to a child defies common sense.
Most Americans would reject your either/or dichotomy. Most Americans think there should be limits on abortion, that it should be available but not during all three trimesters. Even those in favor of banning abortion frequently want to make exceptions for cases of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger.
Bob, Bob, Bob… :nope:
But when a fetus becomes a person is not well established. To say that personhood begins at conception is not factual but an opinion.
If you mean we cannot know the exact moment of ensoulment that may be true, but why does that matter?
I thought we’re talking about human life? Now you want to change the subject to discuss some nebulous term like personhood- a word that can mean anything the person using it wants to?
Leaving out the issue of ensoulment, personhood is important because it defines when a fetus is entitled to the full benefits of human rights.
Yes, Catholics will find it makes much sense. But most Americans make a distinction to human life and a human person. A person on life support who has been declared brain-dead is still alive, but most Americans would say he or she is no longer a person. Moving to the opposite end of life, most Americans would say embyros are human life, but not human persons.
Bob, I’ve been talking about personhood since post #10 when I entered this discussion. I think it is the central issue, and that ignoring it is why pro-life and pro-choice supporters talk past one another.
Agreed. It is human life.
No, I don’t think so. I think we as a society need to discuss at what stage of development a right to life exists. I don’t think the US has been having this discussion.
No, you misunderstand me. I don’t believe the fetus is property I believe it is a separate being from its mother. What I believe is that the womb is property and that the child has no legal claim to that womb because it is the property of another. So a woman decides she does not wish to carry a child at 10 weeks, at that point, the fetus will not survive outside her body, not with current medical technology. So, in that case, because she can decide what her uterus is used for, she has the right to an eviction of the fetus, because the fetus cannot survive anyway, whatever technique will be the least painful and dangerous for the woman should be used.
What does personhood have to do with what I said?
Why do pro-abortionists seem to have such short memories?