Abortion still under control in Poland

Are we talking about people?

No.

When do they become people @jon357? If you are advocating for the murder of full term babies then you need to back it up. When is the point at which a baby miraculously becomes a person?

Yes, I indicated that you play with words to manipulate its meaning.
Embryo is a child and is a human being as science tell us. Your problem is you don't understand science or you don't want to understand it and its implications.

embryo, newborn, toddler, child, young adult, teen, an adult, oldman - all those names indicating stages of devalopment or life of a human. Newborn as much as a teen is a human being, the same goes for other stages.

There were some doubts if an unborn child is a human being but that was before science discovered DNA and its properties. Since then anyone who claim that an unborn child is not an unique human being - an individual - is pretty much a shaman with backwoods unscientific ideas.

Legislation hasn't catched up with the reality as yet.


I would question that devalopment if they are passing such legislation. All are doing it - is a rather lame excuse not an argument. That would't get you out of trouble would it? Officer sure I was speeding but everybody are doing it. You are right you can go .... lol!

As you know, it isn't.


I doubt most countries' legislation wool enter for your personal anti_women- views.


Tough.

Why? What is your reasoning? Is it wrong to go out and kill some random passerby? If so, why is that?

What's with your 'random passer by'?

We are discussing pregnant women.

@Anthonylas28
No one is advocating killing full term babies.

Some guy just walking down the street. Is it wrong to go out and kill him? If so, why is that?

@Korvinus

If you read Hobbes, then the answer to this question is that it is a bad idea, because he could do the same to you. Can a baby kill you? I suppose it could.

What guy?

We're talking about women. Can a guy get pregnant?

Some random conscious guy. You seem to put great stock in being conscious. Is it wrong to go out and kill conscious person? If so, why is that?

An embryo or a foetus, as you know, has never been conscious.

An embryo doesn't even have a central nervous system.

Ok. So what? Is it wrong to go out and kill conscious person? If so, why is that?

You keep asking that irrelevant question, and I don't answer pointless rhetorical questions.

If you're unfettered why not answer yourself rather than wasting your time asking others.

And as you know, an embryo or a foetus is neither conscious nor a person.

I googled "stages of human development" and got this:

Human growth and development...six stages...:

Fetus.
Infancy.
Toddler years.
Childhood.
Adolescence.
Adulthood.

Fetus is human because it's not anything else. It's alive because it's not dead. Period. All else is a linguistic circus.

See, you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding even what the argument is about. Your rationalism is limited. That's what the problem is. You cannot prove that killing people is morally wrong. You cannot prove that killing unborn child is morally right.

If somebody disagrees with you, he is either ignorant or an idiot plain and simple. If that's what being a narcissist is about you just rendered human intelligence itself immoral.

It's actually very simple. To those who never produced life, life is just another word.
That's why abortion advocates are mostly women who never gave birth and gays. To their credit, women have a vested interest in the issue. Gays have none and that's why they are so disgusting and out of place.

You don't have one.


We aren't talking about killing people though, are we...

We are talking about a woman's rights over her own body...


What does that even mean?

it is shamanic mumbo jumbo, nothing else, see as he makes no argument but repeat himself.

If 7 months before coming out - I am talking birth, not sexual orientation reveal - it's not human and 7 minutes after coming out it is human when between those two endpoints did "it" become human?

Also, is the process binary or with 50 shades of gray?

Of course it's 50 shades of gray.

So far the abortion advocates named two - fetus and baby. Can you name the remaining 48?
Do you know when fetus becomes baby?

@RussianAntiPutin, see posts #2416 and #2417, to me that was an advocation of full term abortion which unbelievably is legal in some states of USA.

Murder is immoral. Abortion is immoral.
Or rather, do you want to believe that killing babies is neither moral nor immoral because there is no such thing as absolute moral values in the first place? Mind you, that this is of course a purely intellectual exercise. Very few leftists actually have the gal to follow their logic to its actual consequences, though every now and then you get somebody who does, at which point the average leftist intellectual acts shocked and horrified, shunning every personal responsibility from ever suggesting that "killing babies is no different from abortion".

If there is no such a thing as morality, then what is wrong with going out and killing some random people?

A subjective term.


We aren't talking about that. We are talking about women making the decision to end a pregnancy.

As you know, an embryo isn't a baby.


There you go again. It's clear that you care less about women's right over their bodies than party politics.

I agree. We, the majority, not just women, decide what is immoral because immoral acts have consequences that affect all of us - not just the "it's my body" screaming bit*ches trying to be relevant.

Fortunately the majority of countries don't share your view.


And fortunately they have more manners and respect than you...

Abortion is immoral in an absolute sense.


Women are not fundamentally evil or there wouldn't be such a thing as female saints (not to mention their original model which is the Virgin Mary) but Eve was still the first one to get duped by the snake. That cannot be ignored.


Here he goes with the relativism again.
Abortion being immoral has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact it is murder, which also renders this entire discussion of whether a fetus is actually "baby" completely redundant.

Is bearing unwanted children through the GOP-condoned proliferation of starvation-wage McJobs throughout the country, forcing families to have children whom they cannot possibly afford, thereby having to give them up for adoption, any less immoral, Korvinus?

Where once a young mother might actually have been able to raise a family modestly yet relatively comfortably, working at a Walmart, for instance,
such is only the case in some Republican dream world of men and women living off the fat of the land as once in a mythical pioneer fantasy over a hundred-and-twenty odd years ago. Such is NOT the reality of today's world.

Unwanted pregnancies don't point to this stereotype of the "evil woman", rather to the need for greater reform in our society by allowing abortion so that women have more control both over their lives as well as their bodies!

An incredibly puritanical and primitive country the United States, certainly as regards basic issues such as weapons' possession and women's rights.

Excluding rapes and child abuse, women have full control over their (sex) lives.


What are you blabbering about? What does being pregnant have to do with working at Mcdonald's at $15 per hour?


We possess "weapons" because the US Constitution allows us to possess "weapons". Don't like it? Change the Constitution.
Women and men have the same rights.
Abortion is a service for a fee - if you can find a vendor.
I want my legs amputated because I like metal prosthetics more and hate clipping my toenails but nobody wants to do it for me. My body!!!! My rights!!!!! What is going on?