It is a scientific fact that foetus are human lives - they react to things, have a heartbeat, can feel pain, etc. The anti-science ones are the ones trying to make science say something that agrees with their worldview so people don’t have to face the outcome of their actions.
Just say you were convinced that foetus are human lives - would you still be in favour of abortion?
When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone’s cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.
Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.
Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.
As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.
Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.
More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.
And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.
The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.
And if you think they can change people’s mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.
Honestly, you’re as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.
The amount of mental gymnastics and presumptions about me here is absolutely astounding. Me not donating a kidney to you is not the same as me ripping you apart from limb to limb. The equivalent would be, just say a pregnant woman would need to take a medical treatment to prevent a miscarriage. Do I think it should be illegal for her to refuse the treatment? No! As letting nature play out is not actively intervening and murdering someone.
Also, I hear atheists flip flop between “we can have morals too, even though we believe that there is no god” to “you are only holding this moral about life being worth something because of your belief in god” and it’s astonishing.
I still believed abortion was wrong before I took the Bible seriously as a guideline for my life. I also believed in other things that aren’t biblical at the time. I challenged the social norm and still came to the conclusion that religion aside, it’s immoral. The only influence religion has on my opinions surrounding abortion is that I believe that morality exists and that human life is sacred. Which is why I am also against the death penalty and I am against refusing to help people who are dying.
You are misinterpreting my words. And it’s hard to claim not intentionally.
I said the law should not be able to force you to make the donation. Nothing at all about your desire.
This is the same as forcing a mother to donate her body and long term health to birth another being. You have no right to intimate her into dong so. And the law has decided the being has no rights until 24 weeks. Where evidence indicates it can survive without the mother.
I never made any accusations about your religion or the motive of your actions. Read it again. I said your definitions of life and humanity are no better than religion. IE, they have zero evidence to back them up. Only that of your non-scientific opinion.
Everything you provide argument wise is based on your personal definition of when a collection of cells is human. You do not have the ability to make that judgement. Nor do I and nor has science. But we do have the ability to judge when it is no longer a parasite (hard luck if you don’t like the term, nor do I. But it is technically correct) depending on the will of another being to live. And our laws consider its right to out weight the mothers at that point. Is it up for debate. Of course. But that is in no way the topic of this thread.
Your very first response to me came back with bullshit scientific reasons why my claim your definition of human was unscientific. I have attempted to point out your misapplication of those facts. They are not a scientific answer. They are facts that fail to proove the cells are as you claim an independent human life.
And as I keep saying. While you outright choose to ignore it as you have no answer.
Non-off them give you or anyone who thinks as you do. The right to intimidate people following the law as it is now. That is the only reason the laws announced here have been created. And the only thing those laws stop you doing.
Cool. Your welcome to feel that way.
But when you intimidate people who disagree with your flawed non scientific ideal of the start of life.
You face restrictions on you right to gather near them.
It is a scientific fact that foetus are human lives - they react to things, have a heartbeat, can feel pain, etc. The anti-science ones are the ones trying to make science say something that agrees with their worldview so people don’t have to face the outcome of their actions.
Just say you were convinced that foetus are human lives - would you still be in favour of abortion?
Cells react to things. Dose not mean it is an independent console being.
If you can proove your cancer moles meet the same standards. Would you still agree with removal.
Cancer moles aren’t human lives. This is disingenuous.
Nor are cells in a womb. Sorta the point,
Then why do they look human and given enough time, able to graduate university with a master’s degree in sociology?
When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone’s cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.
Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.
Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.
As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.
Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.
More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.
And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.
The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.
And if you think they can change people’s mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.
Honestly, you’re as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.
The amount of mental gymnastics and presumptions about me here is absolutely astounding. Me not donating a kidney to you is not the same as me ripping you apart from limb to limb. The equivalent would be, just say a pregnant woman would need to take a medical treatment to prevent a miscarriage. Do I think it should be illegal for her to refuse the treatment? No! As letting nature play out is not actively intervening and murdering someone.
Also, I hear atheists flip flop between “we can have morals too, even though we believe that there is no god” to “you are only holding this moral about life being worth something because of your belief in god” and it’s astonishing.
I still believed abortion was wrong before I took the Bible seriously as a guideline for my life. I also believed in other things that aren’t biblical at the time. I challenged the social norm and still came to the conclusion that religion aside, it’s immoral. The only influence religion has on my opinions surrounding abortion is that I believe that morality exists and that human life is sacred. Which is why I am also against the death penalty and I am against refusing to help people who are dying.
You are misinterpreting my words. And it’s hard to claim not intentionally.
This is the same as forcing a mother to donate her body and long term health to birth another being. You have no right to intimate her into dong so. And the law has decided the being has no rights until 24 weeks. Where evidence indicates it can survive without the mother.
Everything you provide argument wise is based on your personal definition of when a collection of cells is human. You do not have the ability to make that judgement. Nor do I and nor has science. But we do have the ability to judge when it is no longer a parasite (hard luck if you don’t like the term, nor do I. But it is technically correct) depending on the will of another being to live. And our laws consider its right to out weight the mothers at that point. Is it up for debate. Of course. But that is in no way the topic of this thread.
Your very first response to me came back with bullshit scientific reasons why my claim your definition of human was unscientific. I have attempted to point out your misapplication of those facts. They are not a scientific answer. They are facts that fail to proove the cells are as you claim an independent human life.
And as I keep saying. While you outright choose to ignore it as you have no answer.
Non-off them give you or anyone who thinks as you do. The right to intimidate people following the law as it is now. That is the only reason the laws announced here have been created. And the only thing those laws stop you doing.