[jessupjonesjnr87]

I don't think a human stem cell has the right to life but if you start the process of growing those stem cells into a human then they do.
It's not about wombs of cells, we are the same person from conception to birth and death. We are all just clumps of cells.

[AFAIK]

If you want to start a thread about the wrongs of a world where one half throws away half the food they buy while the other half teeters on the verge of starvation and I'll be more than glad to post there.

But you don't take the initiative to start a thread about these well documented tragedies only about an abortion story from a spurious source.

Why is it acceptable to enforce capital punishment? Doesn't that interrupt the natural life cycle?

[mikema63]

What would constitute starting those cells off on the path to being human? What exact physiological event are you referring to?

Or is this some subjective imaginary line?

[Pants-of-dog]

....
The whole premise of abortion is based around the dehumanisation of small babies. Not all pro abortionists follow this mindset consciously but it does affect them as is evident if this story is true, which I believe it to be.
....

No, you are incorrect. The main premise is that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what their bodies are used for.

This is valid even if we accept that fetuses are humans that have just as much rights as anyone else.

No human, fetus or otherwise, can force another person to act as their life support system.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

If that was the general consensus then abortions would be allowed in all circumstances until the baby is born.

Abortion requires the dehumanisation of the baby and it no only requires it but it also promotes it by its very existence.

[Pants-of-dog]

If that was the general consensus then abortions would be allowed in all circumstances until the baby is born.

And that is the case in Canada.

Not only are abortions legal at any point during the pregnancy, but since it is a medical procedure, the gov't pays for it.

Abortion requires the dehumanisation of the baby and it no only requires it but it also promotes it by its very existence.

Nope. Even humans fully recognised as humans, like white males, cannot legally use another person's body without that person's consent, no matter how necessary it may be for continued life.

Dehumanisation is completely unnecessary.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Then why aren't abortions right up until birth allowed wherever abortion on demand is allowed? It seems Canada is one of the few exceptions.

What would constitute starting those cells off on the path to being human? What exact physiological event are you referring to?

Or is this some subjective imaginary line?

You mean like the 21 week cut off point? The reason I use conception as the start of life is so we can do away with imaginary lines dictating whether a baby is permitted to live or not.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then why aren't abortions right up until birth allowed wherever abortion on demand is allowed? It seems Canada is one of the few exceptions.

Probably because of sexist notions that women should be forced to be life support systems for other people against their will.

[mikema63]

You mean like the 21 week cut off point? The reason I use conception as the start of life is so we can do away with imaginary lines dictating whether a baby is permitted to live or not.

It's no less arbitrary.

[anasawad]

Yea but if a pregnancy lasted for several months, you cant kill it then.
If it reached that stage then its actually alive, and the minute you get the baby out he'll start breathing.
By law, if one breath was taken and you killed hem or her then its murder.
After a certain stage specially i believe after the 6th-7th month, the baby has already got his full functions and body grown and formed and only now grows in size.
It becomes a complete human being. If a girl want abortion then its done with the first months. If its done at the very late stages or after birth, thats actually murder.
(for the after birth part i meant as in getting rid of the baby)

[mikema63]

You haven't supported any of your claims, all you've done is asserted your position.

[anasawad]

Me ?
What position ?
I haven't joined the discussion yet.

'm just saying if the baby already took a breath then by law he or she is officially a full human being, and killing hem is murder.
Even if taken out a month or two before his time, he will take that first breath and be considered murder if so.
Only maybe if he or she died before birth or being taken out through surgery.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Probably because of sexist notions that women should be forced to be life support systems for other people against their will.

Statistically speaking men usually hold more liberal views with regards to abortion than women do.

[mikema63]

Proving?

[anasawad]

You haven't supported any of your claims, all you've done is asserted your position.]

Who is this post for >?

[mikema63]

Jessup.

[anasawad]

aaah.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Proving?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

[mikema63]

That still doesn't seem to prove anything in particular about abortion or its legality.

[Frollein]

No human, fetus or otherwise, can force another person to act as their life support system.

Why not? By your logic, a mother can starve her child to death without having to fear prosecution.