(September 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Losty Wrote:(September 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The real question is when is a person a person. When sperm penetrates egg is obviously silly. And it goes on being silly for a while. A thing that can't think is not a person. When does it become a person?
Hebrews thought is was first breath. Romans thought it was when Daddy said so. Supreme Court seems to think it's when it can live outside the uterus.
I disagree that that's the real question. No person has the right to my body even if they need it to survive.
We hashed this one out quite some time ago, in this thread, Jenny.
The only question is whether or not a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy. The fact is that even a fully-grown adult has no more right to use her body, or to force her to put her own life at risk, to maintain that fully-grown adult life, no matter how "culpable" she is in the circumstance that placed that adult in the position to require her body to survive (I gave the example of a person whose kidneys you had damaged, and only your kidney transplanted into them could allow them to keep living). So if it is not true that an adult has a right to invade your bodily autonomy, why should we trouble ourselves with the question of when the fetus becomes viable, becomes a baby, et cetera?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.