I've heard "life begins at conception" which is scientifically accurate. But no, I'm not tuned in to what the pro-lifers are doing. That may be a shock to you, since you seem to lump me in with them. At any rate, neither the OP nor my previous arguments have claimed that a zygote is a person.
And again, I have not claimed that the pro-choice position favors killing people. EVER.
I know the difference, and I never claimed you didn't. Your venom spewing is duly noted.
As has been noted before in heated exchanges between us, you have your opinion about my venom, and I have my opinion about yours. I stand by my assessments of your arguments. I understand that you don't wish to be lumped in with anti-choice people, but in spite of that you spend a lot of time in these discussions presenting and defending the anti-choice argument, albeit sandwiched between disclaimers. I'm sorry but I will always choose to address the argument over the disclaimers of anyone I debate issues with.
I stand by my assessment that your argument has indeed made use of the common anti-choice habit of conflating "baby," "fetus" and "zygote" all together and coloring them all with falsely emotive language and shock stories.
I further stand by my assessment that repeatedly questioning when the baby gets a right to live, plus describing women as not respecting the reproductive process and cavalierly getting their uteruses scraped for convenience, plus specifically stating that in your opinion a fetus is a human being and no different from a born child, all comes together as implying that the pro-choice position is a position that chooses to kill human beings. So I stand by that assessment, too.
Wading though your prolific spew, I see that you are still not getting the point. You cannot use the legality of a thing to prove it is right. If you think a law is correct, you cannot prove its correctness by claiming "it's the law."
I didn't. I may not be getting your point, but that may just be because it bears no relation to anything I was saying.
Since we seem to be recommending education today, I recommend you take a debate class and an etiquette class.
Hiss, rattle.
So you would not be opposed to a law against post-20-week abortions that were not medically necessary?
You mean would I not be opposed to the status quo that already exists in the United States, thus making all these supposedly baby-saving laws utterly unnecessary? Why yes, obviously I would fine with that, since I have said so many, many times in this thread and every other thread that has covered abortion in this forum, in many of which you and I have also had this argument.
In actual fact, I don't think there should be any legal restrictions on abortion at all, except for safety. The example of Canada proves that there is no need for such restrictions. They have none, and yet Canadian women do not get non-medically-necessary late term abortions. They refrain from doing that even without laws prohibiting it. That's probably because women don't just up and opt for late abortions without need.
But if I can't have that because Americans are too busy poking their noses into each other's business to stop and think this through, then I will go with
whatever restriction matches the state of ob-gyn medicine.
And--this is 4 times now--I have never stated that women are callous baby killers.
I stand by my assessments, as explained above. The problem with the argument you are defending very passionately is that it is not your argument. It is the standard anti-choice argument generated by such groups as Operation Rescue and the Focus on the Family. You may wish to disavow the woman-blaming, insulting, and pejorative elements of it, but you would have to edit it to do that.
So you would not be opposed to restricting abortions when a fetus is viable? The record for the youngest surviving preemie is
21 weeks, 6 days.
Already answered above, and I'm not going to keep clicking on these amazing tales links, especially not after it was so obvious that one of the sources you offered contained false claims.
What, exactly, do you think is inside a woman's uterus at 20+ weeks? What do you think happens to it during an abortion? It has to come through the birth canal, does it not? It doesn't magically disappear. It has to be disposed of. Do you think a 23-week old fetus looks different from a 23-week old born baby?
And here we are, back where we started. I assert that the above paragraph is a repetition of everything you said in earlier posts, and which you just finished denying you ever said, above in this post.
Thank you for proving my points. I stand by my statements.
None of my pregnancies were planned, and I had no desire to be pregnant or have a child (or another child). The proof was in the birth, the bonding, the love, and the ensuing responsibility. Such things are not guaranteed or discredited by a desire or lack thereof, to have a child.