Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
It is clearly a appeal to emotion subterfuge. The fact remains. I'll agree it is life, it's human in that it contains the dna which gives it potentiality. However as recognized by Roe vs. Wade, the potentiality does not imbue rights. If the cells never developed beyond a cluster of cells perhaps 100 in total, no one would consider it a "death" as this as this is not recognizable as personage by anyone, law or personal consideration in all, they'd simply see it as a pregnancy that didn't develop. The muxxing of words and literary acrobatics by the anti-abortion faculty is a broad ranging front. Innocent fetus, PROLIFE, feticide, these are all appeals to emotion which are simply not valid arguments. As pointed out before there is no guilt or innocence in a fetus. You say pale, that you are only appealing to science, but science has not changed. No one is denying that a fetus is "living" but it is not a human being, your argument that a newborn is not a "full fledged human being" is lacking and trying to compare apples and oranges. I don't see an egg as a chicken (fertilized or otherwise) but I do see chicks as chickens although they're not fully developed.
It is clearly a appeal to emotion subterfuge. The fact remains. I'll agree it is life, it's human in that it contains the dna which gives it potentiality. However as recognized by Roe vs. Wade, the potentiality does not imbue rights. If the cells never developed beyond a cluster of cells perhaps 100 in total, no one would consider it a "death" as this as this is not recognizable as personage by anyone, law or personal consideration in all, they'd simply see it as a pregnancy that didn't develop. The muxxing of words and literary acrobatics by the anti-abortion faculty is a broad ranging front. Innocent fetus, PROLIFE, feticide, these are all appeals to emotion which are simply not valid arguments. As pointed out before there is no guilt or innocence in a fetus. You say pale, that you are only appealing to science, but science has not changed. No one is denying that a fetus is "living" but it is not a human being, your argument that a newborn is not a "full fledged human being" is lacking and trying to compare apples and oranges.
I don't see an egg as a chicken (fertilized or otherwise) but I do see chicks as chickens although they're not fully developed.
