I think it's a parasite personally, so it should be up to the woman either way. It doesn't meet the qualifications of a living human.

We don't give something rights for being human (or at least it doesn't necessarily make sense to). We give something rights based on it's status as a person, which is distinct from being human. Some scientists, for instance, argue that dolphins and chimpanzees deserve to have at least some rights granted to a "person". Of course, defining what is or is not a person is difficult and sort of impossible to nail down perfectly. A zygote or an embryo or a sperm cell or an egg, clearly have no properties associated with personhood. They don't even have any sort of consciousness, for one.

Status? How so? If you're referring to third world countries or something, I think it would be much easier to keep this discussion focused on the United States, where the "human rights", like right to live, are pretty much universal regardless of status.

I don't understand your point. My point is that being human (i.e. having human DNA) doesn't necessarily make you a person, which is what determines what your rights are. Like others have said, someone who is alive and brain dead doesn't necessarily have the rights associated with personhood, even though they are certainly human. Same with a fetus (until a certain point) or a zygote.

And I agreed with that. I just didn't always make it a point to specify all the exemptions :wave:


Where exactly are we disagreeing here?

I thought that you were pro-life. If I'm wrong then what is your exact position?

Pro-choice, I just wanted to clear some things up with Tore. My position is it's not human yet, so it's not entitled to human rights like "right to live" (the ones that don't encapsulate brain dead folks, and others in similar situations)

Exactly. And I'm sick of men trying to make the decision for women.

Remind me never to knock Vanilla up. :shycouch: Joking.

What about women who try to make the decision for other women?