When human development begins is settled science. Our experience of it has different milestones. You may value some more than others but that isn’t the issue. I don’t place as much value on children who live on the other side of the planet. That doesn’t determine their value.OK. I disagree. For reason already stated. We have our opinions, but lets not mince any sort of biological fact from this statement.
Why? It’s irrelevant to the issue. Plus it’s an uncontroversial statement. Our bodies reach a point where they no longer grow. That’s called adulthood. Then our bodies begin to lose theirAlso - since you stated I should take a biology course - I would like to know the demarcation in the human lifecycle on when decay starts and development ends. It isn't surprising you just left that out of your response. Please educate me since you think I need it.
Sure you do. Every human is the same genetic material that started at conception and implantation. Yes, that continues to reach milestones in the development process, just like you did. Your moral concern is irrelevant. Their are people who lack concern for any humans.So? I'm not trying to assuage anything. I am placing value at the realization of a person. I don't consider genetic material a person. At some point in the development process that material becomes a real person with real capacity and that is where my moral concern starts.
When any born person dies, the ONLY thing that is taken is their potential.I am not destroying a person. I may be destroying potential, and to that I say so what. I have no moral qualms with destroying something that is not a person. Even if there is a chance it will be a person, the simple fact remains until a certain point it isn't. When you murder someone, you are destroying a person AND potential.
>28 weeks is generally considered a late term abortion, I don't know anyone who advocates for that. I only speak for myself.
There are lawmakers that advocate for the child to be delivered and laid on a table to fin for them self. I would say that they think the age of being "capable" is several months after birth?
I'm confused by your tactics here. Generally, once the baby is born the right stops giving a sht about the wellbeing of the child.
Let's stay on topic.
Nice try.......you are talking to a foster/adoptive parent.......I do more than "give a shat" about kids.
The point is, the legality of killing a child will continue to be stretched as long as it is legal at any age/stage.
So until the age of say.....10? 12? it isn't a human being? I would say about zero healthy infants can survive outside the womb without considerable assistance. Most adolescents and teens as well. Heck a bunch of grown people too.It is also to remove a glob of cells. It is illegal to kill a human being, but you still have to qualify as a human being. My personal line is still in order to be classified as a human being it must be capable of surviving outside the womb. Until such a time, it merely has the potential of being a human being.
There is no legal obligation for a mother to provide for her children. She can drop them off at the firehouse ending any such obligation. You have decided that she should be forced to carry the unborn to term.
Almost all creatures develop from a fetus, so what is this particular fetus if not human?