- Thread starter
- #21
I'm on my phone and don't have much time. JoeB131 you seem to want to drag a lot of things into this debate / discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not not a child in the fetal stage of their life is actually a child (human being / person).
Can we please stick to that one aspect without dragging all the other shit into it?
I might even agree on some if the other sidebar things you mentioned. . . But they don't have anything at all to do with whether or not a child in the fetal stage of their life is a child.
We've been over that.
Not viable. Can't survive on it's own. size of a kidney bean.
Not a person. Not a child.
On a personal level, I think a lot of women (like that Asian chick I used to know) have abortions for stupid reasons. But you know what, a world where a woman has less rights than a kidney-bean sized blob inside of her is not one that I'd feel comfortable living in.
JoeB131 do you disagree that there is a huge difference between claiming that a child in the fetal stage of their life is not a child and claiming that they shouldn't be recognized as a child?
Those are two completely different things. Aren't they?
For example, You have not presented anything that establishes that children can not be as small as a kidney bean, that a child must be viable and able to survive on its own, to be a child, etc.
Nobody disputes the fact that a "child" in the first stages of their life is very small. Nobody denies how much a "child" in the womb is reliant upon the woman carrying it.
However, those observations do not disprove the biological fact that it is a "child."