Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
822

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Sure they are. There are infinitely more services and opportunities than even 50 years ago, let alone 100.

Better off doesn’t automatically equal doing good, but it sure is shit is a lot better to be alive today than 50/100/200 years ago as far as being poor in America is concerned. Shit rich too. [/quote]

Having more services doesn’t mean that people actually have access to them.

I don’t dispute that there are greater services for the homeless, and the general attitude towards the homeless is certainly better now than it was back in the 1800s or something, but I just get the general sense that people here overgeneralize.

But this is off-topic from what I want to talk about.

[quote]

I mean, I’m pretty sure you know where I’m going to go with this.

If we want to play moral relativism, which abortion is, anything prior to a heartbeat… I’ll lay off and not bitch about. That is the compromise with evil I’ll make, and I’ll deal with my issues with any higher power that relates to my position on that matter. [/quote]

Ya, but it’s always nice to retread old roads and see what you think now imo.

Let me answer my own question- I have no idea how to define what a human being is, and I doubt I’ll ever find out.

Are you a human being if you’re a mass of cells inside a woman’s uterus? Are you a human being if you’re absolutely brain-dead? Are you a human being if you executed a terrorist plot that killed hundreds? Are you a human being if you own a house, having a loving and stable family, and generally just live a normal life?

I find the abortion debate to largely be about the definition of what is a human being, which is why I find it fitting to start with that.

But, that being said, I don’t think abortion is actually about the fetus. For pro-abortion people, it seems to be a lot more about control over self. Read what most actually liberal news say about anti-abortion people, and you’ll probably notice an awful lot of “asserting control over women” and so on and so forth. Typical feminist crap.

Edit- Then again… They probably do this because they just consider it a foregone conclusion that the fetus has no rights.

And, to end this, I cannot understand how any normal person could condone a 2nd trimester+ abortion, unless the mother’s life is in danger due to the pregnancy. I find it difficult to see a clump of cells that look like the fetus of pretty much most every other animal as a human being. A fetus that enters the 2nd trimester most definitely starts to look like a human being.

But then I have to wonder whether I’m opposed to 2nd trimester+ abortions because I see the fetus as a human being at that point, or whether it’s just because I find it bad to kill anything that looks like a human.

Edit- Heh, this turned into a mental brainstorm session that I do whenever I’m thinking about a subject. Sorry.

823

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?[/quote]

By the way this is phrased it seems you are not agreeing to your assumption at the beginning where personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity. So question for you

Assuming personhood is real and a person is someone who has rights and protections under law. What is a pre-person?

My understanding is a so called pre-person would not have these rights and protections, therefore why is it not okay to indiscriminately eradicate them?

824

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
[/quote]

You too can be one of them , just go with the flow :slight_smile:

825

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Human life begins when the brain begins to function, that doesn’t even make sense. What is it before brain function? [/quote]

by that definition , you still aren’t alive:)

826

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Human life begins when the brain begins to function, that doesn’t even make sense. What is it before brain function? [/quote]

A Democrat?[/quote]

an accountant :slight_smile:

827

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
You guys are coming at me to fast I am trying to work too :slight_smile:

Beans I never said it wasn’t a human in the uterus. Obviously genetically it is a human, I am saying human life (being alive). A human is medically dead once brain activity has ceased can we agree on that? By that then a human would medically be alive inside the womb when brain activity starts.[/quote]

over whelm , divide and conquer :slight_smile: I too used to be polite :slight_smile:

828

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, regarding the argument, “Well, they’re going to die anyway so we might as well harvest the body parts for the ‘good’ of science,” I have this analogy:

Circa 1939, “Well, these Jews, Gypsies, and Poles are going to die anyway so we might as well allow Mengele and Co. to perform medical experiments for the ‘good’ of science.”[/quote]

Your equating torture to how the body is handled after its dead?[/quote]

Their bodies were also experimented with post mortem. Did you not know that?[/quote]

OMFJCFGDM:)

829

600×600 88 KB

:slight_smile:

830

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?[/quote]

By the way this is phrased it seems you are not agreeing to your assumption at the beginning where personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity. So question for you

Assuming personhood is real and a person is someone who has rights and protections under law. What is a pre-person?

My understanding is a so called pre-person would not have these rights and protections, therefore why is it not okay to indiscriminately eradicate them?[/quote]

I don’t know Andy, there is no such thing as a pre-person…

831

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?[/quote]

I’m not condoning genocide at all don’t tell me what I am or am not doing. Why would you think I am condoning that because I have a different scientific basis for when life begins? I am not for abortions, but I do believe it should be the woman’s choice since the law gives her that choice.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what you are doing. I’m just calling a spade a spade.

*noticed you ignored the question…[/quote]

Your right I did ignore the question. It is ok because by definition the fetus is not a “human life” at that point. Would I rather have every woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant use some sort of birth control? Yea I would, but that isn’t reality. I don’t want woman using abortion as a form of birth control, but birth control fails, women get raped, things happen. I am also not condoning slavery, which I see was your next comment. There is also no pre person.

832

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Since abortions are legal and not considered murder if is legal to use the tissue for research. [/quote]

translated:

And people wonder why some of us have a problem with this entire “personhood” made up nonsense.

That is not the same thing an abortion and slavery are not equal. The problem is we have different views on when life begins, which is causing this nonsense if someone believes in legal abortions they are (Hitler, Stalin, for any other mass murderer, or can do what ever to different races).

hmmm. So selling the sliced up babies after they are murdered in an abortion because “science” is different using the bodies of murdered Jew because “science”?

What if the aborted baby was Jewish? Does that change your mind?
[/quote]

Stop equating the 2 many people (scientists and doctors included) believe human life begins when the fetus can live outside the womb. You are equating people who think differently then you to mass murderers its not intellectual. The Nazis where trying to exterminate an entire race of people I would say that is quite a bit different then believing abortions should be legal up to a certain time frame.

833

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven’t formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn’t form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.

Fetuses do have reflex reactions that can make them seem pained, Rosen says. “If you see a fetus in utero react to needle stimulation, then the common conclusion is that it must feel.” But just as with paraplegics, “that’s a reflex that’s mediated by the spinal cord; that’s not a conscious reaction,” he says. It is possible that a temporary structure of neurons that appears in a fetus’s brain during the second trimester allows it to sense pain. But Rosen and his colleagues believe a fetus’s brain doesn’t function coherently enough to be conscious.[/quote]

How did they determine it? I have found far more studies on the inaccuracies of fetal brain wave testing. There is an extreme amount of conjecture in your post about what Rosen says. Everything you said is merely an hypothesis. And anytime you quote a study coming out of San Francisco that just so happens to tow the liberal line, everyone should look at it with a little skepticism.

Rosen’s argument is basically this, “The fetus is not in pain because it can’t process what its feeling, therefore the stimulation that it is feeling is not pain.” However, that doesn’t fit with your clinical death ideal. The mere act of reacting to external stimuli is enough to be considered life, and a wait and see approach would then be taken. By your own logic, when a fetus reacts to external stimuli it is considered “person” enough to wait and see if the situation improves. Pain has nothing to do with it, the reaction does.

I will pose it like this, I plug a patient up to an EEG and its isoelectric, but I pin prick his foot and it reacts, is it ethical to stop life supporting measures at that time in the absence of patient wishes?

834

[quote]magick wrote:

Are you a human being if you’re a mass of cells inside a woman’s uterus? Are you a human being if you’re absolutely brain-dead? Are you a human being if you executed a terrorist plot that killed hundreds? Are you a human being if you own a house, having a loving and stable family, and generally just live a normal life?[/quote]

Yes to all of them. Being evil, such as your terrorist example, doesn’t make you not a human. It makes you a giant asshole, but you’re still a person.

[quote]I find the abortion debate to largely be about the definition of what is a human being, which is why I find it fitting to start with that.

But, that being said, I don’t think abortion is actually about the fetus. For pro-abortion people, it seems to be a lot more about control over self. Read what most actually liberal news say about anti-abortion people, and you’ll probably notice an awful lot of “asserting control over women” and so on and so forth. Typical feminist crap.[/quote]

Unless every single abortion is performed on male babies this fails the most basic logical test.

Is killing someone controlling their body? Unequivocally, yes it is. Therefore it isn’t about preventing control of a woman’s body. It is about certain woman having control over other people’s body.

Look I’m sorry nature is what it is, and females carry the baby. I am truly sorry that puts a lot of responsibility on females. I can’t change that though, and neither can any of them. You can’t outrun nature. But the fact of the matter is, once there is a baby in the womb it isn’t just her body she is controlling, she is now controlling someone else’s too.

[quote]
I find it difficult to see a clump of cells that look like the fetus of pretty much most every other animal as a human being. A fetus that enters the 2nd trimester most definitely starts to look like a human being.

But then I have to wonder whether I’m opposed to 2nd trimester+ abortions because I see the fetus as a human being at that point, or whether it’s just because I find it bad to kill anything that looks like a human.

Edit- Heh, this turned into a mental brainstorm session that I do whenever I’m thinking about a subject. Sorry.[/quote]

claiming whether or not a person is a person based on how they look, or whether or not someone has rights based on how they look is a dangerous game. INsert obvious slavery and Jim Crow comparison here.

835

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
It is ok because by definition the fetus is not a “human life” at that point.
[/quote]

You know, you can continue to say this until your fingers fall off from typing it. It will still be 100% false every single time.

A unique human life begins at conception, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. It is irrefutable scientific fact.

836

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Grad school and this “long time lurker” thinks it’s apparently an elephant and magic fairy dust inside all those bellies…

[/quote]

Ya, I don’t get it. First hit:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
[/quote]

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I am saying is “human life”. I only one I think got it was push. So, I will break it down another way. I am not saying the fetus isn’t a human or that it isn’t living. Obviously the zygote is a human and is a living group of cells. I am basing my “human life” on the fact that death is determined by lack of brain activity, which I think everyone agrees on. Thus “human life” would be when brain activity occurs in the fetus. I am in no dispute that the fetus is a genetic human and that the fetus is living. I am defining “human life” as you and I with brain activity.[/quote]

You are trying to defining “personhood” is what you are doing, which we’ve covered like 10 times at this point. In a nutshell it is semantics used to justify whole sale genocide. [/quote]

I am not justifying genocide I am saying “personhood” begins when there is brain activity. You are saying it happens at conception. The main reason why there is so much argument about the subject is because people in the scientific community can’t even agree on when “personhood” begins. A neurologists might agree with my view, while an embryologist would agree with you. Its not black and white hence the debate. That’s why I originally posted was to state a different view.
[/quote]

You are certainly using the “personhood” fallacy to condone genocide. You absolutely are.

Let’s say for the sake of argument I agree with you that personhood is real and begins at brain wave activity, why is it okay to kill these, I donno, pre-people? We know, if we buy this whole personhood non-sense, that these entities will obtain personhood 99.99999999999999999999% of the time in the very near future (weeks). Why is it okay to indiscriminately eradicate these pre-people?[/quote]

I’m not condoning genocide at all don’t tell me what I am or am not doing. Why would you think I am condoning that because I have a different scientific basis for when life begins? I am not for abortions, but I do believe it should be the woman’s choice since the law gives her that choice.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what you are doing. I’m just calling a spade a spade.

*noticed you ignored the question…[/quote]

Your right I did ignore the question. It is ok because by definition the fetus is not a “human life” at that point. [/quote]

Then what is it?

You are using a tiny subset of statistical outliers to justify the systematic eradication of hundreds of millions of unborn children based on semantics. Unreal.

837

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
The problem is we have different views on when life begins,

Stop equating the 2 many people (scientists and doctors included) believe human life begins when the fetus can live outside the womb. [/quote]

So you, and all these “scientists and doctors” (of which zero you can cite) are 100% wrong.

I know I’m right. You know I’m right, and so does anyone with an elementary understanding of basic biology. A unique human life begins at conception. This cannot be refuted by any scientific measure, but can only be confirmed, over and over and over again by every scientific measure.

838

I guess we are all about the hypothetical s here.

If “personhood” or “human life” begins at conception and humans are subject to the law of the land. A woman is having twins on an ultrasound, she goes in a few weeks later for an ultrasound and one of the fetuses is gone. The doctor tells her the fetus still visible absorbed the other fetus. Since that fetus is a person (according to a lot of you it was considered a person at conception). Does the fetus when born get charged with manslaughter? It clearly killed a viable living unique person.

839

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
You are equating people who think differently then you to mass murderers its not intellectual. The Nazis where trying to exterminate an entire race of people I would say that is quite a bit different then believing abortions should be legal up to a certain time frame.[/quote]

You mean people like Margaret Sangar?

[quote]
It seems to me from my experienceâ?¦that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We donâ??t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.[/quote]

[quote]
They areâ?¦human weeds,â?? â??reckless breeders,â?? â??spawningâ?¦ human beings who never should have been born.

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social diseaseâ?¦Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.[/quote]

You can say what you want and make any intellectual leaps you would like, however, it doesn’t change the fact that you are advocating mass homicide and the wholesale ending of human life.

840

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
I guess we are all about the hypothetical s here.

If “personhood” or “human life” begins at conception and humans are subject to the law of the land. A woman is having twins on an ultrasound, she goes in a few weeks later for an ultrasound and one of the fetuses is gone. The doctor tells her the fetus still visible absorbed the other fetus. Since that fetus is a person (according to a lot of you it was considered a person at conception). Does the fetus when born get charged with manslaughter? It clearly killed a viable living unique person. [/quote]

This is utterly ridiculous.