XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

A sperm cell on its own, will never become a human being. Likewise an egg cell will not either. They must be combined and the cell division process continue for this to occur. So a fertilized egg is different than either. An amputated limb will also not grow into a human being, though it might be attached to one if the procedure is done under the right circumstances. Here we're talking about a piece of a human being vs. the being itself. You can live without your arm, but not without your body.

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

heroikrobb, if you don't believe in "rights" then where does the "right to abortion" come from? We can deny it just as you would deny the right to life from anyone who isn't physically able to protest... We aren't talking about the "rights" of a sperm or egg, your right arm once it's been amputated, or any random group of cells, but a very specific grouping that will, unless acted upon by an outside force with malicious/reckless intent, grow into an adult human being like you and me.

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

heroikrobb, most people have never seen (and never will see) the universal declaration on human rights. However it is not a requirement that you read it for it to apply to you since it is a UNIVERSAL declaration on HUMAN RIGHTS, rights you possess by virtue of being HUMAN not whether you can read and have read this particular document and agreed to it! It applies to children as well as adults, whether they can see or read or not. Sorry, but that's a really dumb argument.

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Human rights are rights that apply to all humans, which include the right to life. The right to have an abortion would be a "right" that only applied to women, so it could not be a universal human right. Denying the "right" to abortion would not be denying the "human rights" of women, then, heroikrobb. Seeing the declaration on human rights is not a requirement for it applying to you. Does it not protect blind, illiterate people?

heroikrobb (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Defining who gets human rights is a problem for everybody. But to ban abortions would be not recognizing human rights for women. And unborn children cannot see the declaration of human rights, therefore they cannot be given them. But if we can see it, we get them.

heroikrobb (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

That is impossible to do.Instead, I feel that if pro-life turned the tide, I would impose laws forcing supporters of the pro-life movement to pay the costs for women to undergo birth for the child/ren.

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The point is Hexl702, that prochoice people act as if defending abortion is upholding female rights, when in fact abortion is more often than not destroying GIRLS. On a related note, abortions in China, and infanticide are used by families who are only allowed one child, to try to get a boy instead.

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

coolerdude111, it's not the mother's fucking right to kill her fucking child, get it?(just checking to see if profanity enhances the argument) ;)

XSC3 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

heroikrobb, so you think it's not a problem for you as well?Then I ask you, when should human rights be recognized? Take your time. If you don't know, perhaps we should err on the side of caution and ban abortion?

heroikrobb (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I know that rights don't extend to adults, but also to toddlers as well, and all races and sexes.And please don't ask me about rights magically appearing. I can ask you the same for something like a group of cells or a cell. If a group of cells had rights, then can I cut off my own arm? Does that have rights? What about sperm, or a single cell?