Scar wrote:All that semantic wibbling about what a person is is disturbing anyway. A person has thoughts, feeling and a life. A fetus possesses none of these. It's just a lump of cells that may one day delevop to become the container for a person to arise within but that is all.
Actually it is another scientific fact that a fetus at some point in gestation develops brain activity and thoughts and is capable of "feeling" and experiencing pain, among other sensations. When exactly this first occurs is still a subject of medical and scientific debate, but contrary to your implication, a human fetus is a human fetus and has achieved being and is therefore a human being at every stage of development. When it becomes a "person" either legally or philosophically is an entirely different issue, and is as I have said a matter for social and political decision making.
Putting the (non-existant) "rights" of such a container above an actual person is just sick.
See how desperate you are to dehumanize the fetus in order to justify your ideology?
A sperm, likewise, could probably become a person one day (after combining with an egg), yet we do not call fapping murder - order menstruation for that matter.
Of course not. Both sperm and eggs, un-united, are tissue of the donor. A zygote (and all future stage of development identification terms) however is a distinct, separate living human organism living in a parasitical relationship with the mother in that it depends on the mother for life. It is therefor a human being at all times and stages of development.
Religious apologists trying to pretend them fighting abortion for any other reason than their own bigotry need to shut the fuck up.
One does not have to be religious in order to oppose unlimited at-will abortion. It might also be fairly said that the depth of emotion combined with the illogic and unreason evident in your argument meets every criteria of being a religious apology.