LinearAq writes:
Just because you claim the declaration of a fetus as deserving of some rights requires it must be accorded all rights, doesn't make it feasible.
Read the thread. I have said no such thing.
I have said consistently that
if a fetus becomes a person at conception, it should have the same rights
at conception that we currently give it
at birth.
There are some realities about the tenuousness of a fetus' existence that require limits to the rights accorded that fetus.
Since when does a person's "tenuousness of existence" make that person less of a person?
Are my communication skills so inadequate that I will always fail to provide you with an understanding of the difference between purpose and actions to achieve that purpose?
Looks that way.
I'll say it again: if a man doesn't eat the food in front of him, I'll suspect that he isn't as hungry as he claims. No matter how eloquently he verbally communicates his claims, his actions are a more reliable communication.
Is that anecdotal...yes and I may be unjustifiably assuming that this is an across-the-board occurrence.
Until you can provide better evidence than I-know-a-guy-whose-wife's-cousin's-hairdresser, your claims that anti-abortionists care about the fetus are pretty empty.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels