There's nothing "tricky" about this matter -- it's actually very straightforward: a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, as state-of-the-art DNA and life science has presented, and thus to intentionally kill that person when that person is not threatening the life of that person's mother is ... the sociological act of murder.
It really is that simple.
Nothing "tricky" about it ... though it will probably "appear" tricky to pro-abortionists who can't deal with the implications of the truth of it.
Not from the context of your post, you're not.
You're obviously thinking of this matter from the social ideological perspective of the pro-abortionist mindset ...
... With the political agenda ...
... Of religiously seeking ...
... To dogmatically defend the heinous Roe v. Wade.
The only circumstances you're attempting to consider are those you vainly seek to justify murderous abortion.
And you're probably wondering how you can twist definitions the way the other pro-abortionists do to prevent the truth of the personhood of the newly conceived from becoming common knowledge.
But ... that's just my guess.
How creative of you.
You cite change as an example of your attempt to reduce human rights to a passing fancy of a relatively meaningless notion ...
... All, of course, to keep your convenient murderous abortion legal.
You don't really mean to disparage human rights, I mean after all they've done for you in your little island of the world; the Magna Charta, English Bill of Rights, etc., that may have kept your ancestors out of undue imprisonment and kept your heirs alive long enough to result in ... you.
No, you're just attempting to spin some kind of sophistry of the moment, ironically, to justify the very murderous killing from convenience that was outlawed sufficient to perhaps give you a chance to ... be.
You are in error though, obviously -- human rights are ancient, and they existed long before they were legally safeguarded. Now, it is time to take our new-found scientific knowledge and apply the safeguarding of those rights, starting with the foundational right to life, to newly conceived people.
Since it appears you lack a fundamental understanding of the three categories of rights -- life, security of person, and freedom of action -- here is a link to a primer on the matter: The Realities of Rights.
Happy reading.
Irrelevant.
The changing of religious positions is irrelevant to the scientific fact of the truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.
And the changing of social positions is also irrelevant to the scientific fact of the truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.
Now what is relevant is the ever-changing progress of science, science which declared unconjecturably a little over three decades ago that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.
You may wish to return to the opening post in this thread for a review of the true and accurate science and it's very germane and relevant truth, a truth which will stand the test of change for all time.
Really?
Then wouldn't it be well of everyone to respect the will of the newly conceived individual, to keep that person's privacy and personal business out of the hands of deadly abortuaries?
I would think so.
But of course you're really only interested in keeping the potential murderer's will sacred, private and "personal".
A bit hypocritical of you to arbitrarily choose sides like this, isn't it?
Murder is a pretty big "mistake", don't you think, Scotsman?
But, I guess nobody's perfect.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of imperfect people in prision for that crime, the commiting of murder against pre-natals and post natals alike.
I'm sure those murderers thought, in their typical moral relative utilitarian sophistrical ways of thinking, that the "circumstances" justified the murder.
Thankfully, however, civilized humanity doesn't tolerate "circumstances" as an excuse for murder.
If murder is the guilty verdict ... the penalty is still enacted ... no matter what excusive "circumstances" the murderer cites.
Because a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, abortion, for the circumstance of convenient and the like, is, by definition, the sociological behavior of murder.
In time, no "circumstances" for the murder of pre-natals will be tolerated ...
... Thanks to science, of course.
Well, not exactly.
We say: "why make a pre-natal person pay for those mistakes of others ... with that person's very life"!
Again, you seem to suffer a lack of knowledge of the basic structure of human rights ... though my guess is that you don't really suffer such a lack of knowledge, you just want to self-delude and delude others into thinking that you don't grasp the fundaments of human rights.
No, I'm pretty sure you get it, that the right to life comes first and foundational, paramount and unviolable, and thus most certainly supercedes the right to freedom of action.
Indeed, that's obvious ... or a lot of murderers would have gotten off scot-free by simply saying "it's my freedom of action right to murder someone if I conveniently say it is".
Wow -- I wonder if you really meant to become a surrogate defense attorney in a class action on behalf of murderers, Scotsman?
I can't imagine that's the company you'd want to keep in this discussion.
