There is no completely arbitary notion of personhood, so I could hardly do that.
Then define it in some objective way.
Why do you think that human life is sacrosanct?
And, given that's what you're telling us you think, why do you also think it was acceptable for Chauvin to end Floyd's life?
Why don't you think life is sacrosanct?! What's wrong with you that you'd even ask such a question?
There's a significant difference between an innocent life, that had no hand in its own fate, and a criminal, whose many choices directly contributed to his. There's also a significant difference between intentionally killing a baby in the womb and, arguably, not intending to kill anyone (unless you truly believe Chauvin thought he could get away with murder on video).
Are you still doing that? Didn't you and I have a word about that nonsense earlier? Slow learner?
Unless you're playing dumb, what else am I to assume when you make non sequitur arguments?
Then try really hard to respond to what you quote instead of making non sequitur statements. That's how you demonstrate you actually know what was said.
I think you've lost track of what you were talking about. Too busy foaming at the mouth, maybe.
No, I was directly addressing your non sequitur. And apparently you don't even have the nerve to justify this obvious red herring.
Tell me why it gets to use to a woman's body against her will, then. Because you say so?
Not against her will. I the vast majority of cases, she made choices that any adult should know could lead to that consequence. Now if you're claiming women have no agency, you might be onto a logically consistent argument. Is that what you're trying to say?
So medical experts tell pregnant women intending to give birth that it's a fetus, not a baby?
Apparently so. Didn't you read your own link?
Again, for the love of God, simple English. That literally says "your baby" is also described as "a fetus."
I said, calling it a fetus instead of a baby (e.g. "not a baby"). So again, what medical experts are telling intentionally pregnant women that it "is not a baby" they carry?
See how they clarify that the term "baby" is not "offical" (i.e. technically correct)?
Yes, "baby" is not a technical term, but neither is "man" or "woman." That doesn't make their usage any less legit. "Not officially described as" does not mean "not a baby."
Calling it Frederica doesn't turn a foetus into a baby.
Then cite me a medical source on how a baby and a fetus are mutually exclusive terms.
People won't like you if..
Oh, is your self-worth dependent upon the feelings and opinions of others?
Hint, if you have to proclaim something was "for the best," it's only because some part of you doubts it, i.e. holding two contradictory ideas.
You're still as wrong as you were the first time.
He says, again making proclamations instead any reasoned argument.
Lots here about women being held responsible for their choices. Not so much about men being held responsible. Last time I checked, conception required both a man and a woman, in the usual run of these things. But you're exclusively focused on the women.
Tell me, Vociferous: how do you recommend that the men be held responsible for their choices to have sex, knowing the possible consequences? Why are you laser-focused on what you will and won't allow women to do, while you're giving the men free rein?
Since you don't live in the US, I'll cut you some slack. Here, men are held accountable, without any say over if an unwanted pregnancy is brought to term or not, even if the woman trapped them by intentionally sabotaging birth control. They cannot escape responsibility, as they will be tracked down and have their paychecks docked by the government. So, as you see, there is no "men be held responsible" argument to be had. They already are.
You mention treating women like children. What you really advocate is treating women like (your) property. For some reason, you think that you have the right to tell a women what she must do with her own body. What gives you that right? Who made you King of the Women?
You mention that after you've forced a women to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term, that there are plenty of eager people looking to adopt the baby. How many babies have you adopted, Vociferous. How many are you willing to take on and support? Please tell us.
Here's another novel idea: that baby has a father. Why are you not advocating that he be responsible after the baby's (forced) birth?
What give anyone the right to kill babies? If you kill a pregnant woman, you will be charged for killing two people (see Unborn Victims of Violence Act + laws in 38 states). A woman is no one's property, but neither is a female baby in the womb anyone's property, to do with as they see fit like a slave owner.
Trying to make my argument about me, personally, means you can't refute the fact that plenty of people are looking to adopt.
Again, fathers, willing or not, are already held accountable in the US. Are they not in Oz?
You also mention the government. How much extra tax per year are you personally willing to pay to ensure that the government takes and cares for all the unwanted children that you insist must be born? Also, how will you ensure that those unwanted children grow up as loved and privileged as the ones their parents chose to have? Does that matter to you at all?
False dilemma.
While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.
https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families
If we ever surpass that demand, the government can bank on the surplus of future taxpayers to boost revenue.
And there's no guarantee that any child is loved or privileged, even by biological parents who opt to keep them.
What about the men, Vociferous? You're a man. Tell me how you're stepping up to care for the little ones after you have forced them to be born.
I care for all the children I bring into this world, and in the US, all men are held financially responsible for their children.
Maybe you should educate yourself, so you can quit making pointless arguments.
Disregarding the inaccurate and emotive term "baby" for the moment ... so what?
"Not technical" is not the same as "inaccurate." Yes, we get that you're callously indifferent to the loss of human life.
Why are you worried about the innocent baby losing its life while it still in the mother's womb? You haven't explained what is precious to you about the "baby" yet. Until we know that, your arguments seem to be unmotivated by anything other than a desire to stir the pot for your own amusement.
I get that basic morality may be alien to you. That you may believe that you can deem some human life as less worthy, like a slave owner. For me, it's just a matter of ethical consistency. The question isn't why I'm worried. The question is why aren't you. It's like having a serial killer on the loose. Most sane people wouldn't even think to ask me why I'd want to stop the killer, but the vast majority of people would be very leery of you not wanting to.