Mike Pence for President.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 397
#151
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#142 Although it exists in the woman's body that should not give her the right to kill another human being.
Yes it does give her the moral and legal rights to kill a human being who is not;

1} and independent/individual, that

...1a} has taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen/breath,

...2a} is inside the womans body,

........2b} nourished by and dependent on the specific body functions of womans reproductive organs ergo an orgnasim of the pregnant woman  until,

..........2c} the fetus/baby has been born-out{ birth } and has taken its first IN-spiration.

So keep your immoral friggin virtual rapist{? } nose *v* out of pregnant womens bodys. Can you do that? No? I didnt think so.

Take a hike and do not come back until can grasp exihbit some moral integrity and address the specifics as Ive stated and not as you and other Trumpanzees false project.

#152
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

I take a pragmatic view - there will aways be cases where a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy.  Where they are illegal, a black market will spring up.   
Pragmatic - what works. It doesn't work for the unborn. 

They are legal or illegal because those in power make them so, but are they moral???


My intuition is that early abortions are not really problematic but late abortions are highly problematic from a moral point of view!   I am very uncomfortable with very late abortions and I would support making it mandatory to bring a foetus to term beyond some point, say 32 or 28 weeks (I'm not an ebryologist to be precise about it!).  That is not incompatible with my support of abortion on demand for early abortion!

You still have not addressed my issues, however.

Is the thing growing in the woman, from fertilization/conception onward a human being? It is alive? When does life begin? If it is alive, what is it? Is it something that is different than the woman?

If you don't know the difference then should you be condoning the woman killing it at any point in its life because it is unwanted? Put yourself in its position. Would you like someone making the decision to kill you because they did not think you valuable? I don't think you would like it, just like you don't like it when someone does not treat you with respect. The pro-choice are not treating this unborn with any respect. 

Should all human beings be considered intrinsically valuable? If not then what is your objection for someone selecting to kill you because they do not see your value or because they have devalued you to subhuman or non-human? 

Abortion in most cases is insanity.  

Science says it is a living human being from conception and if it is a human being then is it immoral to destroy it on the whim of the woman, no matter its size, since you are speaking of its size and level of development when you make a distinction of 28-32 weeks. 

So, please answer these two questions, if you would:

1. Is the unborn a human being from conception/fertilization onwards?
2. Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?

#153
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#139 The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomy but whether her bodily autonomy infringes on the rights of another's bodily autonomy, that of the unborn, and that of whether the unborn is a HUMAN BEING. What about it? Is it human and is it another body she is destroying?
Ive addressed this repeatedly to deaf and dumb ears, eyes so once again read my lips/text as stated;

1} fetus/baby is NOT an independent/individual human being,,

2} fetus/baby is organism of pregnant woman,

3} and organism that is nourised by pregnant womans bodily reproductive organs, unitl,

4} fetus/baby is born-out{ birthed } as a baby-only, and,

5 }has taken its first IN-spiration to make it a viable independent/individual.

Until #5 has taken place your an immoral virtual rapist{?}. Do you understand any of the previous? No? I didnt think so.

Radical fundmamentlist have no moral or intellectual integrity and should be Locked Away from a moral civilized humanity.



Topic's author
#154
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@keithprosser
There will be illegal abortions if they are banned, but they will be less common.  It would be like saying that we should legalize rape because if we ban it, then people will commit illegal rape.  Whenever something is banned, it almost always becomes less common.  What it would do is it would encourage more women to use contraception so they don't commit abortions at all.
#155
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#142 It is in her body but it is a separate body connected to the woman.

1} Yes the fertilized egg{ zygote } fetus/baby etc is in her body, so when are you going to get the truth - fact that you are an immoral virtual rapist{?} for sticking your nose *v* into the woman bodily business? Not?

2} it is organ of the woman that is nourished by pregnants womans reproductive organs,

3} is not seperate independent/individual human being, and,

4{ has not been born-out of pregnant woman,

5} has not taken its first IN-spiration, and,

6} is not a viable independent/individual human being, until, at minimum has taken its first IN-spiration.

Do you understand any of the previous? No? Typical of radical religous and Trumpanzee fundamentists.

None of you have moral or intellectual integrity in these regards specifically.   SO once again take a hike and dont come back until you address my comments as stated, with moral, rational logical common sense integrity/ Do you understand? No? I didnt think so.
#156
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
A good compromise would be banning abortions that cause unnecessary unusual and cruel pain to the fetus like saline injections.
Topic's author
#157
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@mustardness
Radical fundmamentlist have no moral or intellectual integrity and should be Locked Away from a moral civilized humanity.
You seem to be the radical one since you want to lock someone away for being pro life.  How would you imprison 40% of the national population?  Even if people should be locked away for being pro life (they shouldn't be), how would you propose paying for their prison expenses?  It would cost $1,200,000,000,000 a year to sustain and it would cost much more to build prisons and to hire guards.  You would have to significantly raise taxes on a smaller group of people.  It also resembles a dictatorship to even propose.
Topic's author
#158
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
The current law prohibits most abortions where the fetus can cause pain.  However, I don't think this is a good factor in terms of deciding when it is okay to kill a human being.  A sleeping person can barely feel pain.  Is it justified to kill a sleeping person if they are dependent on a mother for survival?
#159
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
MTard......"Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo. Human oviductal cells are known to secrete growth factors, cytokines, and other embryotropic factors (ETFs) that enhance and support the development of the pre-implantation embryos.59, 60 Oviductal cells may also affect gene expression of the pre-implantation embryo".......
Yes, so what? This does not make it part of the woman's body. It has its own body. It relies on the woman for its development and protection. So does the newborn. 

Yes it does. It is more a part of the pregnant womans body than yours or anyone else, so once again, you need to keep your immoral virutal rapist{?} nose *v* out of pregnant womens bodys. DO you understand that? No? I didnt think so. Typical of all immorally radical religous and Trumpanzee types.

....."Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo. Human oviductal cells are known to secrete growth factors, cytokines, and other embryotropic factors (ETFs) that enhance and support the development of the pre-implantation embryos.59, 60 Oviductal cells may also affect gene expression of the pre-implantation embryo"......

#160
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
My point is that there is not much point ignoring real-world factors.  I don't think a total ban on abortion is a serious option; nor is abortion on demand right upto the point of birth.

As I indicated, I favour a mixed policy - not one at either extreme.


#161
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#142 That is what you are doing, YOU are devaluing human life.
1} NOT and independent/individual human being that has been born-out,

2} taken its first IN-spiration to become and actuall ---not virtural--- viable independent/individual human being.

3} even in cases of some independent/individsuals adult or not, if that individual is not viable on its own then relatives ex spouse can have the bioglogical life terminated.

...3a} your immoral attitude will not allow termination of human being irrepsective of all other considerations, begining with;

........3b} fertilized egg > zygote > attached to uterus > etc > born-out  and viable individual/independent breathing, think and living a life that relatives{ spouse } are legality left to decide wether that life is worthy to live on irrresepective of time, effort costs etc.

You lack moral and intellectual integrity because your a immoral relgious fundamentalist Trumpanzee who also lacks intellectual integrity. DO you understand any of the previous? NO? I didnt think so :--(


#162
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#146 Who are they to decide?
Who are YOU to decide what a pregnant woman does with her body? Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so.

Keep your virtual rapist"?} immoral nose *v* out of womans body.

#163
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
#142 Although it exists in the woman's body that should not give her the right to kill another human being.
Yes it does give her the moral and legal rights to kill a human being who is not;

1} and independent/individual, that

...1a} has taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen/breath,
1. So why should you end it there? The newborn is not INDEPENDENT. 
You are giving her the legal right to kill another human being. Why not you? Why not her newborn who is just as helpless as the unborn in the virginal canal? If she ignores it and does not feed the newborn it will perish also. 

1.a. How has it changed other than its environment one minute before birth as opposed to one minute after? is it any less alive one minute before? What does taking its first inhalation have to do with what it is? Does it have to be "inspired" by oxygen for it to live? If I hold my breath should you be able to kill me?  


...2a} is inside the womans body,

........2b} nourished by and dependent on the specific body functions of womans reproductive organs ergo an orgnasim of the pregnant woman  until,

..........2c} the fetus/baby has been born-out{ birth } and has taken its first IN-spiration.
2.a. Does being in the mother's body make it less of a human being? On what grounds? 
The change between the unborn and the newborn is one of an environment. It's environment changes after birth. So what? From your environment, you get what you need to survive - food/nourishment, shelter. From the womb, it gets the same. It should get love and care as well. Why do you deny the most innocent human beings basic human needs? What has it done that is wrong? What wrong has it done to the woman? It did not choose to have sex without protection. It did not choose to be conceived. The woman did not take precautions in most cases. It is not the villain but the victim. 

2.b. No, not an organism of the pregnant woman but a separate BEING dependent on the woman for a period of time, just like the newborn is dependent on the mother for NOURISHMENT and shelter and its life. 

2.c. Yes, the BABY, the HUMAN BEING. What was it one minute before birth? Was it a chimpanzee or a blob? Show me scientifically if you do not recognize its humanness before its birth of what it is and explain to me why you feel it can be killed (murdered) without consequences before birth if you understand it is human. 


So keep your immoral friggin virtual rapist{? } nose.....[Delete for emotionally charged content and for not addressing the issue but instead using language to attack me]

#164
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
#147 It is something most of us do when others trash us.
Trash talk?

1} your immoral religous fundamentalist -- truth ---,

2} your immoral Trumpanzee fundamentalist --- truth---,

3} your immorally stick your nose *v* into any  and all  pregnant womens body without their consent, --truth---,

4} #4 above is a virtual rapist{?}---truth---,

5} people like you should be Locked Away from a moral civilized society ---truth---.

Golden Rule Variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has
a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
humanity or its distinct tribes. "

Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time.

Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this concept]

Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
them share with you."

Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
humans, does not neccessitate chaos."


Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe Here Now

#165
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
#142 It is in her body but it is a separate body connected to the woman.

1} Yes the fertilized egg{ zygote } fetus/baby etc is in her body, so when are you going to get the truth - fact that you are an immoral virtual rapist{?} for sticking your nose *v* into the woman bodily business? Not?
It is in her body but it has a body of its own. It is its own being, separate from her being, even though it relies on her for its nourishment and protection. When are you going to understand this truth? 

How am I immoral in standing up for the rights and dignity of the most helpless, innocent human beings on earth? How is the woman being moral in denying it the right to life, the most basic of all human rights? How is the woman being anything but selfish in deciding to destroy her own offspring, made up partly of her genetic make-up? 

You need to understand the argument more fully. Here are a couple of links:



With the last link ask yourself what is the difference between the unborn and the newborn or another human being? There are four differences explained in the video. 


2} it is organ of the woman that is nourished by pregnants womans reproductive organs,
No, it is a separate organism, and a human BEING, that depends on the woman for a brief period of its life. Yes, it depends on the woman for its nourishment - so does the newborn. 


3} is not seperate independent/individual human being, and,
It is separate from the mother. It is not the mother/woman. It has its own genetic code that differs from the mother/woman. We are all dependent on others in some senses. No one is totally independent. 


4{ has not been born-out of pregnant woman,
You were there once, so what? How does that make it less human?


5} has not taken its first IN-spiration, and,
You mean inhalation, right? Does that make it less of a human being?


6} is not a viable independent/individual human being, until, at minimum has taken its first IN-spiration.
Neither is the newborn viable in the sense that it is helpless. It depends on others for its life needs, just like the unborn.


Do you understand any of the previous? No? Typical of radical religous and Trumpanzee fundamentists.
I understand them all. I have heard these same arguments many times before. What is more, I have read and own books on the subject. I have taken the time to understand the issue and weigh it out. 


None of you have moral or intellectual integrity in these regards specifically.   SO once again take a hike and dont come back until you address my comments as stated, with moral, rational logical common sense integrity/ Do you understand? No? I didnt think so.

Already addressed although you have not understood because of worldview bias. 
#166
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
#142 That is what you are doing, YOU are devaluing human life.
1} NOT and independent/individual human being that has been born-out,
Tell me what is the difference between an unborn human being in the woman's womb and a newborn human being or an adult human being outside the womb? 

There are four main differences according to some. 

1. Size
2. Level of development
3. Environment
4. Level of dependency

SLED

Why does size make it less human? The newborn or toddler is smaller than a fully grown man and not all men are the same size. Should we be able to kill someone based on how tall they are if we want to, the taller getting to decide if the smaller lives?

If a girl is not as developed as a woman reproductively should we be able to kill the less developed girl? 

If my environment is different than yours should you be able to kill me? 

If a young kid depends on its parents to sustain it and the parents feel like they don't want to look after it any longer, should they be allowed to kill it like the woman decides to do with the unborn?



2} taken its first IN-spiration to become and actuall ---not virtural--- viable independent/individual human being.
No, you are wrong. Its first inhalation does not determine what it is nor does it make the newborn independent or an individual. It was already an individual before birth and it is just as dependent on others for its life after birth as it was on the woman before birth. 



3} even in cases of some independent/individsuals adult or not, if that individual is not viable on its own then relatives ex spouse can have the bioglogical life terminated.

Then you believe that you can kill your newborn because it is not viable or independent yet. After all, it is your biological offspring, it is not viable and it is not independent. What crazy thinking. 


...3a} your immoral attitude will not allow termination of human being irrepsective of all other considerations, begining with;
Why end with the termination of one class of human beings, like the unborn? If you do not regard them as valuable then why not "terminate" all those you do not think are valuable? After all, you are making the distinction of terminating a HUMAN life that you do not value. And what if someone wants to terminate you on the same reasoning; is that okay?

It is not my attitude that is immoral. 


........3b} fertilized egg > zygote > attached to uterus > etc > born-out  and viable individual/independent breathing, think and living a life that relatives{ spouse } are legality left to decide wether that life is worthy to live on irrresepective of time, effort costs etc.

You lack moral and intellectual integrity because your a immoral relgious fundamentalist Trumpanzee who also lacks intellectual integrity. DO you understand any of the previous? NO? I didnt think so :--(

Where do you get morality from? Do you just make it up and label what you like moral, or is there a standard you are using that is independent of your own subjective FEELING and preferences? If so, what is that standard and why is it objective, universal, unchanging, and absolute? If it doesn't meet such criterion then what makes it better than any other standard such as ones that oppose your standard?
#167
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
#146 Who are they to decide?
Who are YOU to decide what a pregnant woman does with her body? Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so.
I have no objection to what she does with her body as long as it does not affect someone else. If someone decides to use their fist (their body) to beat you in the face should you have any objection to them doing so if you have done nothing to deserve the fist?


Keep your virtual rapist"?} immoral nose *v* out of womans body.

It is not I who am being immoral here.

First prove to me that the unborn is not a human (something you have already stated that it is) and then that all humans should not be treated equally (then you should have no objection when someone treats you as scum, nothing more than an inconvenient blob and decides to "terminate" you). 

#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
#147 It is something most of us do when others trash us.
Trash talk?

1} your immoral religous fundamentalist -- truth ---,

2} your immoral Trumpanzee fundamentalist --- truth---,

3} your immorally stick your nose *v* into any  and all  pregnant womens body without their consent, --truth---,

4} #4 above is a virtual rapist{?}---truth---,

5} people like you should be Locked Away from a moral civilized society ---truth---.
How tolerant of you! Thank you for your high, lofty opinion devoid of hate and animosity! Very civil!


Golden Rule Variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has
a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
were any other rules with such commonality e.g, 
Not golden for the unborn, is it?


Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
humanity or its distinct tribes. "
How are you seeking fairness and justice for the unborn, the ones that need our support most of all human beings?


Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time.
Forgiveness from God depends on the merit of Jesus Christ. 


Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this concept]
It is just, for what is equal justice but to receive equal compensation. It is not compassionate, however, and the New Covenant shows the compassion of God in forgiving others as we have been forgiven and even overlooking an offense against us. 


Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
them share with you."
Nice made up rule by you!


Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
humans, does not neccessitate chaos."
Again, derived by you!



Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe Here Now 

Do not understand this one. 

#169
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
A law requiring Planned Parenthood to show the "mother" an ultrasound paid by the government could prevent a majority of abortions. Some studies say 70-80% of women changed their mind after seeing the ultrasound.
Topic's author
#170
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@keithprosser
If you support a position between the left wing position(Abortion legal at 1st trimester) and the right wing position (Abortion banned in all situations), then where would you draw the line?
#171
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Does the Woman have the Right to Choose Whether or not the Unborn Lives?
As I keep telling you, you don't address the topic at all.
The woman has bodily autonomy first and foremost, there is no fetus without the woman therefore her rights are paramount, you wanting 50% of the human population to be subservient to you is just mental masturbation.
#172
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Socialism, as we see it around the world, exploits people
Do you mean like the Scandinavian countries who all have a higher standard of living than any other country. Get an education.

#173
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@mustardness
Do not come back to talk to until you have some moral integrity and address my comments as stated, not as you and other Trumpanzees falsely project them.
To whom are you talking?
#174
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
does a woman also have bodily autonomy "first and foremost" if she would rather choose to sit on her autonomous ass instead of feeding the baby after its born? nope?

#175
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Read a dictionary and see if you can find your way back here.
#176
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
You mean countries the size of one state. 
#177
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
We have farms bigger than your tiny Texas, so fuckin' what? I mean socialist countries that are just light years ahead of your backward country.
#178
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
mid term abortions would require the mother to be counselled by a trained neutral advsor, but the final choice is hers.
#179
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
Sorry, nobody has any real bodily autonomy as long as the government has guns and can tell you what to do. Try pulling that bodily autonomy nonsense argument in a prison and see how many chuckles you'll get from the guards. Try it anywhere in the military. Go on.
#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Does the Woman have the Right to Choose Whether or not the Unborn Lives?
As I keep telling you, you don't address the topic at all.
The woman has bodily autonomy first and foremost, there is no fetus without the woman therefore her rights are paramount, you wanting 50% of the human population to be subservient to you is just mental masturbation.

Not just the woman. The male contributes too. 

You do not have bodily autonomy to kill someone else, except in self-defense yet you think the woman should be able to kill her offspring. 

Again, it boils down to what the unborn is and the value is put on that life. That is the key to the debate. 

You can't argue that it is not human unless you go against science. 
You can't argue that it is not living. Science does not back you up. 
If you want to argue that all human life is not of equal value then why should I value your life or you mine? Do you want to go down that road? 

Why do you think it is okay to kill other human beings based on whether or not a human being is wanted? 

As pointed out in a previous post, there are four qualities that make it different than you or I (SLED). I don't think you can argue logically that these four qualities apply to it specifically, like size. If you want to disqualify it on its size then you get disqualified on anyone bigger than you. Should they be able to kill you because of your size? If you say it is not as developed, then the newborn girl or boy is not as developed as the adult. Should society be able to kill them also? If it is the environment that disqualifies the unborn then what about other environments. Should a difference of environment disqualify you or I from life? Or what about dependency?  Does someone that depends on someone else make them less valuable and disqualify them from living?