don't know, but I know Alabama has the highest infant mortality in the nation, and the US has one of the highest rates of western countries.
I will have to get back to this later when I have more time. some of it I feel like I already answered
I'd say that has more to do with having a larger black population than anything. Whites are right on average for those western countries that you're comparing us too.
Are you similarly vigilant about words like racism, assault weapon, fascism, tolerance, (x)ophobia and others that have meanings also but are frequently misapplied?
you said a sperm alone cant become a person. but you are saying a sperm and egg alone can? how? where?
It has one job, to merge with the egg to form a zygote, fetus, then baby. Stopping them is designed to do the same as stopping a fetus. The Catholic Church even deemed it close enough to personhood to ban the use of condoms. Otherwise, no one addressed my further example of an IUD, a zygote unable to implant in the uterine wall. Genocide? Murder? Should be illegal?
Actually it takes more than one sperm in the natural method of conception. Is that what you're referring to? I mean you asked. I answered, or are we now moving back over to the judging table over at the in vitro event in your gymnastics meet? I mean if you want to consider it a crime when a zygote isn't implanted, you're far harder on women than anyone I know supporting a ban on killing the unborn.
A fetus doesn't develop into anything on its own, either. And, still ignoring the second part of the statement about things like IUDs.
No, not on its own. Let someone know when a fetus gives an okay for his or her abortion to take place. That'll be a big day. I am ignoring things that are irrelevant to abortion. Because you and the Catholic church are hung up on sperm doesn't mean someone with common sense can't see the difference in the two.
when, exactly, does it all form a person in your opinion? to be clear, I didn't invent or mention the zygote thing. it's widely believed in traditional Catholicism and protestantism. I did bring up invitro the other day, but it was waived away as some kind of deflection for reasons I don't understand.
You're misconstruing my sperm example as anything but a critique of the argument made by Savage. And, you are ignoring something for which you denote as directly becoming a human being. And, when does a fetus begin to consent for anything? When, again, are we supposed to call this thing a person and require a woman to not have control over the things happening inside her body?
I agree it can be a shit situation. Why does a potential shit quality of life mean we get to decide to end life, though? I'd like for your last statement to be true.
Quality of life and right to life are two different topics entirely. Not saying it isn't an important conversation to have, but it's not relevant in this scenario.
Sperm is the male genetic material carrier. So is the egg. When the two are joined it's a new entity, one that grows of it's own will and provided sustenance via the mother. A self-building house, I guess. Newborns can't consent so that particular idea doesn't seem to belong.