Abortion = Murder

Until it evolves it can be flushed at will

 

Obviously there are many other people who do have a problem with killing unborn babies. The issue cannot be dismissed with a simplistic statement such as "its brain dead and we can kill it".

If you want to convince pro-life people that abortion is acceptable, then you have to make rational arguments. Self-serving statements don't cut it. And very few people in this forum have made a rational argument supporting abortion, which is surprising since there are some very good arguments for abortion, arguments which I struggle with at times - all you have to do is spend a few minutes on the internet. But clearly, the abortionists in this forum are not that interested in the real issues.

 

It really is that simple. It's brain dead so it's up to the mother. Most people don't even know this. Education is the key

 

Nah, my dictionary (Random House Webster's) shows abortionist as the person who performs the procedure. I'm not much on magical thinking, if you want to hang a scarlet letter on the position & consider it a win, by all means. Nope, I think women should have the option, & certainly early on, as provided in Roe. But I don't believe that abortion is a magic bullet, that it's the solution to all pregnancy problems. As such, the term is a misnomer, in my opinion - & conflates several positions into one handy term of invective.

As for the law, see http://thelawdictionary.org/letter/l/page/13/

"LAW

"1. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions coexist or follow each other. 2. A system of principles and rules of human conduct, being the aggregate of those commandments and principles which are either prescribed or recognized by the gov- erning power in an organized jural society as its will in relation to the conduct of the members of such society, and which it undertakes to maintain and sanction and to use as the criteria of the actions of such members. "Law" is a solemn expression of legislative will. It orders and permits and forbids. It announces rewards and punishments. Its provisions generally relate not to solitary or singular cases, but to what passes in the ordinary course of affairs."

Law Dictionary: L Information and Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

US law is not just a copy of the Bible, although there are points of agreement. That's because the Founding Fathers were believers, but that covered a wide spectrum of belief. The society in the Americas was always varied - from the founding of French & Netherlands colonies. Those two, the Native Peoples, British, various Protestants, some Jewish, fewer Roman Catholics & others. & the Founders had seen the results of religious wars in Europe, & they wanted no established church in the colonies @ the federal level.

 

You say: ""Everyone has rights, and those rights have to be balanced with the rights of everyone else."

But you don't mean that or you would see that women have rights, too, even pregnant women.
Their rights don't dissolve because there is a fetus inside them.

You do NOT want "balance" or you would see you want a fetus to have MORE rights than anyhone else.

Do YOU have the right to force someone else to give you their heart if you needed a new one? DO YOU?

NO, you don't. You do NOT have to use your body to sustain the life of another....but you think women should have to....that isn't balance, that's taking away women's right to their own bodies...

 

Roe v. Wade doesn't see a baby, it sees a fetus. The question of Is it human doesn't arise - it isn't part of the legal question. The legal rights of the fetus are initially very slight, although it gains legal protection as it nears viability. The rights of a pregnant woman are balanced against those of the state & the fetus, but the fetus isn't prioritized there, unless the woman opts for it.

 

Hawking for example cannot breath - Yes, he can. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Disability

"This has proven difficult, since Hawking can not move his neck, and trials have shown that while he can indeed drive the chair, the movement is sporadic and jumpy.[275][277] He has increased breathing difficulties, requiring a ventilator at times and has been hospitalised several times.[171]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

"abort" adults - Moral arguments don't scale up this way, & therefore the question is ridiculous.

unborn baby will evolve - Yah. 1. It's not a baby. 2. Your side of this debate doesn't typically like the notion of evolve. You might do better with develop.

entire purpose - Offhand, I would say that the purpose of sex is to perpetuate the species. & I would tend to say purpose in italics, to signal that I'm assigning purpose to a vast process that runs regardless of our interpretation of it.

 

I disagree with the first bolded.

Is it possible to convince pro-life people that abortion is acceptable? Since Roe v. Wade in the US in 1973, it's not necessary. It's up to the anti-abortion faction to convince the US voters, the Legislative &/or the Judiciary of the correctness of their position. From what I see, there's a lot of lip service in the political arena on the topic, but no real movement to change the law. There's lots of posturing, as the Right wing of the GOP takes advantage (my opinion) of social & religious conservatives, claiming to represent their POV of view on various subjects. Nixon & Reagan & W & Trump have all made the same noises on the issue - but I have yet to see any action to move the project along.

 

This is a legal question. So legal terminology applies. And in legal determinations are are always seeds of logic or grand arguments of logic.

In the context of legislation, the use of terms are often a legal matter. The meaning of terms is detailed by law in such cases. And there are sources for reference regarding the legal definition of terms. For example, "person", "human", "human being", "child", and/or "individual"......

"Person" - In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

"Person" - An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx

"Baby" according to medical terminology: "An infant; a newborn child."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/baby

"Human Being" - There are various definitions for a human being. Biologically, they are classified as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, which are a primate species of mammal with a highly developed brain. Humans have the highest brain to body mass ratio of all large animals. They have a life expectancy approaching 80 years old in wealthy nations, walk on two feet and have opposable thumbs. Skin color ranges from almost back to pale pinkish-white. Height and weight varies, depending on locality, historical factors, environmental, and cultural factors such as diet.

Human beings are characterized by the ability to speak. They have a high capacity for abstract thinking and are commonly thought to possess a spirit or soul which transcends the physical body. The spiritual aspect of human beings is often defined in terms of rituals and religion.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/human-beings/

"Human Infant Born Alive Law and Legal Definition"
Human infant who has been born alive means “a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/human-infant-born-alive/

And this one is very good...

“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant -
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. (My emphasis)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8


IOW a fetus is not legally a "person", "child", or "human being"..... a fetus is a fetus. And so all the determination by right-to-life folks to call a fetus a "human" or "child" or "person" are emotional and psychological tricks intended to win agreement falsely rather than an effort to discuss the law to which they are so opposed.

 

Excellent and so good it's worth re-emphasizing :


"Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant -
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. (My emphasis)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8


IOW a fetus is not legally a "person", "child", or "human being"..... a fetus is a fetus. And so all the determination by right-to-life folks to call a fetus a "human" or "child" or "person" are emotional and psychological tricks intended to win agreement falsely rather than an effort to discuss the law to which they are so opposed.""""







Only those with no respect for law could object.

 

Nothing you posted refutes the fact that the law is a reflection of the morality of a society. In the USA, the law is the practical application of the Constitution, and the Constitution defines a government structure based upon a specific moral code. Some government structures are defined as a set of strict rules, others like the US Constitution define a set of principles which guide the operation of the government. Read Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, by Ronald Dworkin.

Morality is not equal to religion, either. For example, the idea that it is wrong to unjustifiably kill someone (murder) can exist in purely secular terms, it needs no basis in religion.

 

I wrote that everyone has rights. That includes pregnant women.

Wrong. read what I post, not your interpretation.

That's not equivalent to pregnancy. In the vast majority of pregnancies (>95%), nobody forced the pregnant woman to engage in sexual intercourse, she did it voluntarily knowing the risk.

Wrong. If a person has children, they are required by law to "use their body" (their time, energy, intellect) to sustain the life of their children up to state dictated standards. You cannot "abort" your 1 year old or your teenager because the child interferes with your career, lifestyle, finances. The same for pregnancy.

 

Roe is wrong. That's a crucial point in the abortion issue. You support abortion, so you want all conversation to be bounded by the limits of Roe. That like wanting to discuss the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it drives into the iceberg.

 

I notice you keep bringing up religious issues, yet I have not made any religious arguments. In fact, in this forum, I have never made a pro-life argument based on religion or God. You might do better to address the actual posts than to try to deflect - which is what abortionists in this forum almost always do.

 

Roe has been upheld over 40 years. You are entitled to an opinion but that's all it is

 

No matter what.....if you give basic human rights to a ZEF you instantly remove certain rights from the woman it lives within. Just as if you give everyone right to my home you remove my right to privacy in it.

 

If its not necessary to convince pro-life people that abortion is acceptable, and there is no movement towards the pro-life position, then why are you here? Why is this even an issue? If you are secure in your position, then go home and ignore the issue.

 

If its not necessary to convince pro-life people that abortion is acceptable, and there is no movement towards the pro-life position, then why are you here? Why is this even an issue? If you are secure in your position, then go home and ignore the issue.

 

As usual, you are incorrect. The unborn becomes a human being upon live birth. The woman most certainly can abort for any reason she has. Her life does not have to be in danger and the zef *is* non viable in the first half of pregnancy, when about 98% or more of abortions take place.

 

By that logic, we would still have slavery. Slavery was upheld for much longer than Roe, and had a much stronger basis in the Constitution than Roe. So by your logic, abolitionists were "only entitled to an opinion".

 

They were.

 

↑
NO, you don't. You do NOT have to use your body to sustain the life of another....but you think women should have to....that isn't balance, that's taking away women's right to their own bodies.

Yah, the state laws set down requirements for the parent(s) to care for a child. & if the parent(s) fail enough, the state will intervene - if worse comes to worse, the state may declare the child a ward of the state & remove him or her from the parent(s). That is an extreme case, the state doesn't like to remove children from their parent(s). However, that is the ultimate sanction that the state has in these cases.

"abort"ing a child postpartum is murder. No one is suggesting that, & it's an absurd argument to put forward in this context.

 

I have no problem detaching life support from the brain dead. And I don't think that the people who allow children to hunger, thirst, be homeless, live without adequate heat, or clothing, don't want to send them to school, have any right to insist that more unwanted children be born. When society is ready to take care of the born, get back to me about the unborn.

 

On the first count, Roe is the law of the land, has been since 1973 CE. You can work to change the law, but so far I don't see any great interest by the US voters to make that change.

 

To show the flag, of course. I think your position is untenable, but it can't hurt to point that out. The political will simply isn't there.

& besides, I like a good debate.