Scientific reference works, including medical school textbooks, consistently agree that human life begins at conception.
Right from the get go you're starting from an obviously wrong point. This is like saying, "okay, now that murder may become illegal with the new government, I want to know: 1) how do you track murderers before they murder? 2) how do you know if it was murder or manslaughter? 3) how are you going to enforce the new anti-murder laws? 4) enact sentencing" There was never a point when we got together and asked, "now we all think murder is wrong, but enforcing that law and preventing violations is going to be a nightmare, so we might as well give up on it right now." Murder is wrong, we don't bother with how hard it is going to be to enforce laws against it, and we don't say murder should be legal until we can consistently and accurately differentiate between what was and was not murder in those hairy cases. It's simple: after the first trimester, the fetus has a functioning human brain and human heart. Killing w/o due cause is murder.
"Life" is not interchangeable with "personhood". The law is not concerned with life, it is concerned with "personhood".
Okay...I concede your point...so now. How will we: 1) Track who is pregnant. 2) Verify Abortion vs. Miscarriage. 3) Enforce new Laws. 4) Enact sentencing. taking into account the adult female citizen the growing fetus resides within.
For it to be murder it has to be a PERSON that was killed. A fetus is NOT a person. It does not achieve personhood until it's born. With murder there is a body of a person. Murder causes chaos in society which is why it's illegal. Abortion does not cause chaos. There is no reason for it to be illegal. You: ""1) how do you track murderers before they murder?"" You don't. Abortion and miscarriage are identical.....there is no proof either way and what do YOU want to do ? Examine every woman who had the misfortune to have a miscarriage, put her through more hell than she's already in? Fun for you? It wouldn't do you any good, even doctors can't tell the difference. HOW do you suspect a woman of having an abortion? Do you propose inserting monitors into all women and controlling them like cattle?
Ah, the old magical vaginal canal position. If you think that the vagina magically confers personhood to a being that passes through it, then you're welcome to hold that position, but I do not believe in such magical concepts. I prefer to leave magic to shows in Vegas and dnd games.
1) you don't have to, anymore than you have to track every potential murderer to enforce anti-murder laws. 2) The presumption of innocence holds. 3) How would you enforce new laws? What do you mean - ensure that no abortions occur? 4) Not entirely sure that is a latter point of discussion. I really doubt that society refused to accept a law prohibiting murder until we could all agree on what the punishment would be for violation of the rule. The simple reality is that, as should have been made clear from my earlier statement, we (or at least *I) am only talking abortion after the first trimester. It's what, 99% of abortions occur during the first trimester? And of those occurring after the first trimester, most are done for due cause - such as complications causing significant risks to the mother. The real issue being objected to here is elective abortion after the first trimester - which is probably about 1/1000 abortions, give or take. It's not as if it is such an incredibly radical proposal.
Try looking up legal definitions. You cannot stop abortions. You can drive them underground where women are injured and often die, but you can't stop them. Nor is it logical because in the first 3 months the fetus is not more conscious nor aware of pain than an appendix when you are under an anesthetic. Removing it is no more significant than removing that appendix. (I just read your other post and commented below.)
I see...so we are discussing a non-issue because people (including you) decide it is an issue? According to your own numbers ore skinny white boys murder people than there are abortions you disagree with.
ah, it's a non-issue because people (including you) say it is a non-issue? Yeah, thus far this year (based on putting different estimates together), there have been about 217 abortions so far this year that fit the category I'm speaking of. Yeah, there are more murders by white males than that so far this year - so what? Does the # really matter that much? Are you, Tecoyah, going to say that police shootings are a non-issue, because those are still even less common.
Naw. That method isn't cost efficient yet. Seriously, no one is suggesting that. No one is suggesting anything remotely like that. If you have to put up such incredible straw men to argue an issue, then you are probably on the wrong side of the issue.
I guess I was confused by this: The simple reality is that, as should have been made clear from my earlier statement, we (or at least *I) am only talking abortion after the first trimester. It's what, 99% of abortions occur during the first trimester? And of those occurring after the first trimester, most are done for due cause - such as complications causing significant risks to the mother. The real issue being objected to here is elective abortion after the first trimester - which is probably about 1/1000 abortions, give or take. It's not as if it is such an incredibly radical proposal. It led me to believe it was a non-issue.
Oh, I guess you have absolutely no education in gestation, pregnancy or child birth....you think it's magic, the fetus has been just floating unattached inside the woman for 9 months and then just slides out and NOTHING has to be done with it...sheesh, get a book , do a google search, have Mom explain it........
I NEVER said that anyone suggested that....I ASKED if that was a method they wanted to employ ( Do you know what a "?" means? )....how else would women be monitored to see if they were pregnant or not.... It's one of the questions that Anti's can never answer, the practical side of making abortion illegal...
Until someone can define a human being, this is a useless argument. Try defining it. It is very, very hard to do.
Couldn't we say the Genisis of a human being is in the DNA? It can become nothing else and has one purpose? When sperm and egg unite, it begins. Sort of hard to deal with for those that commit "abortion for convenience".
Deleted by poster after reading a subsequent post. (why can we no longer delete posts like on the old boards?)
Idk why that would have made you think I was sayings it's a non issue. It's still a thousand or more - would you for a second think white cops shooting unarmed black teens is a "non-issue" because it "only" happens [some figure less than 1000/yr]?
"... how else would women be monitored to see if they're pregnant or not..." You're trying to hone in on what quite frankly is a silly point that doesn't help your argument one iota. You need to be pregnant to have the capacity to have an abortion - but any adult, having a working mind and body, has the capacity to murder. You're suggesting that IF abortion were st all illegal, at any point, then you'd need to track everyone who COULD have an abortion (pregnant women). That's lile saying we can't have laws against murder unless we track where every single person is at all times. It's not a zinger or a "gotcha", it's just a dumb question.
