It should be Murder?

[SteveB28]

We are not discussing concepts when if comes to defining the beginning of a human being. It's scientific fact.

Do you believe the earth is undergoing climate change and if so is man contributing to it? If so what is the basis of your belief?

The classification in law of what is a human being, with all of its attendant rights and privileges, does not rely upon a scientific classification.

And it is law that we are discussing.

 

[redleghunter]

Not a question of rights.

It's a question of investigative procedure.

In the US a warrant is required to search homes. Medical records and doctor's confidentiality protected unless a doctor deems there is a crime.

For example a man goes to the doctor and has a bullet wound the cops would be called to see if a crime was committed.

 

[SteveB28]

You mean like using a euphemism as in organism to make it palatable for women to dispose of human life?

If you actually read the multitude of references I posted you would see it is not a few scientists who state conception marks the beginning of a human being. So the science is clear.

Personhood is a philosophical matter.

One who believes only some human beings are entitled to personhood have the burden of proof on the matter. A serious burden of proof because we are talking about ending the life of a human being in development.

We have heard such claims of personhood defined as:

At first breath

At quickening (whenever that is)

At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)

At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)

As the mother determines

As the state determines viability (we have several of those)

When the heart starts beating

When the fetus can feel pain

Only during the first trimester

Up to the third trimester

One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)

When the fetus looks "human."

There are probably quite a few more.


So for our non-Christians who do not have an absolute moral Law Giver, they must choose one of the subjective particulars I listed above or the hundreds of possible scenarios. Or they can pick science which they so often do for just about anything else to determine certainty but in this case, they don't.

Why is scientific fact ignored in the instance of the definition of human being?

It's painfully obvious.

It isn't ignored. It is simply not used as the sole determinant. As is often the case in the affairs of mankind.

Determining the moment at which an organism will change from one state to another, will not inform you as to the value that you place on that organism's existence.

In law, a foetus is not considered to be a human being, in the sense that a 'reasonable person' would define it.

 

[redleghunter]

The classification in law of what is a human being, with all of its attendant rights and privileges, does not rely upon a scientific classification.

And it is law that we are discussing.

No law cannot deny something that is scientific fact. The law cannot deem the moon is the sun and the sun as Mercury.

What you are talking about is personhood.

As I stated a few posts up, there are quite a many different theories of personhood. Which tells me our current death culture does not care to deal with such matters and allows killing another human being rest with the mother of the child.

 

[SteveB28]

In the US a warrant is required to search homes. Medical records and doctor's confidentiality protected unless a doctor deems there is a crime.

For example a man goes to the doctor and has a bullet wound the cops would be called to see if a crime was committed.

And the inane law proposed forbids women from obtaining an abortion from a doctor. Additionally, as you point out, there is an element of confidentiality to be preserved.

So how, under this brilliant piece of jurisprudence, do the police set about getting their 'man'?

 

[SteveB28]

No law cannot deny something that is scientific fact. The law cannot deem the moon is the sun and the sun as Mercury.

What you are talking about is personhood.

As I stated a few posts up, there are quite a many different theories of personhood. Which tells me our current death culture does not care to deal with such matters and allows killing another human being rest with the mother of the child.

Use whatever term you choose. It matters naught.

The situation remains that, as communities and in law, we do not consider the 'unborn', the 'child in waiting', the 'offspring', or simply the foetus to have the same qualities, rights and privileges as an independent human being.

 

[redleghunter]

It isn't ignored. It is simply not used as the sole determinant. As is often the case in the affairs of mankind.

Determining the moment at which an organism will change from one state to another, will not inform you as to the value that you place on that organism's existence.

In law, a foetus is not considered to be a human being, in the sense that a 'reasonable person' would define it.

What is the measurement of determining worth?

What is the definition of reasonable.

Show me some metrics.

That takes us back to the list:

At first breath

At quickening (whenever that is)

At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)

At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)

As the mother determines

As the state determines viability (we have several of those)

When the heart starts beating

When the fetus can feel pain

Only during the first trimester

Up to the third trimester

One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)

When the fetus looks "human."

There are probably quite a few more. Which one is right?

That is why women need to be informed on what we do know as fact.

What we have as fact is scientific. The human being begins its distinct life at conception.

Whatever subjective "worth" or rationalized personhood claim is to be measured by the facts as we know them.

What do we know?

23 chromosomes from dad + 23 from mom= 46.

A distinct human being developing towards full adulthood if allowed to live.

 

[redleghunter]

And the inane law proposed forbids women from obtaining an abortion from a doctor. Additionally, as you point out, there is an element of confidentiality to be preserved.

So how, under this brilliant piece of jurisprudence, do the police set about getting their 'man'?

The evil illegal abortionist. I told you that hundreds of posts ago.

 

[redleghunter]

Use whatever term you choose. It matters naught.

The situation remains that, as communities and in law, we do not consider the 'unborn', the 'child in waiting', the 'offspring', or simply the foetus to have the same qualities, rights and privileges as an independent human being.

Thanks for the statement. Now tell me why this is so.

 

[SteveB28]

What is the measurement of determining worth?

What is the definition of reasonable.

Show me some metrics.

That takes us back to the list:

At first breath

At quickening (whenever that is)

At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)

At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)

As the mother determines

As the state determines viability (we have several of those)

When the heart starts beating

When the fetus can feel pain

Only during the first trimester

Up to the third trimester

One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)

When the fetus looks "human."

There are probably quite a few more. Which one is right?

That is why women need to be informed on what we do know as fact.

What we have as fact is scientific. The human being begins its distinct life at conception.

Whatever subjective "worth" or rationalized personhood claim is to be measured by the facts as we know them.

What do we know?

23 chromosomes from dad + 23 from mom= 46.

A distinct human being developing towards full adulthood if allowed to live.

Well done! The metrics of "worth" can be extremely difficult to construct, particularly if we wish to construct them so that all people are satisfied with the outcome!

Which is why, in the case of issues which produce a wide-range of values, ethics and opinions, we often consider it prudent to permit each individual to make their own assessment, rather than imposing a 'one size fits all' draconian law!

 

[SteveB28]

The evil illegal abortionist. I told you that hundreds of posts ago.

And I showed you why your answer is woefully insufficient. History would show us that many, many abortions are performed regardless.

Your silly solution is akin to saying "just don't do it!" and expecting everyone to fall into line!

 

[SteveB28]

Thanks for the statement. Now tell me why this is so.

Why do we value democracy over tyranny? Why do we prefer freedom to slavery?

Do I really have to explain how we arrive at these values?

 

[JoeP222w]

And how will the authorities determine which is which?

Abortion is a violent trauma to the womb of the mother. It should be shown in medical exam.

 

[JoeP222w]

Do you know the number of women, already distraught at having suffered a miscarriage, you would be subjecting to the humiliation and pain of having to prove that they didn't 'kill' their foetus!?

Let me guess.........you're male, correct?

Oversimplification and inaccurate. What you are basically saying is, because there are miscarriages, that justifies the murder of children through abortion?

And me being male does not change the gruesome murderous nature of abortion.

 

[JoeP222w]

No he isn't. There, that was easy.



No, it is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is not unlawful, nor is a foetus a human being.



The community and the courts disagree with you.



Ah yes. The conservative fundamentalist.......

"Who can I hate today!?"

God is the Creator of all life, regardless of what you believe.

God is the lawgiver, not man. The fetus is a human being, regardless of what you believe.

There are many in the community who agree that abortion is murder and it should be illegal.

It is not hate to want to protect the vulnerable in the womb. I don't hate women who become pregnant and want to murder their child out of convenience. Nor is it hate to stand up for the truth of God.

 

[JoeP222w]

Yeeeeees... we get that, the point is how do you tell the difference? Does EVERY single case of a pregnancy ending get investigated, or what?

I don't have the perfect answer, but that does not justify abortion as a good and righteous thing.

And if you close down all abortuaries, and a woman gets an abortion illegally, the person who did the murder and the mother who is the murderer as well will know and they will give account to God.

 

[JoeP222w]

Yes, it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
Abortion
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def 1).

I meant that a miscarriage is not something intentionally done by the mother. An abortion is a willful and purposeful choice by the mother to murder her child.

 

[SteveB28]

Abortion is a violent trauma to the womb of the mother. It should be shown in medical exam.

So, will you subject all women whose pregnancy is terminated to a compulsory examination?

 

[SteveB28]

Oversimplification and inaccurate. What you are basically saying is, because there are miscarriages, that justifies the murder of children through abortion?

And me being male does not change the gruesome murderous nature of abortion.

No, I am saying no such thing. You people are very keen to slip words into the mouth of another, aren't you?

Please answer the question. How will you 'sort out' those women who cause a miscarriage, as opposed to those who don't?

 

[SteveB28]

God is the Creator of all life, regardless of what you believe.

No he isn't. You see, it's very easy to make unsubstantiated claims.

God is the lawgiver, not man.

The only laws we have are those written by men.

There are many in the community who agree that abortion is murder and it should be illegal.

Fortunately, those people are on the fringe. They are over there, next to the group who want to stone homosexuals.

It is not hate to want to protect the vulnerable in the womb. I don't hate women who become pregnant and want to murder their child out of convenience. Nor is it hate to stand up for the truth of God.

Hatred and bigotry.