Abortion Discussion

[Sistrin]

Previous posters tried to equate the two and then got very quiet when it was shown that even when it was illegal here in the US abortion wasn't treated as murder. If you'd like to find somewhere that it actually is, feel free. Otherwise the right thing to do is start a new thread since it has no purpose here.

You are confusing an ethical question with a legal one. In so doing you are making the exact same argument those who supported slavery during the 19th century made. Its legal, so shut up. Well done.

Personally, I have no interest in dehumanizing a fetus. I'm pro-choice regardless. For me, it's more about the fact that the life is dependent on another. I group it with organ donation.

Your liver will never grow into a sentient, independent organism. Give us a break.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

What you call is God's law is just another human law. Written by the priestly class of a superstitious Bronze Age tribe. Much of which has no relevance at all in the 21st century.

No relevance to the 21st century? Really? Watch the following video!

American Heritage-Religious Images in our US Capitol and Supreme Court

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm a lawyer. What I have said regarding a life in being is correct. A fetus is considered to be a life in being only if it survives until birth.

Hi Archivist, if that's true, why do we have both Federal and State laws that seem to say otherwise? For instance:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

State laws go further in saying that if an unborn child is killed it is Aggravated Murder, Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, etc., except in the case of abortion (i.e. Laci and Conner's Law - Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law for the murder of his wife and unborn child).

What this means is that the "humanness" of an unborn child is determined on a case by case basis and not on the basis of his/her intrinsic qualities. So, if the one with the power SAYS it's right for the unborn to be killed, then it's right. But if the one with the power SAYS it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, then it's wrong.

The unborn child then (according to both Federal and State law) is a, "life in being", unless the child's mother says otherwise!

We KNOW what we're doing when an abortion is performed, we're taking the life of an unborn human child, and that for the sake of convenience in over 99% of the cases

Yours and His,
David

"He will be filled with the Holy Spirit
while yet in his mother’s womb"
Luke 1:15c​

 

[Cearbhall]

Your liver will never grow into a sentient, independent organism. Give us a break.

I don't see how that's relevant to the comparison. I'm comparing the woman to the donor.

 

[AirPo]

And we should deny the opportunity to survive? We have that right? Because 9 old men said we do?

No, 9 old men said some pregnant women do.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It was only 7.....somehow or another that was important......

 

[Archivist]

It was only 7.....somehow or another that was important......

You call yourself civilwarbuff. If I wrote a post and said Burnside commanded the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg, wouldn't you correct me? What's so wrong about me correcting your misstatement?

 

[civilwarbuff]

(shaking my head)......Because the outcome whould have been different with Burnside. What difference does it make if SCOTUS is 5/4 or 9/0? None....it is still law.......I can't believe you don't lunderstand that.. And if you knew what kind of Army Commander Burnside was, you would have picked a better comparison.....

 

[Chany]

Indeed. Conception of what species exactly from a human mother and human father. Yes a human conception. A new distinct human life is created at conception.

Therefore, with that in conscience one makes a decision to either protect human life or terminate it.

Possessing human DNA is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for moral consideration. If it was necessary, then non-human beings, whether animals, hypothetical alien creatures, or even spiritual beings like angels, would not be up for moral consideration. But they are up for moral consideration. If a cow became as smart and talked as any person, we would consider it as worthy of moral respect like we do a person. Therefore, I do not believe human DNA is a necessary condition for morality.

It not a sufficient condition either. If I took one of my cells, put it in a petri dish to grow, and spurred mutation such that the DNA was entirely new, I do not see that petri dish of human cells as carrying the same moral weight (or any moral weight, for that matter) a human being.

Because possessing human DNA is irrelevent to moral worth, showing an organism with a unique human DNA geneome means nothing to me.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Of course it has to survive birth--that is the point. Just look up the rule.

That is NOT the same as you said: "A fetus is considered to be a life in being only if it survives until birth." [underline mine]
If as you say the Rule against Perpetuities "has baffled generations of law students," then it is likely because professors and others have talked and written about it like you just did, in a confusing and not entirely clear and precise manner.

No fetus survives birth.
And don't come back at me and now say "Of course no fetus survives birth," when you have just said what you just said.

 

[Sistrin]

I don't see how that's relevant to the comparison. I'm comparing the woman to the donor.

Except a woman seeking an abortion isn't donating an internal organ. The comparison is fallacious.

And if you knew what kind of Army Commander Burnside was, you would have picked a better comparison.....

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Sistrin]

Possessing human DNA is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for moral consideration.

Quite the contrary, it is the only consideration necessary to establish moral consideration. Deflections aside we are not discussing magical cows or Ferengi Pirates. We are discussing the ethical, moral, political, and emotional ramifications of terminating the product of human reproduction. For the record, human reproduction does not lead to magical talking cows. It leads to more humans.

Therefore, I do not believe human DNA is a necessary condition for morality.

And you would be wrong.

Because possessing human DNA is irrelevant to moral worth, showing an organism with a unique human DNA genome means nothing to me.

This is PETA, Enviro-marxist, VHEMT nonsense.

No fetus survives birth.

Ah, there it is again, the "magic in the womb" theory.

 

[rjs330]

Possessing human DNA is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for moral consideration. If it was necessary, then non-human beings, whether animals, hypothetical alien creatures, or even spiritual beings like angels, would not be up for moral consideration. But they are up for moral consideration. If a cow became as smart and talked as any person, we would consider it as worthy of moral respect like we do a person. Therefore, I do not believe human DNA is a necessary condition for morality.

It not a sufficient condition either. If I took one of my cells, put it in a petri dish to grow, and spurred mutation such that the DNA was entirely new, I do not see that petri dish of human cells as carrying the same moral weight (or any moral weight, for that matter) a human being.

Because possessing human DNA is irrelevent to moral worth, showing an organism with a unique human DNA geneome means nothing to me.

But it does mean something to the baby that is a human life. That it means nothing to you is irrelevant. If it is human life then it is wrong to kill it. The only caveat is in the case if the mother's life is at stake. Why Because taking a life to save a life is ok.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Lots of people can claim victimhood, but can also emerge from that. It's a double-whammy, actually, if a woman traumatizes herself by aborting the child.

Yes, that is right. The pro-aborts have gone out of their way to hide this fact and pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[tiglathpileser]

What actually happens, dear sir, is that what was once a fetus breathes the breath of life and becomes a living soul. (In accord with Genesis.) The real baby a minute after birth is quite different that what was in the womb. It is no longer very much like a parasite attached to it's host is one other truth very obvious about it.
It is incorrect to say it is the same, especially when it is (obviously) dead.

As to your point about a "magic wand," it's a bit like claiming a sperm is a zygote before it unties with an ovum, because it is (part of) a zygote after it fertilizes the egg. They are NOT the same thing, and neither is a fetus a baby for the couple of obvious reasons I just indicated plus a whole lot more.

Another pro-abort who believes that the baby in the womb is a parasite. Which scripture describes the baby in the womb as a parasite?

Oh, by the way fetus = baby in latin.

 

[tiglathpileser]

ALL BABIES ARE BORN. You think that proves there are babies in wombs?

No, I guess it doesn't. Probably most babies were acquired whilst shopping at the supermarket from the meat department. That makes my children the exception because I attended their birth so I can vouch that they came from the womb, not the supermarket.

 

[Archivist]

Hi Archivist, if that's true, why do we have both Federal and State laws that seem to say otherwise? For instance:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

State laws go further in saying that if an unborn child is killed it is Aggravated Murder, Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, etc., except in the case of abortion (i.e. Laci and Conner's Law - Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law for the murder of his wife and unborn child).

What this means is that the "humanness" of an unborn child is determined on a case by case basis and not on the basis of his/her intrinsic qualities. So, if the one with the power SAYS it's right for the unborn to be killed, then it's right. But if the one with the power SAYS it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, then it's wrong.

The unborn child then (according to both Federal and State law) is a, "life in being", unless the child's mother says otherwise!

We KNOW what we're doing when an abortion is performed, we're taking the life of an unborn human child, and that for the sake of convenience in over 99% of the cases

You are referencing criminal laws. The concept of life in being comes from the civil side, essentially saying that an estate must vest, if it vests at all, within 21 years of a life in being. The rule recognizes an existing person. If a fetus dies before birth it gets nothing. My point was that the pregnant woman--a life in being--should make the decision, particularly if she is a rape victim. A life in being is given primacy.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Did you read my easlier post in which I wrote the following: "Actually no, and if you are saying this you obviously do not understand the pro-choice position. No one is saying that a fetus that results from rape should be killed. What our side us saying us that the choice should rest with the rape victim. She should not be forced to carry a fetus that resulted from a rape to term against her will."

As I said here is a pro-abort advocating that she should have her baby killed because it was the product of rape.

 

[Archivist]

That is NOT the same as you said: "A fetus is considered to be a life in being only if it survives until birth." [underline mine]
If as you say the Rule against Perpetuities "has baffled generations of law students," then it is likely because professors and others have talked and written about it like you just did, in a confusing and not entirely clear and precise manner.

No fetus survives birth.
And don't come back at me and now say "Of course no fetus survives birth," when you have just said what you just said.

Typing error. Missed typing "until." My bad.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No we only have one, the raped woman. Then a decision needs to be made. If you think the abortion victemizes the fertilized egg, so be it. But then it come down to victemizing the egg or the woman who was raped.

Nice bit of rhetorical humbug that pro-aborts are famous for. They started of by calling the baby a clump of cells so it has no rights. When that was met with a roll of the eyes, they changed it to fetus and when they discovered that fetus means baby they moved on to well it is not a living person and so on and on ad infinitum.

I have noticed that those who support the sanctity of life from conception to the grave have only one word and that is the obvious one...baby. Which is not surprising when an abortionist says on TV that EVERY abortion kills a baby. I know the pro-aborts are unable to accept this fact but then what would an abortionist know. He only stands there and brings the baby or bits of a baby out of the womb, but of course that doesn't mean he knows anything.

Just because I stand over the open bonnet of car and fix the problem doesn't mean I know anything about cars does it?