Abortion Discussion

[jayem]

You just gave the court's ruling on what constitutes a Constitutional person.

A legal person is one who can buy or sell property, legally enter into contracts. Which means an 11 year old is not a legal person but a corporation is.

That's why I ask that question often as these definitions are tossed about.

We're going off on a tangent here. An 11 year old doesn't have all the legal privileges of adults, but is still a person with basic 14th Amendment rights. Corporations have some, but not all Constitutional rights (example: they have no 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.) But the unborn have been ruled to possess no Constitutional rights whatsoever. So in the broadest legal sense, they are clearly not persons.

 

[Archivist]

The spawn of a criminal!!! She should have been killed!!!!

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.

 

[AirPo]

At some point, you decide if the baby's heartbeat is being stopped by the abortionists deed using a "surgical" procedure.
From there, you can determine if you want to continue to accept the false belief that stopping a heartbeat only counts outside the womb.

It has nothing to do with a heartbeat. Having a heartbeat or not does not change right of those involved.

 

[Cearbhall]

The spawn of a criminal!!! She should have been killed!!!!

Who says that? I'm not aware of any "should" position.

 

[redleghunter]

We're going off on a tangent here. An 11 year old doesn't have all the legal privileges of adults, but is still a person with basic 14th Amendment rights. Corporations have some, but not all Constitutional rights (example: they have no 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.) But the unborn have been ruled to possess no Constitutional rights whatsoever. So in the broadest legal sense, they are clearly not persons.

The definitions are distinct.

There is constitutional person.

Legal person.

Moral person.

None of which define personhood with regards to biological distinction of human being.

It's a slippery slope to apply legal terms to human life other than to preserve such life. We have ample history of desensitization to certain ethnic groups not considered persons or lesser persons.

 

[redleghunter]

The problem is that you use an equivocation error to make your case. That is also why you lose. I am trying to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. If you want to change the law you have to do it in an appropriate manner. Majority rule isn not the "law of the land". Minority rights are key too. You need to be able to justify the changes you want and so far you have not been able to.

No equivocation. Unless you disregard modern science which states at conception a new human life is formed. That's a fact.

How people rationalize from there is equivocation.

Pro Life operates from scientific fact. Everyone else operates from relativism.

Of course Christians have known this fact for centuries before it was discovered. We were centuries ahead of society knowing life began at conception. Such was revealed in Scriptures and taught in Tradition.

 

[AirPo]

Why do the noncombatants in the hospital deserve to be bombed to death for the heinous crimes of the terrorists holed up in the hospital?

They don't.

Why do the noncombatants in the hospital deserve to be bombed to death for the heinous crimes of the terrorists holed up in the hospital?

This analogy totally supports Archivist's point!

 

[Archivist]

microbial life


If a single sperm was found on another planet the scientists would be all over finding "life" on another planet. You think a sperm is nonlife? Stop splitting what few hairs you have left.

When people have nothing intelligent to say they start throwing insults, as you have done here. You originally claimed that a sperm was "a life." It is not. It is alive, but it us not "a life." Sperm are short lived. Sperm gave but one purpose--to unite with an egg. Sperm cannot reproduce--a sprrm cannot produce other sperm.

Still waiting for you to admit that your statement was wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Why not instead give the offended woman the right to name the punishment for the rapist?

 

[redleghunter]

They don't.



This analogy totally supports Archivist's point!

Explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should go back and read all the other recent abortion threads and you'll see what is being referred to...

Naah, I am sure that there is nothing new there. What was wrong with my post?

 

[Archivist]

Why not instead give the offended woman the right to name the punishment for the rapist?

And how would that prevent her from having to carry her attacker's spawn to term against her will?

 

[AirPo]

Explain.

Terrorist --> Rapist. Hostage --> Rape victem. Blowing up the hospital would be victemizing the hostages twice. Forcing a rape victem to carry a pregnancy that resulted from the rape to term would be victemizing the rape victem twice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No equivocation. Unless you disregard modern science which states at conception a new human life is formed. That's a fact.

How people rationalize from there is equivocation.

Pro Life operates from scientific fact. Everyone else operates from relativism.

Of course Christians have known this fact for centuries before it was discovered. We were centuries ahead of society knowing life began at conception. Such was revealed in Scriptures and taught in Tradition.

Science does not make that claim. Again you are simply making an equivocation error.

It seems that the antiabortion side cannot see that they lost this case long ago. Using bad arguments will not change those on the other side and if there is no change you will continue to lose.

 

[AirPo]

Why not instead give the offended woman the right to name the punishment for the rapist?

We do, it's called abortion and it's legal.

 

[jayem]

The definitions are distinct.

There is constitutional person.

Legal person.

Moral person.

I can agree with that. But if the discussion is about the legality of abortion, then legal personhood is the relevant definition.

None of which define personhood with regards to biological distinction of human being.

Personhood is a multi-faceted concept. Biology is certainly an essential factor. But is is the only factor? Aren't persons more than just their DNA?

It's a slippery slope to apply legal terms to human life other than to preserve such life. We have ample history of desensitization to certain ethnic groups not considered persons or lesser persons.

I agree completely. We have to be careful and think it through. But we don't live in a perfect world, and there isn't a perfect answer to every question. Any definition of personhood will be arbitrary. It's just as arbitrary to claim than a fertilized egg is a person, as it is to claim that personhood doesn't occur until birth. What matters is if whatever definition we use is rational, reasonable, workable, and as fair and humane as possible to all parties.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We are not talking about a first trimester baby. We are talking about abortion and as every abortion kills a baby according to the experts, that baby is innocent of any crime to deserve such a death.

Abortion doesn't kill babies:

ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun

1. 1.
   a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
   "his wife's just had a baby"
   synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

I was not talking about the USA. I was talking about the country I live in and where I served on a committee advising the government.

You made the blanket statement:

"Better and more widespread sex education is a failure."

Which is patently wrong. And if sex education works in the US and doesn't in Australia, then obviously you're doing it wrong.

 

[Julie.S]

As a teacher I prevented two suicides by students.

That's good mine was a random person that I knew very little.

 

[redleghunter]

It could be legitimately argued that that is the case. Look at how the Bible says that slaves are supposed to love their masters and work happily. The Bible makes some pretty crazy claims about authority. That one is supposed to obey the government seems to be one of them.

What background do you have in Theology to make such assertions on God and Scriptures?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What background do you have in Theology to make such assertions on God and Scriptures?

What background does one need? Read the book. By the way, saying what the Bible says about God is not an assertion about God. Many people keep forgetting that the Bible is a work of man.