[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The New California Republic]

What defines the human person then.

They have to be born for a start:

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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

[Oxes Republic]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

[Oxes Republic]

The purpose of this is debate and the definition of a human person is so critical to this it should be up to debate

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

Which is a bullahit argument anyway, so.

[The New California Republic]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

You asked what defines a person. I offered you an answer. Take it or leave it.

[Oxes Republic]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

Which is a bullahit argument anyway, so.

Well you view it that way when a significant percentage(not the majority) of others view it as the truth

[Katganistan]

I dare you to think about it this way.

Pretend it’s a mother and a five year old disabled child. Her child provides the same medical and financial strain pregnancy would, treatments cost more than pregnancy, and is forcing her out of her career. Does this mother have the right to kill this strain on her life since it is living in her house and sucking away at her life? Does she have the right to murder this child that’s disabled? Does she have the power to kill this human being who’s sucking a Away at her life like a tumor?

I dare you to not compare apples to horse dung.

A five year old is not inside her uterus, does not endanger her health or her life, does not cause changes in her body, does not use her circulatory and urinary tract, does not leech minerals from her bones nor nutrients from her blood.

[Oxes Republic]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

You asked what defines a person. I offered you an answer. Take it or leave it.

The point of this is to argue abortion and its morality and recognizing legal flaws is a main party of many arguments, so I believe that that is a legal flaw and it should be up to debate on when life begins if we are arguing the topic as purely as possible and not by political borders set by a superior state that has definite bias

[Oxes Republic]

I dare you to think about it this way.

Pretend it’s a mother and a five year old disabled child. Her child provides the same medical and financial strain pregnancy would, treatments cost more than pregnancy, and is forcing her out of her career. Does this mother have the right to kill this strain on her life since it is living in her house and sucking away at her life? Does she have the right to murder this child that’s disabled? Does she have the power to kill this human being who’s sucking a Away at her life like a tumor?

I dare you to not compare apples to horse dung.

I admit it was a large stretch but that was my sort of intro into this argument on my position that human life should be respected from conception

[Godular]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

We didn't ignore it. It's just irrelevant.

[Northern Davincia]

The end result is the same.

Not at all. In the first case a person isn't dead, but in the second there is.

Naturally I'm of the opinion that life begins at conception, and the very fact that stillbirths happen indicates that life does not begin after the child has exited the womb.

My point I’m trying to make is that, if the child is alive and having a greater strain on the women’s life and came from her body and lives in her house, does that make that child property? And what difference does it make from a child in the womb sucking away a woman’s potential. Does this mean the fetus is the woman’s property even though it occupies its own genetic code by still relies on the mother?

Let us treat the fetus as a person then.

It is violating the personal space of the woman and using her body without her consent. Were it a born and grown person we'd have all kinds of nasty names for the crime it'd constitute, and the woman would be perfectly justified in defending herself (to the death if need be).

So... claiming the fetus' rights supercede those of the woman is unrealistic AND inconsistent.

Unless the woman is close to death as a result of the pregnancy, the child poses no threat. Killing it would not be a defensive action.

What defines the human person then.

They have to be born for a start:

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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

It should be apparent that pro-lifers take issue with the current legal definitions and wish to have them changed.

I'll offer my definition as soon as you provide yours.

No. You are the one trying to claim it is not. Our position is the status quo. You explain why we must discard that status quo.

Care to quote me describing anything here as invalid?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Which is a bullahit argument anyway, so.

Well you view it that way when a significant percentage(not the majority) of others view it as the truth

That's great. A bunch of people also think an alien warlord dropped nukes on earth and put his people in volcanoes. Doesn't mean that it is any less bullshit.

[Godular]

I dare you to not compare apples to horse dung.

I admit it was a large stretch but that was my sort of intro into this argument on my position that human life should be respected from conception

We do respect it. We just don't give it MORE respect than that which is owed to the woman.

[Oxes Republic]

Again did you ignore my argument that life begins at conception or...

We didn't ignore it. It's just irrelevant.

How is regarding the main basis of most pro life argument irrelevant? If we did we wouldn’t have an argument here but acknowledging legal flaws and issues with the law on how its in gray area is relevant

[Bezkoshtovnya]

You asked what defines a person. I offered you an answer. Take it or leave it.

The point of this is to argue abortion and its morality and recognizing legal flaws is a main party of many arguments, so I believe that that is a legal flaw and it should be up to debate on when life begins if we are arguing the topic as purely as possible and not by political borders set by a superior state that has definite bias

Murder is defined as the killing of another individual/person by another. Seeing as how a fetus is not an individual nor a person it doesnt apply. The only ones I can see trying to make this based entirely on beliefs or politics are those that desperately try to find ways to legislate their personal morals and beliefs onto others by grasping at straws.

[Oxes Republic]

Well I am pretty sure that more people think life begins at conception than people think the earth is flat and Obama is a terrorist

[Northern Davincia]

I admit it was a large stretch but that was my sort of intro into this argument on my position that human life should be respected from conception

We do respect it. We just don't give it MORE respect than that which is owed to the woman.

With the belief that all people are created equal, some might hold the view that the unborn child and their mother are worthy of equal respect.

[Katganistan]

My point I’m trying to make is that, if the child is alive and having a greater strain on the women’s life and came from her body and lives in her house, does that make that child property? And what difference does it make from a child in the womb sucking away a woman’s potential. Does this mean the fetus is the woman’s property even though it occupies its own genetic code by still relies on the mother?

No, it means no one has the right to use your organs without your consent.
No one can have sex with you without your consent.
No one can sue you to force you to transfuse them or give them an organ, even if they will die without them.

Born kids can be put in the extremely problematic, underfunded, overcrowded foster care system where approximate half a million kids are stuck, with roughly 50 thousand a year aging out and only a quarter getting adopted. Not to mention the tragedies where foster kids or unwanted children are sometimes neglected and abused to death by their carers.

Or you can prevent suffering and raising taxes to support welfare by not demanding every pregnancy be carried to term.

[The New California Republic]

Not at all. In the first case a person isn't dead, but in the second there is.

Naturally I'm of the opinion that life begins at conception, and the very fact that stillbirths happen indicates that life does not begin after the child has exited the womb.

Life =/= person.

They have to be born for a start:

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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

It should be apparent that pro-lifers take issue with the current legal definitions and wish to have them changed.

But until that time, we will use the definitions as given.

[Oxes Republic]

The point of this is to argue abortion and its morality and recognizing legal flaws is a main party of many arguments, so I believe that that is a legal flaw and it should be up to debate on when life begins if we are arguing the topic as purely as possible and not by political borders set by a superior state that has definite bias

Murder is defined as the killing of another individual/person by another. Seeing as how a fetus is not an individual nor a person it doesnt apply. The only ones I can see trying to make this based entirely on beliefs or politics are those that desperately try to find ways to legislate their personal morals and beliefs onto others by grasping at straws.

Well the basis of this argument is if the fetus is a person that the women had the choice to make or not and she did. Stating it as already decided is a horrible argument I.e. how a few countries had slavery till the 1980s and the US had it for almost a century

[Godular]

No. You are the one trying to claim it is not. Our position is the status quo. You explain why we must discard that status quo.

Care to quote me describing anything here as invalid?

Don't particularly care. I'm not much interested in arguing semantics, m'self. If you want a definition of valid you can damn well look it up yourself. Maybe then we can while away the hours yammering about how this or that aspect of the definition was TOTALLY cherry-picked or some other nonsense.

[The New California Republic]

Well I am pretty sure that more people think life begins at conception than people think the earth is flat and Obama is a terrorist

The fuck is this meant to prove?

[Godular]

We do respect it. We just don't give it MORE respect than that which is owed to the woman.

With the belief that all people are created equal, some might hold the view that the unborn child and their mother are worthy of equal respect.

Yeah. And also worthy of equal treatment under the law, which means that if the fetus happens to be using the woman's body without her consent (which if the woman does not wish to be pregnant, it most definitely is), she has the right to rectify the situation with immediacy and effect.

[The New California Republic]

Murder is defined as the killing of another individual/person by another. Seeing as how a fetus is not an individual nor a person it doesnt apply. The only ones I can see trying to make this based entirely on beliefs or politics are those that desperately try to find ways to legislate their personal morals and beliefs onto others by grasping at straws.

Well the basis of this argument is if the fetus is a person that the women had the choice to make or not and she did.

You have yet to give us any reasons as to why the fetus should be considered a person.

[Genivaria]

Well I am pretty sure that more people think life begins at conception than people think the earth is flat and Obama is a terrorist

Popularity of an idea is not an indicator of the validity of said idea.