A question for anti-choicers

[Cancel 2018. 3]

good points...it is a very complex issue and since it deals with life or potential life, a very emotional issue. to those who believe life begins at conception, that the state allows abortion is tantamount to the state allowing murder...i can see what you're saying about teh very early stages due to the fact i do not know exactly when life begins, but i'm with you in leaning heavily against the middle, later stages....my best friend's wife is due in a month, they've seen the sonograms and i can't help but believe that if (they would never) she aborted now simply because she didn't want the child, that this would not be murder

something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder

this was to onceler, but i don't think he saw it

for those that support abortion, how does this make sense?

 

[Onceler]

"something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder"

I saw it, but I wasn't sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean those cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, and the perp gets 2 counts of murder?

 

[Onceler]

can you give me a legally sustainable explanation of why broader parameters are required?......do you insist on human life plus something else when you talk about other actions involving death?........

Damo has used the term "personhood," and for lack of a better term, I'm cool with that.

Again - I don't think the termination of something microscopic, that basically amounts to a living blueprint of what a person is, qualifies as "murder." Over the course of development, things obviously change, and considerations like viability as well as nervous system development and other factors play a larger part in the consideration of competing interests.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder"

I saw it, but I wasn't sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean those cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, and the perp gets 2 counts of murder?

yes, thats what i meant....also, there is a case of a guy punching or kicking, i can't remember, his pregnant girlfriend or wife (who did not die) in the stomach, as a result the baby died, he got charged and convicted of murder

 

[Onceler]

yes, thats what i meant....also, there is a case of a guy punching or kicking, i can't remember, his pregnant girlfriend or wife (who did not die) in the stomach, as a result the baby died, he got charged and convicted of murder

Yeah - I have seen some of those. Not sure how to answer it though. Laws can be weird, and inconsistent. Just because Roe is the law of the land doesn't mean anything is ever settled on the topic, or ever will be. As I've said, I think it's a good compromise, but I would never offer it as proof that life doesn't begin at conception, or anything like that.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yeah - I have seen some of those. Not sure how to answer it though. Laws can be weird, and inconsistent. Just because Roe is the law of the land doesn't mean anything is ever settled on the topic, or ever will be. As I've said, I think it's a good compromise, but I would never offer it as proof that life doesn't begin at conception, or anything like that.

its just interesting that the courts have stepped into the debate as to when life begins and as you rightly state, are inconsistent. the mother and doctor can legally end the life, yet someone else who does the same thing (say the father who doesn't want to be a father and the woman won't get an abortion), he will get charged and likely convicted of murder of the unborn child.

i'm still waiting for SF's link to the scientifc fact. i am under the impression it is not settled scientifically, morally or religiously....and certaintly not legally.

 

[Bonestorm]

its just interesting that the courts have stepped into the debate as to when life begins and as you rightly state, are inconsistent. the mother and doctor can legally end the life, yet someone else who does the same thing (say the father who doesn't want to be a father and the woman won't get an abortion), he will get charged and likely convicted of murder of the unborn child.

i'm still waiting for SF's link to the scientifc fact. i am under the impression it is not settled scientifically, morally or religiously....and certaintly not legally.

I don't think it is the courts stepping in; rather, it is primarily anti-abortion legislators passing laws making the assault on a woman that results in the death of her unborn child as murder.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

link to the fact. thanks

Human sperm cell combines with human egg cell.... must be human.

It is alive and developing.... thus it is a life.

Human sperm cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes from father
The human egg cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes from the mother

The combination of the two produces the unique 46 chromosomes of the offspring. The joining or development begins as the two haploid cells combine into a diploid cell. The genetic coding is in place. As long as it remains alive, then it is a unique human life.

That is basic science.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Human sperm cell combines with human egg cell.... must be human.

It is alive and developing.... thus it is a life.

Human sperm cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes from father
The human egg cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes from the mother

The combination of the two produces the unique 46 chromosomes of the offspring. The joining or development begins as the two haploid cells combine into a diploid cell. The genetic coding is in place. As long as it remains alive, then it is a unique human life.

That is basic science.

if it is such a fact, why is it you can't link me to all the scientist that proclaim this fact? let me clarify as well....by life, i'm talking about a person or as is commonly used the debate, personhood....for instance brain development...

 

[NOVA]

Being a male myself I would say no. the males role in baby making isn't very significant. A man can walk away. For the woman its a very different thing.Unlike the male she cant walk away. Pregnancy changes a woman's whole life. Besides bringing an unwanted child in to life is a very irresponsible thing to do.

The fix is simple...don't get pregnant...problem solved...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Damo has used the term "personhood," and for lack of a better term, I'm cool with that.

Again - I don't think the termination of something microscopic, that basically amounts to a living blueprint of what a person is, qualifies as "murder." Over the course of development, things obviously change, and considerations like viability as well as nervous system development and other factors play a larger part in the consideration of competing interests.

personhood, humanbeingness, whatever you want to call it, you still didn't answer the question.....give me a legally sustainable reason for depriving someone who has not met your arbitrarily set standard for "personhood" of those rights you grant to those who have.....

 

[Onceler]

personhood, humanbeingness, whatever you want to call it, you still didn't answer the question.....give me a legally sustainable reason for depriving someone who has not met your arbitrarily set standard for "personhood" of those rights you grant to those who have.....

The legal standard currently being used is viability. I don't know if I would call that "sustainable," since it could just as easily be overturned as upheld, but it is the law right now.

I'm not arguing that it isn't arbitrary; it is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

if it is such a fact, why is it you can't link me to all the scientist that proclaim this fact? let me clarify as well....by life, i'm talking about a person or as is commonly used the debate, personhood....for instance brain development...

You can find what I posted in any science text book.

The term 'personhood' is arbitrary and subjective, as I already stated... it is not based on SCIENCE. Just as it was moronic to suggest that a black person was 3/5 human... so too is it moronic to suggest the fertilized egg is anything other than human (which is genetically impossible) or alive (it cannot be growing and developing if it is not alive).

using a stage of development is also arbitrary.

The point life begins is NOT arbitrary.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

as I recall, the majority opinion on the most recent abortion case rejected viability as an acceptable standard.....the same knife that cuts an umbilical cord could be use to cut a throat.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You can find what I posted in any science text book.

The term 'personhood' is arbitrary and subjective, as I already stated... it is not based on SCIENCE. Just as it was moronic to suggest that a black person was 3/5 human... so too is it moronic to suggest the fertilized egg is anything other than human (which is genetically impossible) or alive (it cannot be growing and developing if it is not alive).

using a stage of development is also arbitrary.

The point life begins is NOT arbitrary.

give me a link....

i've studied the issue and from what i found, scientist are NOT all in agreement....you claimed it was fact, let's see a link to the fact....as i said i lean towards life begins at conception, it shouldn't be difficult for you to link me to the "fact"

 

[Onceler]

as I recall, the majority opinion on the most recent abortion case rejected viability as an acceptable standard.....the same knife that cuts an umbilical cord could be use to cut a throat.....

Well, as I said, the sustainability of a legal argument is in question for viability, as well as all kinds of standards being used for many different laws. Many issues are dependent almost entirely on the makeup of the courts.

You'd like there to be consensus - legally, scientifically, philisophically - that life at conception has full personhood & all the rights & recognition that we ascribe to humanity & human beings. That kind of consensus will never exist.

 

[wanderingbear]

"something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder"

I saw it, but I wasn't sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean those cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, and the perp gets 2 counts of murder?

Recently we had a case in Oregon where a woman murdered a pregnant woman and removed the fetus. The fetus died but the woman was only charged for one count of murder.Its not illegal to kill a fetus in Oregon.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

give me a link....

i've studied the issue and from what i found, scientist are NOT all in agreement....you claimed it was fact, let's see a link to the fact....as i said i lean towards life begins at conception, it shouldn't be difficult for you to link me to the "fact"

First tell me which part you do not comprehend....

Human sperm cell + Human egg cell = unique human

Alive vs Inanimate objects and/or dead

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The legal standard currently being used is viability. I don't know if I would call that "sustainable," since it could just as easily be overturned as upheld, but it is the law right now.

I'm not arguing that it isn't arbitrary; it is.

as a general rule, laws which are arbitrary are rejected as a violation of equal protection laws......

 

[zappasguitar]

You don't really support "choice" anyway. So fess up, its a political hotbutton that makes you cool at your age. But you've never given a dime's worth of thought about what choice is. Yeah, your frat boys convinced you that "choice" stops at abortion. Sure it does. That's the only choice that's up to the government to decide. Fool.

Man, sure sounds like somebody pee'd in Beefy's Hawaiian Tropic yesterday! I've never seen you be this...uhhh...blunt before.

Did the sun go behind a cloud for a minute or something?