|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 4, 2021 2:33:28 GMT -8
Isn't that the issue? Liberals do not accept an unborn child as a living human being. I believe they see it as an appendage of the mother, and not a distinct, separate individual...until birth? It is not coincidence that in over 10 years of pointing out the unborn are both living and human, not one pro abortion advocate… not even one… will even acknowledge the fact, or respond in any way. You're an idiot and a liar. You've been spouting this same nonsense for years and when someone acknowledges that a fetus is both human and alive you just pretend they did not. I made the same statement earlier in this thread and here you are pretending I didn't. 1. A fetus is both human and alive when it is aborted. Is that too difficult for you to understand? 2. The decision about whether to have the abortion or not should be the woman's, not yours, not the government's, and certainly not someone who believes the nonsense you believe. 3. The privacy of the woman is all the reason I need because I think her rights are just as important as yours generally, and in this case a lot more important than your silly superstitions. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 4, 2021 2:43:06 GMT -8
4. Consequence of choice I was referring to was post-conception, and did not include what I consider to be the far less important financial considerations. The focus, IMO, should be on the woman who bears the physiological and emotional consequence. Where you go wrong, in my humble opinion, is that if it were he vs. she, yes, maybe the woman should win out. But it's NOT he vs. she...There's another life involved. who speaks for the baby? (And, of course, I am certain that Jesus and his mother, would side with the man in these cases. But, of course Vile Pagan is an atheist, so that hold no weight with his ilk.) Let's simplify the discussion for a moment. If we assume that the mother gets to make all decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth why would this decision be different? Who do you think should represent the baby? Lastly, assume for a moment we're talking about a Jewish baby so you don't have to concern yourself with telling me what you think Jesus would do, but I am curious why you think Jesus's mom's opinion is important. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Sept 5, 2021 15:50:46 GMT -8
1. A fetus is both human and alive when it is aborted. 2. The decision about whether to have the abortion or not should be the woman's, not yours, not the government's, and certainly not someone who believes the nonsense you believe. 3. The privacy of the woman is all the reason I need....... If we assume that the mother gets to make all decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth why would this decision be different? If we assume that the mother gets to make all decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth why would this decision be different? I haven't followed this thread but there are a few comments here that seem a bit counterintuitive. If you already assume a fetus is both human and alive, then why is it legally (or morally) acceptable for someone (be it the mother or otherwise) to kill it? I don't understand what is meant by "the privacy of the woman" or what prerogatives are thought to proceed from that. We do not assume that the mother gets to make all the decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth. That is why even now abortions after a certain point in pregnancy are illegal and why mothers can be held criminally accountable for recreational drug use that harms the baby in utero. It is already assumed in the law that the mother does not get to make all decisions regarding the pregnancy, and to my knowledge it never was...........................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 6, 2021 2:31:47 GMT -8
1. A fetus is both human and alive when it is aborted. 2. The decision about whether to have the abortion or not should be the woman's, not yours, not the government's, and certainly not someone who believes the nonsense you believe. 3. The privacy of the woman is all the reason I need....... If we assume that the mother gets to make all decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth why would this decision be different? If we assume that the mother gets to make all decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth why would this decision be different? I haven't followed this thread but there are a few comments here that seem a bit counterintuitive. If you already assume a fetus is both human and alive, then why is it legally (or morally) acceptable for someone (be it the mother or otherwise) to kill it? I don't understand what is meant by "the privacy of the woman" or what prerogatives are thought to proceed from that. We do not assume that the mother gets to make all the decisions about the baby prior to the baby's birth. That is why even now abortions after a certain point in pregnancy are illegal and why mothers can be held criminally accountable for recreational drug use that harms the baby in utero. It is already assumed in the law that the mother does not get to make all decisions regarding the pregnancy, and to my knowledge it never was...........................Luca I don't assume the fetus is both human and alive. Despite the importance put on the question by a certain unintelligent member here it's not a question any rational person has ever denied. It's considered morally and legally acceptable because that's how we've constructed our laws to read. We did this because it's the least complicated way to write the law. It protects the unborn as best it can without trampling on the rights of the mother. It's not perfect to be sure, but neither is biology. The "privacy" of the woman is mentioned because that's how the SC framed the mother's rights in Roe v. Wade. The mother's right to an abortion flows from her right to keep her medical decisions private from government intrusion. We may not allow women to use illegal drugs while they are pregnant but we don't prevent women from engaging in high-risk behaviors and if the woman suffers a child-killing injury while pregnant we do not hold her liable for the loss of her fetus. We also allow women to decide on abortion within limits that are now being challenged. So yes, we do largely allow women to make such decisions for themselves privately, without government interference. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 6, 2021 6:29:09 GMT -8
I don't assume the fetus is both human and alive. Despite the importance put on the question by a certain unintelligent member here it's not a question any rational person has ever denied. It's considered morally and legally acceptable because that's how we've constructed our laws to read. We did this because it's the least complicated way to write the law. It protects the unborn as best it can without trampling on the rights of the mother. It's not perfect to be sure, but neither is biology. While I understand what you wrote, this phrase is absolutely incorrect. Legal and moral are not necessarily related. There are many legal rights that would not be considered moral, and abortion is certainly one of them. It is an abhorrent and immoral action that we have granted legal protection. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 6, 2021 8:26:51 GMT -8
Snowflake: "I don't assume the fetus is both human and alive." because you're an idiot who only uses science when it suits your argument. Regardless of what you do or don't assume, snowflake, a fetus/embryo/zygote that is a result of the union between a human sperm and a human egg IS factually and undeniably - Alive (as it is not inert, inanimate, dead, or inorganic); and
- Human (as it is not a lizard, a giraffe, an amoeba, or a sparrow); so
- an abortion for any reason OTHER than a miscarriage kills a living human being...
and your "don't assume" makes you a science denier... well, and a fool, but that's another topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 6, 2021 12:03:52 GMT -8
I don't assume the fetus is both human and alive. Despite the importance put on the question by a certain unintelligent member here it's not a question any rational person has ever denied. It's considered morally and legally acceptable because that's how we've constructed our laws to read. We did this because it's the least complicated way to write the law. It protects the unborn as best it can without trampling on the rights of the mother. It's not perfect to be sure, but neither is biology. While I understand what you wrote, this phrase is absolutely incorrect. Legal and moral are not necessarily related. There are many legal rights that would not be considered moral, and abortion is certainly one of them. It is an abhorrent and immoral action that we have granted legal protection. You state that abortion is "an abhorrent and immoral action" as if that's a matter of fact when in fact it's nothing more than your opinion. While I understand what you wrote, this phrase is absolutely incorrect. Abortion is legal within certain parameters and I would argue that this makes it certainly not immoral and possibly not abhorrent. I am curious though...can you give me another example of a legal right that is immoral? According to you there are many but none immediately come to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 6, 2021 12:06:51 GMT -8
Snowflake: "I don't assume the fetus is both human and alive." because you're an idiot who only uses science when it suits your argument. Regardless of what you do or don't assume, snowflake, a fetus/embryo/zygote that is a result of the union between a human sperm and a human egg IS factually and undeniably - Alive (as it is not inert, inanimate, dead, or inorganic); and
- Human (as it is not a lizard, a giraffe, an amoeba, or a sparrow); so
- an abortion for any reason OTHER than a miscarriage kills a living human being...
and your "don't assume" makes you a science denier... well, and a fool, but that's another topic.
No you effing moron it means you don't understand basic English. I don't assume that the fetus is both human and alive, I know it is for a fact. No assumptions necessary. Now go away, the adults are talking. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 6, 2021 12:30:51 GMT -8
I am curious though...can you give me another example of a legal right that is immoral? According to you there are many but none immediately come to mind. Sure, here's one that's local. I know a widow in her 80's who has lived in the same home for half a century. She raised her kids there, she lost her husband there, and all her memories are there. The city forced her to sell that home for a street-widening project. It was all legal, but it is miles from being moral. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 7, 2021 1:58:08 GMT -8
I am curious though...can you give me another example of a legal right that is immoral? According to you there are many but none immediately come to mind. Sure, here's one that's local. I know a widow in her 80's who has lived in the same home for half a century. She raised her kids there, she lost her husband there, and all her memories are there. The city forced her to sell that home for a street-widening project. It was all legal, but it is miles from being moral. I don't believe we use the word "moral" the same way. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 7, 2021 5:24:33 GMT -8
ANYONE who says an unborn child is living and human (something "no intelligent person denies"), but refuse to grant that unborn, living human being equal rights and cannot even come to call it a child, is, in fact, denying it, or is seriously deluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 7, 2021 7:48:05 GMT -8
ANYONE who says an unborn child is living and human (something "no intelligent person denies"), but refuse to grant that unborn, living human being equal rights and cannot even come to call it a child, is, in fact, denying it, or is seriously deluded. Perhaps you deliberately misunderstand my argument because you have no rebuttal. 1. An unborn embryo or fetus is both living and human, and will become a "child" upon birth. 2. The unborn child to be is not the only person in this argument, there's also the mother. 3. For the first nine months of pregnancy the mother and child to be are inseparable and indivisible from a legal viewpoint. 4. No amount of pearl clutching or name-calling will change any of these facts or make the law any more practical in protecting the unborn. 5. Roe v. Wade is the best solution we've come up with so far to protect both the rights of the child to be and at the same time, the rights of the mother. 6. In cases of abortion I don't think anyone else's rights come into the picture, not yours, not mine, not the government's. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 7, 2021 8:12:46 GMT -8
Perhaps you deliberately misunderstand my argument because you have no rebuttal. 1. An unborn embryo or fetus is both living and human, and will become a "child" upon birth. What magical thing happens at the moment of birth to change the child from a fetus into a child? The answer is nothing. It is a semantic and legal distinction with no difference.2. The unborn child to be is not the only person in this argument, there's also the mother. Nobody is arguing otherwise.3. For the first nine months of pregnancy the mother and child to be are inseparable and indivisible from a legal viewpoint. That's not true. My son's sister-in-law had a child at 23 weeks, when they clearly were both separable and divisible. 18 months later both mother and daughter are doing fine.4. No amount of pearl clutching or name-calling will change any of these facts or make the law any more practical in protecting the unborn. 5. Roe v. Wade is the best solution we've come up with so far to protect both the rights of the child to be and at the same time, the rights of the mother. How in the hell does Roe v. Wade protect the rights of the child?6. In cases of abortion I don't think anyone else's rights come into the picture, not yours, not mine, not the government's. Apparently not the child's rights either. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 7, 2021 8:23:28 GMT -8
Perhaps you deliberately misunderstand my argument because you have no rebuttal. 1. An unborn embryo or fetus is both living and human, and will become a "child" upon birth. What magical thing happens at the moment of birth to change the child from a fetus into a child? The answer is nothing. It is a semantic and legal distinction with no difference.2. The unborn child to be is not the only person in this argument, there's also the mother. Nobody is arguing otherwise.3. For the first nine months of pregnancy the mother and child to be are inseparable and indivisible from a legal viewpoint. That's not true. My son's sister-in-law had a child at 23 weeks, when they clearly were both separable and divisible. 18 months later both mother and daughter are doing fine.4. No amount of pearl clutching or name-calling will change any of these facts or make the law any more practical in protecting the unborn. 5. Roe v. Wade is the best solution we've come up with so far to protect both the rights of the child to be and at the same time, the rights of the mother. How in the hell does Roe v. Wade protect the rights of the child?6. In cases of abortion I don't think anyone else's rights come into the picture, not yours, not mine, not the government's. Apparently not the child's rights either.1. Nothing magical happens. It's just accepted terminology. The child to be is referred to as an embryo for the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and a fetus from there until birth. No magic involved, just medical terminology. 3. Congratulations to your son's sister-in-law. We are speaking about hypothetical normal pregnancies not unusual cases. 5. Roe v. Wade does nothing to protect children, and it was never meant to protect children because again, terms are important. It does however protect human fetuses from abortions at will. It sets up a timetable for when fetuses may be aborted and when they may not. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 7, 2021 8:37:43 GMT -8
Tragic that snowflake cannot research openly and without prejudice (or rancor). The latin noun, "fetus" makes no distinction between pre-born and born, or between [something else] and child. It is used to denote "the young while in the womb or egg" AND was sometimes used figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood."
The word did not become a legal construct used to separate a living human being from its rights until Roe v. Wade.
|
|
