Split from Economics thread - Abortion Discussions

[Cow Poke]

You're babbling again.

I was hopin' you could splain that to me.

[Bill the Cat]

In the context of this discussion “viability” is when the fetus can survive outside the womb (albeit with medical assistance).

Which ultimately is meaningless. It just shifts the responsibility for total care to another person. A human is not capable of surviving on their own for any significant portion of time until they are well past the toddler stage.

No it is not. The brain pattern is the "actual human person". Before it develops there is no “human person”.

Wrong. The whole separate organism is the actual human person. A brain pattern is one of many required interrelated biological processes. That you elevate one over all of the others for no reason other than your personal preference is immaterial.

Until viability it’s not an “independent member of our species” at all, this is the point. ‘Independent’ is defined as: “not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence”.

Then infants are not independent either. Welcome to Starlight's camp.

Yes, they are “advanced specific functions of cells of our species" and they are non-existent during the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions are performed. Again, potential brain cell activity is not actual brain cell activity.

Again, it in no way means the fetus isn't a unique member of our species, and therefore, a separate human person.

"What gets aborted" in the vast majority of cases is an insensate fetus during the first trimester.

Exactly. An actual separate living member of our species.

With regard to “rights” the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision says that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and therefore does not have a constitutional “right to life”.

And Public Law 108-212 contradicts that. If you kill a pregnant woman's "insensate fetus", you can be charged with the murder of that fetus under the law. So, you are wrong. The law DOES consider the "insensate fetus" a person, but allows a unique individual (the mother) to kill it at her convenience. Anyone else can be charged under the law. These two will eventually collide once someone from one of the sides has a case to appeal.

This Act explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion. It states that the bill cannot be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion...”

That's not the point I was making. I am aware it contains the provision. The point I was making is that the law DOES protect the "insensate fetus" as a separate member of our species with identical punishments as if the crime were committed against anyone else.

[firstfloor]

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” – Florynce Kennedy
Christians looking for abortion services might start by looking up the National Abortion Federation.

[Bill the Cat]

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” – Florynce Kennedy

And to Ms. Kennedy's stupidity...

“Stupidity isn't punishable by death. If it was, there would be a hell of a population drop.”
― Laurell K. Hamilton, The Laughing Corpse

Christians looking for abortion services might start by looking up the National Abortion Federation.

"What fellowship hath light with darkness?"
-- Apostle Paul, 2nd letter to the Corinthians

[RumTumTugger]

Ah, so you're having a problem with linguistics, eh? OK, on what day of development, scientifically, does the baby transition from "insensate fetus" to "not at risk? You kinda dodged that.

Abortion stops a beating heart, Tazzy. I know it may be cliche, but it's also indisputable fact.

CP isn't Fetus the latin for unborn baby?

[RumTumTugger]

The legal distinction as to when life begins is not a philosophical judgement such as is the religious distinction. The legal distinction is based on the science which in this case isn't conclusive since science can not make that determination conclusively. What the ancients may have thought is irrelevant.

it is not based on science it is based on a philosophical view that uses the false dichomtomy that human beings are not persons. person hood is philosophical argument not scientific. you tass and others here are using an arbitrary cut off to determine when a HUMAN BEING has a right to live so that innocent human beings can be killed for convenience.

I'll ask you the saems thing i've asked tass what change happens in the DNA at your arbitrary cut off.

[TheWall]

How could a human not be a person?

[Bill the Cat]

How could a human not be a person?

It helps them dehumanize the unborn so they can distance themselves from being the genocidal maniacs we know they are.

[RumTumTugger]

How could a human not be a person?

Ask Tass, starlight and the rest of those who think it is ok to kill an innocent human being before it is out of the womb. and in the case of Starlight months after birth. they think it is ok to dehumanize the weakest members of our species against all Scientific evidence.

[firstfloor]

Ask Tass, starlight and the rest of those who think it is ok to kill an innocent human being before it is out of the womb. and in the case of Starlight months after birth. they think it is ok to dehumanize the weakest members of our species against all Scientific evidence.

human being: A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...on/human_being

So, you’re not a human being until you can speak and stand up!

[Cow Poke]

How could a human not be a person?

The same way homosexual sex isn't sin.

[firstfloor]

How could a human not be a person?

Person: a human being regarded as an individual. So you have to be able to speak, stand up and hold a valid passport or equivalent I.D.

[RumTumTugger]

human being: A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...on/human_being

So, you’re not a human being until you can speak and stand up!

so what change in the DNA happens when a human starts to speak and stand up hmm? that is purely arbitrary not scientific.

it is funny that the ones falsely accusing BTC and others here of not being scientific and using philosophy are the ones guilty of using philosophy and ignoring Science.

[firstfloor]

... homosexual sex isn't sin.

At long last! Congratulations.

[Cow Poke]

At long last! Congratulations.

Ah, dishonesty personified.