Abortion derail from the Active Shooter thread

[Tassman]

Spin it as you will, the only difference between an embryo, a fetus, and a neonate is the age. They are all human offspring, born or unborn. The whole 'personhood' concept is purely made up. There is no magic moment when an embryo becomes a person. It is a person from the moment of conception. So babies are indeed being killed and, as as the the definition given is accurate, it is indeed murder in every way except legally.

The problem is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when “person-hood” begins.

Traditionally Jewish Law says that a fetus only becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb and it draws its first breath.

Some Christians, not all, believe "ensoulment" occurs at the moments of conception and so is a human being from the very start..

And, of course non-religious people have no reason to believe in the existence of “souls” at all…there’s no substantive evidence of such entities existing.

Regardless of one's view, the fact of an embryo/fetus having the potential to be a human being should result in all people being respectful and not performing abortions lightly. But this doesn't give the right to those who believe in ensoulment from conception, imposing their view on the rest of society...let alone murdering its practitioners.

[firstfloor]

There is no magic moment when an embryo becomes a person.

“Magic moments” are commonplace. The law imposes age limits on all sorts of things; e.g. drinking alcohol, marriage, driving, sexual intercourse, smoking, voting and abortion.

[jordanriver]

“Magic moments” are commonplace. The law imposes age limits on all sorts of things; e.g. drinking alcohol, marriage, driving, sexual intercourse, smoking, voting and abortion.

cannot speak for anybody else, but I would respect laws more if they were created by the people directly.


But the USA is a plutocracy , and a handful of monopoly winners impose laws on the rest of us.

Historically, good (ok and maybe sometimes bad) people have had to resort to forms of civil disobedience from time to time, even at the risk of their freedom or even their lives.

[Cow Poke]

Only a psychopath would want to kill potential human beings for no good reason.

So, an abortionist is a psychopath?

[Cow Poke]

Regardless of one's view, the fact of an embryo/fetus having the potential to be a human being should result in all people being respectful and not performing abortions lightly.

How does one "lightly" murder an unborn child?

But this doesn't give the right to those who believe in ensoulment from conception, imposing their view on the rest of society...

Well, the unborn can't speak for themselves, so somebody needs to step up.

let alone murdering its practitioners.

I don't believe you've seen anybody here argue that murdering abortion "practitioners" is acceptable.

[Cow Poke]

“Magic moments” are commonplace. The law imposes age limits on all sorts of things; e.g. drinking alcohol, marriage, driving, sexual intercourse, smoking, voting and

Hmmmm... these appear to be "magic moments" in time when an individual is allowed to do something, not prohibited therefrom.

abortion.

This destroys all of those "magic moments" you enumerated forever for the person affected.

[Catholicity]

So, an abortionist is a psychopath?

Actually I tend to believe that is true.

[Roy]

Nope - that's only what you call them so you can feel better about killing them. Doesn't change the fact that they are babies.

No, that's what you call them to make killing them seem worse. Because the default image invariably associated with the word "baby" is a child that has already been born.

Go to Google images and search for pictures of "baby". You won't see any embryos/foeti/zygotes. Not one.

Your and others' use of "baby" is deceptive, and detracts from any other arguments you might have. If your points are valid you should be able to make them without resorting to (mis)using emotionally charged language.

You can jack with definitions all you want, but when we stand before God, it's HIS definitions that count.

...and without implied threats of hellfire too.

[Cow Poke]

No, that's what you call them to make killing them seem worse.

Killing an innocent unborn baby does not need to be made to "seem worse" to any civilized person.

[JimL]

Killing an innocent unborn baby does not need to be made to "seem worse" to any civilized person.

No, but destroying a foetus does, which was Roy's point.

[Bill the Cat]

No, but destroying a foetus does, which was Roy's point.

A "foetus" is an unborn baby

[Bill the Cat]

No, that's what you call them to make killing them seem worse. Because the default image invariably associated with the word "baby" is a child that has already been born..

In what world? What pregnant woman have you EVER heard call what is in her stomach a "foetus" on a consistent basis?

[Catholicity]

I would wonder what Roy and Jim think of their wives ultrasounds, unless they haven't been their yet. Quite frankly, ultra sounds and ob exams during pregnancy are done to find out if the baby is growing and if the heart is still beating at a normal rate. So....umm.....while you can technically say "fetus" it doesn't change that a "fetus" is still an unborn baby, and very much alive.

[Adam]

cannot speak for anybody else, but I would respect laws more if they were created by the people directly.
But the USA is a plutocracy , and a handful of monopoly winners impose laws on the rest of us.
Historically, good (ok and maybe sometimes bad) people have had to resort to forms of civil disobedience from time to time, even at the risk of their freedom or even their lives.

I paused before automatically affixing "Amen" to yet another JR post to annoy the TWev Establishment, but then I reflected the following:
The U. S. Constitution was devised by rich men, for rich men. It originally had no Bill of Rights, but the less-super-rich insisted on incorporating them.
From 1789 to 1829 the U. S. existed virtually by law as a plutocracy. You had to have property to vote. Nor could slaves vote.
Yet 1789 to 1829 is the Golden Age of American politics that included periods when there was no effective opposition party (the Federalists lost in 2000 to Jefferson and were moribund after the War of 1812), the "Era of Good Feeling" under James Monroe, 1817-1825. We never had such good, successful presidents again. They were Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams' son. (True, Washington could be brutal, Adams made a fool of himself regarding aliens and sedition, Jefferson failed with his Embargo, Madison lost a war, Monroe gets credit for his successor's diplomacy, and the second Adams wound up in disgrace (though later sainted) as an abolitionist.
Then came popular suffrage in the 1820's and voila, the awful excuse for a human being known as Andrew Jackson became POTUS in 1829.
And it got worse.
At least we eventually did have one truly wonderful human being as POTUS. Jimmy Carter--but he failed as President.

[Roy]

Spin it as you will, the only difference between an embryo, a fetus, and a neonate is the age.

...if you ignore little details like location w.r.t. the mother and direct connectivity via the umbilical cord.

There are good arguments against abortion, so why do you and your fellows keep trotting out dishonest garbage like the above?