Long after most have stopped caring, PP cleared, CMP leaders faces felony indictment

[Psychic Missile]

And two-thirds of human conceptions, i.e human babies” according to your argument, are spontaneously aborted by nature.

Aw, you missed.

[Tassman]

Simply false. Rambam explained that in order to be aborted, the fetus had to be given the status of "rodef", or "pursuer". Only humans can be given that status, and it must be assigned to the fetus before it can be given the punishment for a rodef.

Not so, you’re looking at this through the lens of your Christian ideology. Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person):

"...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

Thus, whilst the fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."

This is simply stupid at its basest level. Miscarriages are natural processes, like heart attacks and strokes. So, by your logic, murder should be ok because 100% of humans die anyway.

No, what’s stupid is assigning the full status of a human being (not to mention the attendant hysteria about “murdering and mangling innocent babies”) to a collection of insensate cells, two thirds of which are spontaneously aborted by nature in any event. Especially given that 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester…long before there is any recognizable electroencephalography, i.e. brain activity. This doesn’t develop until c. 24+ weeks after conception.

Religious ideology regarding the start of human life is no foundation for any law…as has been established by the courts.

[Psychic Missile]

Not so, you’re looking at this through the lens of your Christian ideology. Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person):

"...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

Thus, whilst the fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."



No, what’s stupid is assigning the full status of a human being (not to mention the attendant hysteria about “murdering and mangling innocent babies”) to a collection of insensate cells, two thirds of which are spontaneously aborted by nature in any event. Especially given that 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester…long before there is any recognizable electroencephalography, i.e. brain activity. This doesn’t develop until c. 24+ weeks after conception.

Religious ideology regarding the start of human life is no foundation for any law…as has been established by the courts.

Do you think the beginning of an individual human life should be defined by some phase in brain development?

[Psychic Missile]

P1: At the moment of conception, an organism is formed that meets even a strict scientific definition of life.
P2: This organism has human DNA.
P3: This organism has committed no illegal or immoral acts.
P4: Abortion terminates a living organism.
P5: Society's laws are designed specifically to protect the innocent.

C: Abortion kills an innocent human life that deserves the full protection of the law.

Hey MM, I appreciate the formalizing of your argument, but there seems to be some lacking information in your premises. Would you mind clarifying a few things?

What is the definition of life you are using?
What criteria should grant an organism with human DNA legal rights?
Why do you think society's laws are designed "specifically to protect the innocent"?
Do you think a woman pregnant with a child they don't want is or can be innocent as well?
Do you think it can be the case that killing "an innocent human life" is not immoral?

[Bill the Cat]

Not so, you’re looking at this through the lens of your Christian ideology. Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person):

"...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' "

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

Thus, whilst the fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."

That ignores Rambam's explanation. Only someone who is subject to Torah can be considered a rodef. And only humans are subject to Torah.

No, what’s stupid is assigning the full status of a human being

No, what's stupid is this fictional "full status" nonsense.

(not to mention the attendant hysteria about “murdering and mangling innocent babies”)

That's exactly what happens.

to a collection of insensate cells,

You are nothing more than a collection of cells, so that marginalization is a red herring.

two thirds of which are spontaneously aborted by nature in any event.

Exactly. Natural processes. Chemical and surgical abortions are NOT natural.

Especially given that 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester…long before there is any recognizable electroencephalography, i.e. brain activity. This doesn’t develop until c. 24+ weeks after conception.

So what? Brain activity is just a specialization. The fetus does not magically become "human" just because certain cells begin to function in a certain way.

Religious ideology regarding the start of human life is no foundation for any law…as has been established by the courts.

Biology should be. And biology is clear as to when an individual member of our species begins its pattern of growth and development. And at that point, the Law already protects the new member as a unique individual.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

18 U.S. Code § 1841
(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

© Copyright Original Source

So, the law ALREADY protects the unborn AT ANY STAGE as a separate human with rights.

[Cow Poke]

So, the law ALREADY protects the unborn AT ANY STAGE as a separate human with rights.

Except, of course, where a woman decides that particular human is an inconveniences, and hires somebody to kill him/her.

[Mountain Man]

Hey MM, I appreciate the formalizing of your argument, but there seems to be some lacking information in your premises. Would you mind clarifying a few things?

What is the definition of life you are using?
What criteria should grant an organism with human DNA legal rights?
Why do you think society's laws are designed "specifically to protect the innocent"?
Do you think a woman pregnant with a child they don't want is or can be innocent as well?
Do you think it can be the case that killing "an innocent human life" is not immoral?

I'm using a formal scientific definition of life. There are several, but I have yet to find one that would exclude an embryo.

The fact that an embryo is an innocent human life renders it inherently worthy of legal protection.

Why do laws exist except to protect the innocent? If the innocent were not in danger of being exploited or harmed then we would have no need for laws.

The child was conceived through no fault of its own. It is wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whether the mother wants the child or not.

I can't think of any instances where killing innocent human life is not immoral.

[Adrift]

That ignores Rambam's explanation. Only someone who is subject to Torah can be considered a rodef. And only humans are subject to Torah.

To add to the Talmudic/Halachic confusion about the status of unborn children, and the penalty of their murder, there's this from Sanhedrin 57b concerning Noahides,

R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholar's Book of Aggada: A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation.

On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require; this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen]. At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given; And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness; at the hand of man: but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify.

On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed.

What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother's womb.

The Noahide command in view here comes from:

Genesis 9:5-6 For your lifeblood I will surely exact punishment, from every living creature I will exact punishment. From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative. “Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.” (NET Translation)

Genesis 9:5-6 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every living thing will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. He that sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of the Aleim made he man. - (Translation From the Hebrew by Julius Bate, c. 1773)


It appears also that the Rabbis in the Talmudic passage are translating Genesis 9:5 very literally so that the Hebrew word בָּֽאָדָ֖ם, (bā·’ā·ḏām), which is typically translated "by man" is here translated "within man".

Technically these rules wouldn't apply only to Noahides, because as Sanhedrin 59a points out, the Noahide rules were binding on both Gentile Noahides and Jews (though the commandments given at Sinai to the Jews were not necessarily applicable to Noahides). There are a number of contradictory halacha in the Talmud concerning abortion, and some Jewish scholars (e.g. Abraham Geiger), believed that the above Noahide rule reflected an earlier Rabbinic tradition that the later Rabbinic tradition (children were not persons until birth) deviated from.

[Tassman]

Do you think the beginning of an individual human life should be defined by some phase in brain development?

We define the end of a human by brain death. Hence it’s reasonable to define the beginning of “humanness” at the commencement of brain activity and this doesn't develop until c. 24+ weeks after conception.

So, given that over 90% of abortions are performed within the first trimester it is merely partisan religious politics to emote about the “murder of babies”. Furthermore religious ideology as per the agenda of the so-called Centre for Medical Progress should not be the basis of the law in a secular society like the US…especially when it’s based upon dishonest editing and overt propaganda directed against a legitimate organization such as Planned Parenthood.

[Psychic Missile]

I'm using a formal scientific definition of life. There are several, but I have yet to find one that would exclude an embryo.

The fact that an embryo is an innocent human life renders it inherently worthy of legal protection.

Why do laws exist except to protect the innocent? If the innocent were not in danger of being exploited or harmed then we would have no need for laws.

The child was conceived through no fault of its own. It is wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whether the mother wants the child or not.

I can't think of any instances where killing innocent human life is not immoral.

I am curious what definition of human life you are using that would include an embryo and exclude, for example, spermatozoa or a vestigial conjoined twin, which I assume you do not want to extend legal protection.

It is true that the oldest laws related to moral codes to right wrongs, but that isn't the only reason a body of laws could exist. However, you might as well be saying "the purpose of laws should be to protect the innocent", in which case there is no issue.

I agree the embryo is innocent of wrongdoing. My question is if a woman pregnant with a child they don't want is or can also be innocent.

What about accidental killing (excusable homicide), killing at the request of the innocent (assisted suicide), or killing an innocent to prevent suffering (pulling the plug)?

[Bill the Cat]

We define the end of a human by brain death. .

http://www.today.com/news/pronounced...urn-2D80555113
http://www.westernjournalism.com/man...akes-12-years/

So, no we don't in certain cases. The end of life is the permanent termination of growth and development and the permanent termination of bodily functions. Brain activity is a bodily function.

[Mountain Man]

I am curious what definition of human life you are using that would include an embryo and exclude, for example, spermatozoa or a vestigial conjoined twin, which I assume you do not want to extend legal protection.

It is true that the oldest laws related to moral codes to right wrongs, but that isn't the only reason a body of laws could exist. However, you might as well be saying "the purpose of laws should be to protect the innocent", in which case there is no issue.

I agree the embryo is innocent of wrongdoing. My question is if a woman pregnant with a child they don't want is or can also be innocent.

What about accidental killing (excusable homicide), killing at the request of the innocent (assisted suicide), or killing an innocent to prevent suffering (pulling the plug)?

Like I said, any reasonable definition of life will do, because I have yet to find one that would exclude a human embryo. For the sake of argument, here's one I found with a quick Google search: "Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction." At the same time, I don't see how this definition would apply to spermatozoa or a vestigial conjoined twin.

No disagreement on your second point.

Third point, you'll have to explain to me how a woman deciding she doesn't want a child somehow confers guilt onto the child.

There is certainly a case to be made for graded absolutism, such as a bus driver who has to decide between hitting a child or plunging a bus full passengers off a cliff, but I don't think that applies to to the issue of abortion for reasons that I think have been made clear.

[Tassman]

http://www.today.com/news/pronounced...urn-2D80555113
http://www.westernjournalism.com/man...akes-12-years/

So, no we don't in certain cases. The end of life is the permanent termination of growth and development and the permanent termination of bodily functions. Brain activity is a bodily function.

In neither of your examples was the person actually 'brain dead' and therefore have no bearing on the point being made.

[Bill the Cat]

In neither of your examples was the person actually 'brain dead' and therefore have no bearing on the point being made.

From the first link...

Source: http://www.today.com/news/pronounced-dead-man-takes-miraculous-turn-2D80555113

Taken first to a local hospital, he was airlifted 50 miles away to United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, where there was a trauma unit that might be able to treat the severe damage he had done to his brain. But 36 hours after the accident, doctors performed a PET scan of his brain and informed his parents, along with other family members who had gathered to keep vigil at the hospital, that there was no blood flowing to Zack’s brain; he was brain-dead.

Doctors showed the scan to Zack’s parents, and, Doug Dunlap told Morales, “There was no activity at all. No blood flow at all.”

‘They said he was brain-dead’

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

From the first link...

Source: http://www.today.com/news/pronounced-dead-man-takes-miraculous-turn-2D80555113

Taken first to a local hospital, he was airlifted 50 miles away to United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, where there was a trauma unit that might be able to treat the severe damage he had done to his brain. But 36 hours after the accident, doctors performed a PET scan of his brain and informed his parents, along with other family members who had gathered to keep vigil at the hospital, that there was no blood flowing to Zack’s brain; he was brain-dead.

Doctors showed the scan to Zack’s parents, and, Doug Dunlap told Morales, “There was no activity at all. No blood flow at all.”

‘They said he was brain-dead’

© Copyright Original Source

Clearly, they were wrong.