20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Montrovant]

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

 

[jc456]

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

That would be a false equivalency. So in effect a woman carring a child with such severe defects it will die at birth would have carry it to term knowing it is dead? That is cold.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

Killing it or waiting until the end of the pregnancy?

 

[jc456]

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

 

[Coyote]

That would be a false equivalency. So in effect a woman carring a child with such severe defects it will die at birth would have carry it to term knowing it is dead? That is cold.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

Killing it or waiting until the end of the pregnancy?

Carrying a baby that is for all intents and purposes "dead" for an extra 3 or 4 or 5 months is a big difference. Pregnancy isnt exactly fun.

 

[jc456]

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

Killing it or waiting until the end of the pregnancy?

Carrying a baby that is for all intents and purposes "dead" for an extra 3 or 4 or 5 months is a big difference. Pregnancy isnt exactly fun.

then women should avoid it.

 

[Montrovant]

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

Meh, I wouldn't use child. I think of child more in anatomy/physiology terms, as a stage of life between infancy and adolescence.

The argument that I see, and that I tend to agree with, is that a zygote, embryo, or fetus, at least up to a certain stage of development, does not constitute a person. I have no problem with abortion before the brain is formed, for example, for any reason, because without a brain I don't think it is a person; similar to brain death constituting a person being dead, even if the body still functions. If anyone argues that a fetus is not human, they are at best misusing terms, and should stick to the argument that a fetus is not a person. Person and human are not quite the same thing; if we ever encounter an intelligent alien species, they may be considered persons while not being human.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is a disgusting and shameful thing that it is necessary to make such a law in our society.
Anyone defending it, and certainly anyone voting against it, is equally disgusting.

 

[Montrovant]

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

 

[Faun]

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Depends on the state. In California, for example, one can be charged with “murder” for unlawfully killing a “fetus.”

CHAPTER 1. Homicide

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.​

Any fetus?

A dog fetus?

A cat fetus?

Not a person, as defined by the 14th Amendment. And defined as separate from murdering a human being.

The 14th amendment defines "persons?"

Quote it.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.​

Embryos are neither counted nor exempted. “Persons” are.

 

[jc456]

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/.../issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is a disgusting and shameful thing that it is necessary to make such a law in our society.
Anyone defending it, and certainly anyone voting against it, is equally disgusting.

 

[Montrovant]

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

If you continue to immediately after what you quoted, you'll find this:

Specifically,the Court stated, "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."6 "As a result of its self-professed inability to decide when the life of a human being begins, the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 abortion decision without considering whether unborn children are living human beings." 7 Implicit in this decision is the finding that unborn children are not protected as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the court, according to this, did not decide based on whether a fetus is alive. It based it on whether a fetus is a person under the 14th. Your link, in fact, specifically says that the court did not decide on when the life of a human being begins.

 

[jc456]

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

If you continue to immediately after what you quoted, you'll find this:

Specifically,the Court stated, "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."6 "As a result of its self-professed inability to decide when the life of a human being begins, the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 abortion decision without considering whether unborn children are living human beings." 7 Implicit in this decision is the finding that unborn children are not protected as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the court, according to this, did not decide based on whether a fetus is alive. It based it on whether a fetus is a person under the 14th. Your link, in fact, specifically says that the court did not decide on when the life of a human being begins.

yes I know. I read it.

 

[Montrovant]

Was the only question the court asked whether a fetus is alive? Did it ask that question at all? Many things are alive, but killing them does not necessarily make a crime. If it did, gardeners would go to jail en mass.

No, the important question was whether or not a fetus constitutes a person for the purposes of constitutional protections.

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

If you continue to immediately after what you quoted, you'll find this:

Specifically,the Court stated, "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."6 "As a result of its self-professed inability to decide when the life of a human being begins, the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 abortion decision without considering whether unborn children are living human beings." 7 Implicit in this decision is the finding that unborn children are not protected as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the court, according to this, did not decide based on whether a fetus is alive. It based it on whether a fetus is a person under the 14th. Your link, in fact, specifically says that the court did not decide on when the life of a human being begins.

yes I know. I read it.

Sorry, I thought you were saying "the decision was decided from" whether a fetus is alive.

 

[jc456]

yeah, pretty much that was what the decision was decided from.

"Looking first to the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, said "the only question to be asked of the creature claiming [Fourteenth Amendment] protection is this: 'Is he a man?" 3 Yet, surprisingly, this question went unanswered in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that served to exclude an entire segment of the population from the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Roe, the Supreme Court declared itself unable to answer the question of when the life of a human being begins.5"

And for me, if it grows it is alive. Not sure how they missed that.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

If you continue to immediately after what you quoted, you'll find this:

Specifically,the Court stated, "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."6 "As a result of its self-professed inability to decide when the life of a human being begins, the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 abortion decision without considering whether unborn children are living human beings." 7 Implicit in this decision is the finding that unborn children are not protected as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the court, according to this, did not decide based on whether a fetus is alive. It based it on whether a fetus is a person under the 14th. Your link, in fact, specifically says that the court did not decide on when the life of a human being begins.

yes I know. I read it.

Sorry, I thought you were saying "the decision was decided from" whether a fetus is alive.

it was and i posted the comments.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Roe v Wade.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol. 14, No. 1, 3 Hollowell.pdf

If you continue to immediately after what you quoted, you'll find this:

Specifically,the Court stated, "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."6 "As a result of its self-professed inability to decide when the life of a human being begins, the Supreme Court rendered its 1973 abortion decision without considering whether unborn children are living human beings." 7 Implicit in this decision is the finding that unborn children are not protected as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the court, according to this, did not decide based on whether a fetus is alive. It based it on whether a fetus is a person under the 14th. Your link, in fact, specifically says that the court did not decide on when the life of a human being begins.

yes I know. I read it.

Sorry, I thought you were saying "the decision was decided from" whether a fetus is alive.

it was and i posted the comments.

OK, now I'm confused. I showed the rest of the paragraph you quoted from your link, in which states clearly that the court did NOT consider if a fetus is a living human being. Instead, the court ruled on whether a fetus is a person within the context of the 14th amendment. You replied to that by saying "yes I know." Now you are saying that the decision came from the question of whether a fetus is alive again?

I'm not sure how you can agree that the question was of whether a fetus is a person under the 14th, at the same time you seem to say the question the court's decision came from is whether a fetus is alive.

 

[Chuz Life]

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

Meh, I wouldn't use child. I think of child more in anatomy/physiology terms, as a stage of life between infancy and adolescence.

The argument that I see, and that I tend to agree with, is that a zygote, embryo, or fetus, at least up to a certain stage of development, does not constitute a person. I have no problem with abortion before the brain is formed, for example, for any reason, because without a brain I don't think it is a person; similar to brain death constituting a person being dead, even if the body still functions. If anyone argues that a fetus is not human, they are at best misusing terms, and should stick to the argument that a fetus is not a person. Person and human are not quite the same thing; if we ever encounter an intelligent alien species, they may be considered persons while not being human.

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

 

[Flopper]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------


Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

The bill will die in the Senate just as dozens of other have over the years. Republicans have a hard time getting 52 votes and certainly won't get 60.

No biggie. We will just have to gear up and try again.

And abortion legislation will continue to fail because while Americans may hate abortion they are is no consensus on whether it should be legal or not. Even Republicans who are leaders in the antiabortion fight such as Rep. Tim Murphy are willing to turn to abortion when an unwanted pregnancy effects them or their family.

Abortion rates have been falling since there peak of 29 million a year in 1980 to 14 million and they will continue to fall as the stigma of child birth out of wedlock falls. Someday abortion may once again be illegal but not till Americans feel there is no need for it.

Be honest.

Do you expect that any of that information is going to change me efforts?

If your answer is no. . . Then, why waste your time posting it?

You aren't the only one reading this. Some minds are open and some are closed. Obviously, yours is the latter.

 

[Montrovant]

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

Meh, I wouldn't use child. I think of child more in anatomy/physiology terms, as a stage of life between infancy and adolescence.

The argument that I see, and that I tend to agree with, is that a zygote, embryo, or fetus, at least up to a certain stage of development, does not constitute a person. I have no problem with abortion before the brain is formed, for example, for any reason, because without a brain I don't think it is a person; similar to brain death constituting a person being dead, even if the body still functions. If anyone argues that a fetus is not human, they are at best misusing terms, and should stick to the argument that a fetus is not a person. Person and human are not quite the same thing; if we ever encounter an intelligent alien species, they may be considered persons while not being human.

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other? I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

 

[John Shaw]

The problem is that you can't really detect many life-threatening defects until after 20 weeks. I heard a female doctor talking about her patients and herself on the radio and it was ... pretty heart-breaking, actually. She said that no one goes in there after 20 weeks because they suddenly decided they want an abortion. They do it because either the mother is in danger of dying from the pregnancy, or the newborn will suffer tremendously after birth and likely die anyway.