CDZ Abortion

[Chuz Life]

Alang, you said you still disagree and that's fine. You said you thought that I have put a lot of effort into my position and I appreciate that.

Still would like to see your thoughts on these last few posts.

Been trying hard to give you something more to think about.

Like you said, I have put a lot into it and constructive feedback like yours doesn't happen often.

And you have thanks. I think I manage to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

WINNER!

 

[alang1216]

And you have my thanks. I think I managed to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

WINNER!

Thanks, I'll take that as agreement. Where do we go from here? I see no reason to change my feelings on abortion and I think I have the stronger position since technology will soon render your point of view anachronistic. When any cell can be chemically manipulated to become a zygote what does that mean? You can't render personhood to every cell in everyone's body.

 

[Chuz Life]

And you have my thanks. I think I managed to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

WINNER!

Thanks, I'll take that as agreement. Where do we go from here? I see no reason to change my feelings on abortion and I think I have the stronger position since technology will soon render your point of view anachronistic. When any cell can be chemically manipulated to become a zygote what does that mean? You can't render personhood to every cell in everyone's body.

You have not addressed the aspects of potential and reality. Just because other cells MIGHT be able to be manipulated as you suggest. . . They would not be zygote stage or embryos until they ARE so manipulated.

Human zygote stage already ARE that which you are suggesting others cells MIGHT BE manipulated into being.

Lawmakers will see that as a clear distinction.

 

[320 Years of History]

And you have my thanks. I think I managed to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

WINNER!

Thanks, I'll take that as agreement. Where do we go from here? I see no reason to change my feelings on abortion and I think I have the stronger position since technology will soon render your point of view anachronistic. When any cell can be chemically manipulated to become a zygote what does that mean? You can't render personhood to every cell in everyone's body.

You have not addressed the aspects of potential and reality. Just because other cells MIGHT be able to be manipulated as you suggest. . . They would not be zygote stage or embryos until they ARE so manipulated.

Human zygote stage already ARE that which you are suggesting others cells MIGHT BE manipulated into being.

Lawmakers will see that as a clear distinction.

Red:
The potentiality of something isn't a solid basis for arguing for or against much of anything.

Hypothesis contrary to fact

 

[Chuz Life]

Alang, you said you still disagree and that's fine. You said you thought that I have put a lot of effort into my position and I appreciate that.

Still would like to see your thoughts on these last few posts.

Been trying hard to give you something more to think about.

Like you said, I have put a lot into it and constructive feedback like yours doesn't happen often.

And you have thanks. I think I manage to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

Clearly, I misunderstood your comments the first time I responded to this.

I responded with "WINNER!" because I TOO look at a human being in the fetal stage of their life and see them for what they ARE (the young child of the parents who created them) and I do not look at their potential to be anything more than that.

It's kind of difficult for me to follow these posts on my phone. I don't think my phone even displayed your avatar. So, I had no idea who I was responding to.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[PK1]

The pro-death crowd will go to any depth of irrationality to justify their unjustifiable position.

---
"pro-death crowd"?
That is an irrational stmt, unless you just started a hunger strike, which will also make you a member of the "pro-death crowd" within 6 weeks.
I'm sure you are responsible for "killing" plants, if not also animals.

.

 

[PK1]

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

Even if we (society) did all you claim we SHOULD be doing for children already born, the injustice would still remain for those in the womb who are facing death by abortion.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[PK1]

To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology.

---
That is not a valid argument for what is referred to as "personhood", which is considered to be after successful birth & the baby is breathing independently, and qualifies for a SSN.

The fact that a human zygote has a unique set of DNA, reflecting its species' phylogenetic development, is less compelling to me than the life of a dog or cat (esp ape, elephant, dolphin) that has started its ontological development.
.

 

[Vigilante]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#cite_note-1

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

 

[Chuz Life]

To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology.

---
That is not a valid argument for what is referred to as "personhood", which is considered to be after successful birth & the baby is breathing independently, and qualifies for a SSN.

The fact that a human zygote has a unique set of DNA, reflecting its species' phylogenetic development, is less compelling to me than the life of a dog or cat (esp ape, elephant, dolphin) that has started its ontological development.
.

To support the claim that a child in the womb is a "person" - we already have Fetal Homicide laws that recognize (and define) children in the womb as "human beings" and those laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

That murder charge (ex post facto) establishes the personhood of the child killed. (Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one PERSON by another)

Based on all of the above, my question for you is simple. . .

Can you argue the same for an ape? Dolphin? Elephant?

 

[PK1]

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

Even if we (society) did all you claim we SHOULD be doing for children already born, the injustice would still remain for those in the womb who are facing death by abortion.

---
Get real. In our universe, death is a part of life. It's all relative to one's perspective,
By that i mean that the "death" of a single cell zygote is no big deal. Also, no value to anyone except for the prospective parents/relatives.

I value a kitten or puppy much higher than a zygote.
And i value the life of unknown, very unfortunate/distressed people (born humans) much higher than other animals (except maybe my pets).
Of course, that's my perspective and you cannot make a convincing case to me that you are more "ethical".

Why don't you worry about & help all those poor people on this world first, before getting your nose in other people's private affairs?
.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

Even if we (society) did all you claim we SHOULD be doing for children already born, the injustice would still remain for those in the womb who are facing death by abortion.

---
Get real. In our universe, death is a part of life. It's all relative to one's perspective,
By that i mean that the "death" of a single cell zygote is no big deal. Also, no value to anyone except for the prospective parents/relatives.

I value a kitten or puppy much higher than a zygote.
And i value the life of unknown, very unfortunate/distressed people (born humans) much higher than other animals (except maybe my pets).
Of course, that's my perspective and you cannot make a convincing case to me that you are more "ethical".

Why don't you worry about & help all those poor people on this world first, before getting your nose in other people's private affairs?
.

Show me where it is in our Laws or Constitution that says our basic human rights are contingent upon the value placed on our lives by others.

I would like to see that.

 

[PK1]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

 

[Vigilante]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

That is NOT what the LAW states....The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"....The exception is an abortion, BUT logically how can one thatcauses death to an unborn be LEGAL, yet another ILLEGAL, as the outcome is the same, and the human, being killed, has NO SAY in the matter!

 

[PK1]

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

Even if we (society) did all you claim we SHOULD be doing for children already born, the injustice would still remain for those in the womb who are facing death by abortion.

---
Get real. In our universe, death is a part of life. It's all relative to one's perspective,
By that i mean that the "death" of a single cell zygote is no big deal. Also, no value to anyone except for the prospective parents/relatives.

I value a kitten or puppy much higher than a zygote.
And i value the life of unknown, very unfortunate/distressed people (born humans) much higher than other animals (except maybe my pets).
Of course, that's my perspective and you cannot make a convincing case to me that you are more "ethical".

Why don't you worry about & help all those poor people on this world first, before getting your nose in other people's private affairs?
.

Show me where it is in our Laws or Constitution that says our basic human rights are contingent upon the value placed on our lives by others.

I would like to see that.

---
I was referring to my ethics, not the Constitution, which does NOT establish personhood prior to human birth.
.

 

[PK1]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

 

[elektra]

It is a shame we can not post pics