CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

[Picaro]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

And blacks and Jews and gypsies weren't persons either in Nazi Germany.

Blacks, Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany as races of people in Germany before WWII have nothing to do with the point of this thread.

However, the legal status of a zygote does. Care to keep your comments to that.

Same moral argument, whether you like it or not or approve of it is irrelevant; you have no real rebuttal to the point it makes about your flawed 'reasoning'. There is nothing 'objective' about the faux 'science' you think is 'rational'.

 

[otto105]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Yes and no. The govt as in the PEOPLE taking responsibility for protecting and respecting each other's beliefs about this.

so I'd say the responsibility lies with the PEOPLE
and then as PEOPLE we can agree how to formulate govt policies
that neither prohibit nor establish one belief over another regarding
abortion and abortion legislation.

NOTE: the prochoice arguments are focused on the legislation.
the prolife arguments are focused on the actual abortion.

Constitutional laws that reflect and include all people regardless of belief
should satisfy BOTH the prochoice concerns about legislation and due process
and the prolife concerns about the actual abortion process and prevention.

So that's why the PEOPLE need to address and resolve this FIRST.
THEN the govt can follow what the people AGREE is the most ethical and effective policy.

But not the other way around.

Until the people agree on policy,
the most the govt should be able to do is
PROTECT THEIR BELIEFS FROM INFRINGEMENT BY THE OTHER.

So I do believe the govt should enforce protection of BELIEFS about prolife and prochoice.
but I do not believe the govt should be ABUSED to favor biased laws
that establish one belief over another in violation of equal protections of the law without discrimination by creed.

The govt CAN prevent people of prolife beliefs from
being forced to fund and endorse abortion policies that violate their beliefs.

but likewise the govt should equally protect people of prochoice beliefs.

That's not the same as making the actual policy "for" the people.
The people should agree and make the policies "for" govt by consensus.

the govt role is to protect democratic due process and right to petition
and protections so the PEOPLE can pursue solutions in line with their beliefs.

There was time when this might have carried weight, and nobody can really argue that a victim of rape, under-aged girl knocked up, or some medical danger to the mother should not be able to have an abortion, but pregnancy is otherwise 100% preventable these days, birth control is plentiful and so is education. There really are no excuses at all any more for abortion on demand, period, and some 60 million killings, just to appease a fashion.

Fashion is what you wear.

So I suppose that you are for sex education and access to family planning contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 

[otto105]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

And blacks and Jews and gypsies weren't persons either in Nazi Germany.

Blacks, Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany as races of people in Germany before WWII have nothing to do with the point of this thread.

However, the legal status of a zygote does. Care to keep your comments to that.

Same moral argument, whether you like it or not or approve of it is irrelevant; you have no real rebuttal to the point it makes about your flawed 'reasoning'. There is nothing 'objective' about the faux 'science' you think is 'rational'.

It's definitely NOT the same moral argument. Your post was about killing races of people in favor of another in a discussion about abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

 

[Picaro]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

People are not cars or trees. Sociopaths don't make such distinctions, of course.

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

People are not cars or trees. Sociopaths don't make such distinctions, of course.

I didn't say they were, I used a metaphors (figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable).

"Sociopaths don't make such distinctions"
Every modern society on this planet makes such distinctions. Perhaps there's something wrong in your definition of sociopath.

 

[anotherlife]

The modern neo-pagan cults demand human sacrifices even more than the old pagans did, and babies are considered the primary and most desirable choice of sacrifices to their cult. The next step in their mass murder campaigns is bumping the age up, from Obama's support for 'partial birth' abortions, involving jamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull that the usual sick freaks positively cream themselves over, to 2 years old now. The same psychotic 'reasoning' Jake uses for 'fetuses' applies to older babies as well, after all.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

....


Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

1. 
   
   
   • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
   • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

You need to learn how not to write run on sentences. How is your skull?

You need to kiss my ass, and there isn't a run on sentence in my post. Your 3rd grade level of education just hasn't gotten to complex sentences yet.

I dunno. But I am good with the scissor. Isn't that good?

Yes, you have no real justification or argument re what I posted. Go ahead and jam a pair of scissors into your own skull if you want to. It doesn't bother me when sociopaths experiment with their own 'scientific methods' on themselves.

Only we liberal scientific feminists can protect you from a whole new generation of pre teen ghetto hoodie gangsta street mugglers.

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

Children are not "assembled" from parts like a cake or a car is. They are living organisms (beings) that like all other creatures, go through developmental stages. And you are wrong about acorns. Once they have germinated, they most certainly are an oak three.


Definition of seedling
: a young plant grown from seed
: a young tree before it becomes a sapling: a nursery plant not yet transplanted

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

Children are not "assembled" from parts like a cake or a car is. They are living organisms (beings) that like all other creatures, go through developmental stages. And you are wrong about acorns. Once they have germinated, they most certainly are an oak three.


Definition of seedling
: a young plant grown from seed
: a young tree before it becomes a sapling: a nursery plant not yet transplanted

1. You used the definition of “seedling” not “seed”. Different things different words.
2. If you want to abstract away specificity (like you’re trying to do with zygote = person), then children are assembled from parts. Those parts are atoms/molecules.. just like cars.
3. Metaphors are never perfect, but they are illustrative of a point. Seed is not the same thing as a tree. Zygote is not the same thing as a person. I could also use semantics to abstract away male/female to say there’s no difference, they’re just humans. Or dogs and humans are the same, they’re just mammals.
4. I find it interesting that you’ve chosen to get into some abstract semantic war, and not challenge the person who stated this: “nobody can really argue that a victim of rape, under-aged girl knocked up, or some medical danger to the mother should not be able to have an abortion”… facinating.

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

Children are not "assembled" from parts like a cake or a car is. They are living organisms (beings) that like all other creatures, go through developmental stages. And you are wrong about acorns. Once they have germinated, they most certainly are an oak three.


Definition of seedling
: a young plant grown from seed
: a young tree before it becomes a sapling: a nursery plant not yet transplanted

1. You used the definition of “seedling” not “seed”. Different things different words.

YOU used the word "zygote" (fertilized egg) which is not comparable to a seed. A zygote is, however, comparable to a seedling (a germinated seed.) No wonder you are so far off on your conclusions.

2. If you want to abstract away specificity (like you’re trying to do with zygote = person), then children are assembled from parts. Those parts are atoms/molecules.. just like cars.

Do you really not understand the biological distinctions between living organisms that have "life cycles" and inanimate objects like cars?

3. Metaphors are never perfect, but they are illustrative of a point. Seed is not the same thing as a tree.

I think Webster's has it right, even if you don't agree that they do.

Zygote is not the same thing as a person.

Our Fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove against your claim about that.

I could also use semantics to abstract away male/female to say there’s no difference, they’re just humans. Or dogs and humans are the same, they’re just mammals.

Do you need some more time to gather your thoughts?

4. I find it interesting that you’ve chosen to get into some abstract semantic war, and not challenge the person who stated this: “nobody can really argue that a victim of rape, under-aged girl knocked up, or some medical danger to the mother should not be able to have an abortion”… facinating.

Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?

 

[MPS777]

A zygote is not a person.

What makes you think a person who is in the zygote stage of their life is not a person?

It's like a half built "car" on the assembly line is not a car. An acorn is not a tree.

Children are not "assembled" from parts like a cake or a car is. They are living organisms (beings) that like all other creatures, go through developmental stages. And you are wrong about acorns. Once they have germinated, they most certainly are an oak three.


Definition of seedling
: a young plant grown from seed
: a young tree before it becomes a sapling: a nursery plant not yet transplanted

1. You used the definition of “seedling” not “seed”. Different things different words.

YOU used the word "zygote" (fertilized egg) which is not comparable to a seed. A zygote is, however, comparable to a seedling (a germinated seed.) No wonder you are so far off on your conclusions.

2. If you want to abstract away specificity (like you’re trying to do with zygote = person), then children are assembled from parts. Those parts are atoms/molecules.. just like cars.

Do you really not understand the biological distinctions between living organisms that have "life cycles" and inanimate objects like cars?

3. Metaphors are never perfect, but they are illustrative of a point. Seed is not the same thing as a tree.

I think Webster's has it right, even if you don't agree that they do.

Zygote is not the same thing as a person.

Our Fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove against your claim about that.

I could also use semantics to abstract away male/female to say there’s no difference, they’re just humans. Or dogs and humans are the same, they’re just mammals.

Do you need some more time to gather your thoughts?

4. I find it interesting that you’ve chosen to get into some abstract semantic war, and not challenge the person who stated this: “nobody can really argue that a victim of rape, under-aged girl knocked up, or some medical danger to the mother should not be able to have an abortion”… facinating.

Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?

>>>”YOU used the word "zygote" (fertilized egg) which is not comparable to a seed. A zygote is, however, comparable to a seedling (a germinated seed.) No wonder you are so far off on your conclusions”

A seed is fertilized. But again, its just a metaphor, they’re never exact.. by definition.

>>>”Do you really not understand the biological distinctions between living organisms that have "life cycles" and inanimate objects like cars?”

Oh I get the difference. Zygote is a different stage then embryo, embryo is a different stage then fetus.

>>>”I think Webster's has it right, even if you don't agree that they do.”

Here’s the webster’s definition of metaphor, I think you need it:
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

>>>”Our Fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove against your claim about that.”

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

 

[MPS777]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights then one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

 

[rightwinger]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

God bless America

Read the 14 th amendment

 

[otto105]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

A fetus in the womb is not a child.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

A fetus in the womb is not a child.

Our Fetal Homicide laws already prove you wrong about that. I suggest that you try selling your denials to the lawyers involved in the cases where people have already been convicted of MURDER for killing "children in the womb" during a criminal act.

 

[MPS777]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

The law also doesn’t give equal protection to zygotes killed in the womb during abortion. And in a way I think the absurdity of the law kind of proves my point. How could this law be constitutional if it doesn’t provide “equal protection of the laws” to all zygotes? Well if zygotes are not “persons” then it’s fine.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

The law also doesn’t give equal protection to zygotes killed in the womb during abortion. And in a way I think the absurdity of the law kind of proves my point. How could this law be constitutional if it doesn’t provide “equal protection of the laws” to all zygotes? Well if zygotes are not “persons” then it’s fine.

Welcome to my world.