CDZ Can policies be agreed on by prochoice and prolife to reduce and prevent abortion

[task0778]

They are distinguasable from other animals at the moment of conception. DNA analysis can make this distinction quite easily...

I like to think that humans are more than a collection of chemicals.

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

Try walking into a coma ward and shooting one... See if the courts agree with you. As for the other. Dead is dead. This thread is about the living.

Those courts also recognize that if my child is in an irreversible coma I can legally terminate their life. Not unlike an abortion I think? This thread is about what it means to be alive.

Do the courts also decide who can and cannot have an abortion, case by case as they do in your scenario for anybody in an irreversable coma? That's why your scenario is not like an abortion. The law varies state by state I think, but if a woman claims her pregnancy was due to a rape or incest is there a trial or proof required? That unborn child is ALIVE, it just hasn't been born yet. I see a lot of concern for the mother, who I suspect in most was not raped, but none for the child.

 

[alang1216]

I like to think that humans are more than a collection of chemicals.

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

Try walking into a coma ward and shooting one... See if the courts agree with you. As for the other. Dead is dead. This thread is about the living.

Those courts also recognize that if my child is in an irreversible coma I can legally terminate their life. Not unlike an abortion I think? This thread is about what it means to be alive.

Do the courts also decide who can and cannot have an abortion, case by case as they do in your scenario for anybody in an irreversable coma? That's why your scenario is not like an abortion. The law varies state by state I think, but if a woman claims her pregnancy was due to a rape or incest is there a trial or proof required? That unborn child is ALIVE, it just hasn't been born yet. I see a lot of concern for the mother, who I suspect in most was not raped, but none for the child.

Courts have establish criteria for ending a life. Exactly like for abortion. A tumor is ALIVE, why aren't you concerned with saving its' life? You have given a view on when life begins but you seem to be having trouble defining when it ends? I'd say if you can't answer you don't really understand the question.

 

[task0778]

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

Try walking into a coma ward and shooting one... See if the courts agree with you. As for the other. Dead is dead. This thread is about the living.

Those courts also recognize that if my child is in an irreversible coma I can legally terminate their life. Not unlike an abortion I think? This thread is about what it means to be alive.

Do the courts also decide who can and cannot have an abortion, case by case as they do in your scenario for anybody in an irreversable coma? That's why your scenario is not like an abortion. The law varies state by state I think, but if a woman claims her pregnancy was due to a rape or incest is there a trial or proof required? That unborn child is ALIVE, it just hasn't been born yet. I see a lot of concern for the mother, who I suspect in most was not raped, but none for the child.

Courts have establish criteria for ending a life. Exactly like for abortion. A tumor is ALIVE, why aren't you concerned with saving its' life? You have given a view on when life begins but you seem to be having trouble defining when it ends? I'd say if you can't answer you don't really understand the question.

Comparing a tumor to a fetus is really insulting, there are quite a number of couples who suffered a miscarriage who would gladly knock your teeth out for that thoughtless and insensitive remark. My wife and Iost a baby to a miscarriage, that pain never leaves you; this being the CDZ I can't really tell you what I think of that remark. A tumor doesn't have a potential life, it will never be born. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

To equate a court order ending a life that is comatose and has no chance of regaining consciousness to an abortion is beyond ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I can define when a life ends or should end, pre-birth or not. And it ain't when some woman claims she was raped when she wasn't and so a baby dies with no one to defend is/her right to life.

 

[Vastator]

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

Try walking into a coma ward and shooting one... See if the courts agree with you. As for the other. Dead is dead. This thread is about the living.

Those courts also recognize that if my child is in an irreversible coma I can legally terminate their life. Not unlike an abortion I think? This thread is about what it means to be alive.

Do the courts also decide who can and cannot have an abortion, case by case as they do in your scenario for anybody in an irreversable coma? That's why your scenario is not like an abortion. The law varies state by state I think, but if a woman claims her pregnancy was due to a rape or incest is there a trial or proof required? That unborn child is ALIVE, it just hasn't been born yet. I see a lot of concern for the mother, who I suspect in most was not raped, but none for the child.

Courts have establish criteria for ending a life. Exactly like for abortion. A tumor is ALIVE, why aren't you concerned with saving its' life? You have given a view on when life begins but you seem to be having trouble defining when it ends? I'd say if you can't answer you don't really understand the question.

A tumor is an anomolous growth that presents a hazard to the person. It isn't its own genus and species. Much like you view children to be cancerous burdens to be killed... That's how some feel about liberals. So... Maybe we can strike up a deal after all...

 

[Vastator]

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

Try walking into a coma ward and shooting one... See if the courts agree with you. As for the other. Dead is dead. This thread is about the living.

Those courts also recognize that if my child is in an irreversible coma I can legally terminate their life. Not unlike an abortion I think? This thread is about what it means to be alive.

Do the courts also decide who can and cannot have an abortion, case by case as they do in your scenario for anybody in an irreversable coma? That's why your scenario is not like an abortion. The law varies state by state I think, but if a woman claims her pregnancy was due to a rape or incest is there a trial or proof required? That unborn child is ALIVE, it just hasn't been born yet. I see a lot of concern for the mother, who I suspect in most was not raped, but none for the child.

Courts have establish criteria for ending a life. Exactly like for abortion. A tumor is ALIVE, why aren't you concerned with saving its' life? You have given a view on when life begins but you seem to be having trouble defining when it ends? I'd say if you can't answer you don't really understand the question.

Comparing a tumor to a fetus is really insulting, there are quite a number of couples who suffered a miscarriage who would gladly knock your teeth out for that thoughtless and insensitive remark. My wife and Iost a baby to a miscarriage, that pain never leaves you; this being the CDZ I can't really tell you what I think of that remark. A tumor doesn't have a potential life, it will never be born. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

To equate a court order ending a life that is comatose and has no chance of regaining consciousness to an abortion is beyond ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I can define when a life ends or should end, pre-birth or not. And it ain't when some woman claims she was raped when she wasn't and so a baby dies with no one to defend is/her right to life.

Not to mention the overwhelming majority of those aborted are perfectly healthy people until they are murdered...

 

[alang1216]

A tumor doesn't have a potential life, it will never be born.

I didn't mean to offend you, only to understand you. In my view a fertilized egg has a 'potential' life but is not yet 'life' itself. I know very well how much that potential can mean to someone who wants a baby but that same potential may be a source of great pain to someone who does not.

To equate a court order ending a life that is comatose and has no chance of regaining consciousness to an abortion is beyond ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I can define when a life ends or should end, pre-birth or not.

Can you?

 

[alang1216]

It isn't its own genus and species.

I don't know what you have sired but my kids are homo sapiens, just like me.

 

[Vastator]

It isn't its own genus and species.

I don't know what you have sired but my kids are homo sapiens, just like me.

They couldn't be just like you. You could only contribute half of their genetic make up. Are you suggesting that cancer is its own genus, and species? As I've come to understand it; it is the uncontrolled growth of cells. Regardless of what species it happens in...

 

[Chuz Life]

A tumor doesn't have a potential life, it will never be born.

I didn't mean to offend you, only to understand you. In my view a fertilized egg has a 'potential' life but is not yet 'life' itself. I know very well how much that potential can mean to someone who wants a baby but that same potential may be a source of great pain to someone who does not.

To equate a court order ending a life that is comatose and has no chance of regaining consciousness to an abortion is beyond ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I can define when a life ends or should end, pre-birth or not.

Can you?

Mere potential lives do not physically exist.

A child in the womb does in fact physically exist and is alive. . . Therefore, it is more than a mere "potential" life.

 

[alang1216]

Mere potential lives do not physically exist.

A child in the womb does in fact physically exist and is alive. . . Therefore, it is more than a mere "potential" life.

The blueprint for a house physically exists, is it a house?

Children are not composed of a single set of DNA molecules. Children can think and feel, things DNA can not do.

 

[Chuz Life]

Mere potential lives do not physically exist.

A child in the womb does in fact physically exist and is alive. . . Therefore, it is more than a mere "potential" life.

The blueprint for a house physically exists, is it a house?

Children are not composed of a single set of DNA molecules. Children can think and feel, things DNA can not do.

Apples and oranges.

To make your comparison anything close to being legit, houses would have to be living organisms and "blueprints" would be tantamount to speculating or planning on what the child of two parents might be.

Houses (unlike children) are not living beings that CAN be recognized as a separate living being. . . Even when they are in the earliest stages of their life, growth and development.

If putting a nail into a board did in fact begin a new house's "life" and you want to call it that? Be my guest.

It wouldn't change the biological facts about when and how a child's life begins though.

 

[sartre play]

Five pages in,& so far just people reaffirming the same point of view they came in with. how about leave out abortion & discuss ways to help prevent abortion?

 

[sartre play]

is my view a non starter?

 

[Chuz Life]

I am kind of curious as to why any elective abortion proponents would care about the numbers of abortions one way or the other.

According to the, it's NOT a child, its just a clump of cells, comparable to a cancer tumor or parasite, its the womans choice no matter what, Roe is settled law and it aint ever going to change. . .

So, anything an abortion proponent claims to want to reduce the number of abortions? My suspicion go way up.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am kind of curious as to why any elective abortion proponents would care about the numbers of abortions one way or the other.

According to the, it's NOT a child, its just a clump of cells, comparable to a cancer tumor or parasite, its the womans choice no matter what, Roe is settled law and it aint ever going to change. . .

So, anything an abortion proponent claims to want to reduce the number of abortions? My suspicion go way up.

Man, I hate my fucking phone.

 

[Chuz Life]

`
`
There is a reason the republican party right opposes abortion but it is rooted firmly in Christian theology. It's called; a Soul. A spiritual belief.

Sorry, but I can't disagree more.

I challenge anyone to prove that "souls" even exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

They are distinguasable from other animals at the moment of conception. DNA analysis can make this distinction quite easily...

I like to think that humans are more than a collection of chemicals.

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

What about children born with only a brain stem? No thoughts, no feelings, can't breathe on their own and will NEVER be "viable" without extreme medical assistance.

Are they children? Persons?

 

[Windparadox]

Sorry, but I can't disagree more.I challenge anyone to prove that "souls" even exist.

`
I don't care what you believe. That's not the topic. It's what they believe.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sorry, but I can't disagree more.I challenge anyone to prove that "souls" even exist.

`
I don't care what you believe. That's not the topic. It's what they believe.

Why isn't the topic "what the Constitution and legal definitions say?"

 

[alang1216]

They are distinguasable from other animals at the moment of conception. DNA analysis can make this distinction quite easily...

I like to think that humans are more than a collection of chemicals.

No ones infringing on your prerogative to think so. Whatever else they may be... They are also a very specific collection of chemicals...

A corpse or a human in a coma with no brain activity is also a very specific collection of chemicals. Unfortunately no longer a person.

What about children born with only a brain stem? No thoughts, no feelings, can't breathe on their own and will NEVER be "viable" without extreme medical assistance.

Are they children? Persons?

No. Tragic situation but no different from an adult human in a coma with no brain activity.