CDZ Chuz Life's list of (Abortion related) questions that abortion proponents can't or will not answer.

[G.T.]

First, I don't propone abortion. I merely think it's not my or anyone else's business to encourage or prohibit a pregnant woman's having the procedure performed.

What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?

There was no biological moment. There was a biological event, and that event was the acrosome reaction.

When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement?

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

I don't know. I have not observed the moment of an oak tree's emergence from the womb we call an acorn.

True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

Not enough information is in the image for me to be certain. If the object shown in the image is in fact a human fetus that is inside a womb, my answer is, no, it is the image of a fetus. It's worth noting that I have no idea of when a genus homo fetus ceases to resemble those of a genus pan one.

A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

Given the context of your OP, that is a leading question; thus I won't answer it. I'll rephrase it so it is neutrally presented, and then I'll answer the revised question. If you can produce you own version that doesn't contain qualitative adjectives that force the responder to tacitly agree to them as well as the rest of the question's content, by all means, present it and I'll answer it.

A human sperm cell and and a human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

True

Starting at any age, any existing human being's (person's) aging can be traced all the way back to the moment of their biological conception. . . but no further. True or False:

False. Humans', people's, a person's age is measured from the point of emergence from the womb. A fetus' age can be traced to the moment of conception. A fetus is no longer a fetus when it leaves the womb.

If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No?

What? Can you rewrite that so it's a coherent question?

I agree, or at least do not wish to disagree, with most of your post, however, I would like to address one thing:

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

If this were true, and I do not wish to debate that as it is not the point here, then how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

I reconcile the paradox by saying that I wouldn't in any instance see one charged with two counts of murder if one happens to murder a pregnant woman. Insofar as I won't grant personhood to a fetus in an abortion scenario, I'm not going to grant it in any other. I think the laws as they exist now -- declaring the murder of pregnant woman as a double murder, if you will -- are the source of the inconsistency.

If one asks me what I think about something, my answer will derive from my principles. I realize that my principles may in certain instances lead to objectionable consequences. I've considered that and determined that those circumstances apply to exceptions not norms, and because of that, I don't have a problem with an occasionally "disturbing" outcome resulting from the consistent application of my principles.

This is key.

If you somehow found yourself convicted of a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman...
(As many people have been convicted already)

Given your stated view on the legitimacy of those (our fetal homicide) laws. . .

What would your defense, appeal / counter arguments be?

its an inconsistency in the law. not in some john or jane dough's views on abortion

 

[Coyote]

Looking at the trolling, flaming and personal attacks in several of the posts on this thread... can anyone (mods?) Help me understand the difference (if any) between the cdz and the basement (less moderated) zones here on usmb?

Chuz, speaking as a moderator here - you set up your OP in an inflammatory manner by essentially targeting one side - "the left" - it's a bit difficult to create a CDZ thread (where civil discussion is the goal) when the OP isn't exactly that. You would do better to leave out partisan leanings and post an OP that asks the questions - and - asks for answers.

I'm going to close this - could you repost the OP in a manner that doesn't set one side on the defensive, because as long as you do that, you aren't going to get a civil debate.