CDZ Question for abortion proponents

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Chuz Life, Jul 15, 2017.

?

What is the difference between a human being in the zygote stage of their life and a zygote?

  1. There is no difference. They are the same

    50.0%
  2. I will explain the difference to everybody in this thread

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I am not an abortion proponent but they are the same

    50.0%
  4. I am not an abortion proponent but I will post the difference for you

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,981
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    I can't disagree more.

    When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.

    Which leads me to ask...

    Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?

    Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?

    I can be patient when I need to be.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  2. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,646
    Thanks Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,838
    Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.

    The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment. That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.
     
  3. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,981
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    They all say "human beings," correct? That's the one thing they all have in common.

    So, let me ask what your thoughts are on whether the definition for "natural persons" should be inclusive of all human beings, or do you think it would okay (and Constitutional) to exclude certain human beings that we (Society) might want to exclude? .

    Were they right?

    Is the Supreme Court infallible?

    What about the 35 or more fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed, Since the Roe v Wade decision?


    Personal discussions are fine. However, we are not each entitled to our own set of definitions when it comes to making policy or when dealing with laws.
     
  4. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,646
    Thanks Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,838
    The definition of natural persons would depend on the context. Where is it used, legally speaking? Whether it should include a zygote, as this thread starts with, depends on how it is being used.

    In a general sense, I think the court was correct that a fetus is not a person, not yet covered by the rights of the constitution. At what point those rights begin is a difficult question, and I think that at birth may be too far along in development, but fertilization does not make a legal person IMO.

    Some of the fetal homicide laws seem contradictory to me on their face. I do recall reading an explanation of how they can make sense even within the context of Roe, but I have forgotten it. :p
     
  5. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,981
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .
     
  6. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,065
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,192
    OK, I'm going to simplify this "debate."

    1. Chuz Life should not have used an argument/question without first stating a proposition.

    2. Those who claim not to be abortion "proponents" are either illogical or disingenuous. (One either believes murder/slavery/etc. should be legal or not.) Being "personally opposed" to abortion (while supporting its legality) is a canard, since the only moral basis for this opposition is that it constitutes the termination of a human life.

    Isn't it time to pull our heads out of the sand?
     
  7. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,646
    Thanks Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,838
    Who says that is the only moral opposition?
     
  8. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,981
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Your post implies that the abortion issue / dilemma is solely an issue based on morality. While there may be a moral component, it's about much more than that.

    I personally try to keep morality out of ANY debate and then make and consider arguments from a much more objective viewpoint instead.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  9. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,065
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,192
    Do YOU have some other moral basis for being "personally opposed" to abortion? If so, please state it.
     
  10. Montrovant
    Offline

    Montrovant Fuzzy bears!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    14,646
    Thanks Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ratings:
    +5,838
    Do I? No. Can I think of any just offhand? Sure. How about a moral opposition to any unnecessary taking of life, human or otherwise? Such a person could be just as opposed to putting down a pet, yet believe it should remain legal. How about a moral opposition to unnecessary medical procedures? Again, a person with such a view might accept that unneeded procedures should remain legal.

    I'm not sure why you think you can make a blanket statement about what others might find morally offensive. :dunno:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page