Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Hafar1014]

The convictions do!

So, let's examine some logic.

1. What is the legal definition of murder?

2. How does a law that makes it a crime of murder - to kill a "Child in the womb" in a criminal act - NOT establish that the thing (Child in the womb) that was killed was anything less than a person?

Murder is illegal killing. We allow killing under certain circumstances. Abortion is one self defense another. There is no legal definition of when a fetus becomes a person. The closest one is a citizen must be born or naturalized.

A fetus is a living thing but not a person. It has no personality of sense of individuality.

 

[Chuz Life]

Murder is illegal killing. We allow killing under certain circumstances. Abortion is one self defense another. There is no legal definition of when a fetus becomes a person. The closest one is a citizen must be born or naturalized.

A fetus is a living thing but not a person. It has no personality of sense of individuality.

You are dodging my questions to dodge the point being made.

One more chance, and then I'm done letting you waste my time.

How can a person be charged with murder for killing a child in the womb if the child that was killed is not a person?

By legal definition, the charge of murder necessitates that the victim be a "human being / person."

Hi Copilot, simple yes or no question here. Do you agree that a murder charge, the criminal charge of murder establishes for fact that the thing that was kil...

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[dblack]

You are dodging my questions to dodge the point being made.

One more chance, and then I'm done letting you waste my time.

How can a person be charged with murder for killing a child in the womb if the child that was killed is not a person?

That tired saw? That whole campaign was a disingenuous effort to create false precedent. One of the most insidious efforts the "pro-life" movement. It was a legalistic gimmick to setup the exact fake argument you're making now. So, crow about it if you like. If you have to lie to get your way - well, your "way" isn't worth getting.

 

[Chuz Life]

That tired saw? That whole campaign was a disingenuous effort to create false precedent. One of the most insidious efforts the "pro-life" movement. It was a legalistic gimmick to setup the exact fake argument you're making now. So, crow about it if you like. If you have to lie to get your way - well, your "way" isn't worth getting.

Neither those laws, nor any of the convictions under them have been challenged in any way that has (or ever will be) taken up by the Supreme Court.

That precedent only gets stronger over time.

 

[dblack]

Neither those laws, nor any of the convictions under them have been challenged in any way that has (or ever will be) taken up by the Supreme Court.

That precedent only gets stronger over time.

It does. But it was never an honest effort. The goal and intent were to smuggle in a legal precedent that people didn't even realize they were voting for. It was a lie. You all are liars. Period.

 

[Chuz Life]

It does. But it was never an honest effort. The goal and intent were to smuggle in a legal precedent that people didn't even realize they were voting for. It was a lie. You all are liars. Period.

You (or if not YOU, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, JoeyB or someone) should be able to prove that a "child in the womb" is not a "person" to the United States Supreme Court - to overturn those lying laws before now. . . shouldn't you?

 

[dblack]

You (or if not YOU, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, JoeyB or someone) should be able to prove that a "child in the womb" is not a "person" to the United States Supreme Court - to overturn those lying laws before now. . . shouldn't you?

Nah.. I've already explained my position. Your contrived "arguments" have no bearing. You're just playing word games. No real moral weight behind it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Nah.. I've already explained my position. Your contrived "arguments" have no bearing. You're just playing word games. No real moral weight behind it.

You have me on the ropes, all right.

Especially that part where you acknowledged the precedent has been established and will likely only get stronger over time.

 

[Mashmont]

Simple. I'm pro-life but I would still allow for a woman in an actual life situation to end the pregnancy.

If you would allow for direct abortion by anyone, then you aren't pro-life.
Would you dare say "I'm against rape, but if another man chooses to rape, I would allow it"? Of course you wouldn't.

 

[Mashmont]

The issue has been settled. Roe is gone. Voters decide as it should be. Nobody lises i. This scenario.

So you would have been happy had slavery been turned over to the states? According to you, nobody would lose.

 

[dblack]

You have me on the ropes, all right.

Especially that part where you acknowledged the precedent has been established and will likely only get stronger over time.

mkay. you are the weiner!

 

[Chuz Life]

mkay. you are the weiner!

I'm so let down.

I thought someone was finally going to make a compelling argument for why a child in the womb is not a child while they are in the womb.

 

[dblack]

I'm so let down.

Oh, good.

 

[pknopp]

If you would allow for direct abortion by anyone.........

It's awful how dishonest so many who post here are. Don't lie about what I said.

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh, good.

I'll be here waiting, whenever you think you can actually defend your denial of the fact that a child in the womb is a child while they are in the womb. . . Please make sure I see it.

Thanks.

 

[Mashmont]

It's awful how dishonest so many who post here are. Don't lie about what I said.

I used 'direct' as opposed to 'indirect' which is permissible by the Catholic Church in which the mother's life is in danger.
Did you divert to avoid answering the question?

 

[pknopp]

I used 'direct' as opposed to 'indirect' which is permissible by the Catholic Church in which the mother's life is in danger.
Did you divert to avoid answering the question?

It was a false question. I never said what you pretended I said and I won't address this again.

 

[dblack]

I'll be here waiting, whenever you think you can actually defend your denial of the fact that a child in the womb is a child while they are in the womb. . . Please make sure I see it.

Thanks.

I'm not playing your ******* game. The precedent that a fetus in a womb is a legal "person" was scam, perpetrated buy disingenuous pro-life fanatics such as yourself. I watched it go down. You all couldn't get people to vote for laws banning abortion, so you drummed up these sob story cases where pregnant women were killed. It was emotional plea to trick people into voting for laws suggesting that fetuses are legal persons. It was a LIE. Which is why I can't sit here and let you crow about it, unchallenged, like it's a legitimate argument. It's not. You're not.

 

[ding]

Well, actually, it kind of does. If you accept the premise that life begins at conception, then we should be holding funerals over tampons. We don't hold funerals for tampons. We don't hold funerals for zygotes that get discarded by IVF clinics. We don't even hold funerals for miscarriages.

An unfertilized egg isn't anymore a human being than a sperm cell is. Look at the depths you are sinking to to avoid facing the truth. That you dehumanize human life because you can't stomach supporting the ending of a human life.

Actually, I doubt the Nazis or the slave holders cared that much.

The Nazi's and slaveholders dehumanized certain human lives for the same reason you do... you can't stomach supporting the ending of a human life.

But let's try to get back on track. Letting a Jew live did not mean you LITERALLY had to let him latch onto your body for nine months, inflicting permanent physical changes. This is what you are asking women to do with unwanted pregnancies.

You are arguing against science. Every embryology textbook teaches that human life begins at conception. You deny these facts because you can't stomach supporting the ending of a human life.

So by your own reckoning, 93% of abortions are performed before the 13th Week. A fetus at week 13 is not viable. It's the size of a lemon. Not a person. Not even close to being a person.

Science says it is a human being in its early stages of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and possess the attributes at each stage of the human life cycle. DNA proves it is a specific person. Learn some science.

 

[ding]

There is no legal definition of when a fetus becomes a person.

DNA establishes person-hood.