Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Hafar1014]

person: a human being regarded as an individual.

According to science, a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence at conception. Which means that a new genetically distinct person has come into existence at conception.

That has no identity personality or any sense of individuality until 6 months after birth

Margaret Mahler’s theory of child development outlines the "psychological birth" of the human infant, detailing the transformation from a symbiotic, merged state with the mother to a separate, individual self (separation-individuation) between birth and roughly 30 months. The process involves three primary phases: Normal Autism (0-1 month), Normal Symbiosis (1-5 months), and Separation-Individuation (5-30+ months), which includes four distinct subphases: differentiation, practicing, rapprochement, and object constancy.

 

[Hafar1014]

If every young couple used contraception thered be no abortion.

Yes there would ther are manybother reasons abortion can be medically necessary

 

[Chuz Life]

A person is a citizen with rights.

False.

Non "citizens are persons, too"

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins.

An infant doesnt know its an individual until 6 months after birth.

Irrelevant.

Can a person in a coma be murdered? Recognized as a murder victim?

Indeed, they can.

We have to agree on a time before birth when a fetus has rights. There is no science behind it.

Science is the only universal way to establish when a human life begins.

Do you not agree that a human being's basic human rights should begin when their life does?

Whats the standard? Able to live in its own?

Well, if we are going to accept an arbitrary standard to argue that a human being's basic human rights should not begin when their life does, but sometime later. . . can I get in on that?

 

[ding]

That has no identity personality or any sense of individuality until 6 months after birth

Margaret Mahler’s theory of child development outlines the "psychological birth" of the human infant, detailing the transformation from a symbiotic, merged state with the mother to a separate, individual self (separation-individuation) between birth and roughly 30 months. The process involves three primary phases: Normal Autism (0-1 month), Normal Symbiosis (1-5 months), and Separation-Individuation (5-30+ months), which includes four distinct subphases: differentiation, practicing, rapprochement, and object constancy.

So what? It is a genetically distinct human being; a specific person. At every stage along the continuum he or she has the appropriate attributes for that stage. Your argument doesn't negate the fact that abortion ends the life of a specific person.

 

[Hafar1014]

False.

None "citizens are persons too"

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins.


Irrelevant.

Can a person in a coma be murdered? Recognized as a murder victim?

Indeed, they can.


Science is the only universal way to establish when a human life begins.

Do you not agree that a human being's basic human rights should begin when their life does?



Well, if we are going to accept an arbitrary standard to argue that a human being's basic human rights should not begin when their life does, but sometime later. . . can I get in on that?

All your standards are arbitrary. A person must have awareness that its an individual. Infants cant do that untl 6 months after birth.
People in comas are euthanized all the time.
A fetus is not a person its a fetus. Its part of the mothers mind and body.
Basic human rights can conflict with others basic human rights.

 

[dblack]

All your standards are arbitrary. A person must have awareness that its an individual. Infants cant do that untl 6 months after birth.
People in comas are euthanized all the time.
A fetus is not a person its a fetus. Its part of the mothers mind and body.
Basic human rights can conflict with others basic human rights.

A fetus is an excuse for government to control women.

 

[ding]

A person must have awareness that its an individual.

Incorrect.

person: a human being regarded as an individual.

According to science, a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence at conception. Which means that a new genetically distinct person has come into existence at conception.

 

[Mashmont]

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

Well, let's try it again. If you are personally against rape, do you find it acceptable if others choose to rape, the same way you think abortion is OK for others?

This is a checkmate question. It exposes the cop out abortion position of Joe Biden and so many other Democrats. That's why you won't answer.

 

[Chuz Life]

All your standards are arbitrary.

This claim of yours is not supported by any facts.
To hold that a person's basic human rights should begin when their biological life begins is the antithesis of being arbitrary.

What good is a "right to one's own life" if it doesn't begin when the life does?

A person must have awareness that its an individual. Infants cant do that untl 6 months after birth.

Provably false.

Persons in comas, vegetative states, etc. Still persons. Still have rights to the equal protections of our laws.

People in comas are euthanized all the time.

Can a person in a coma be a victim of murder? Yes or no?

And I have dealt with the end-of-life issue more than once now in my family.

It is not as simple or unregulated as you think.

It is significantly more restricted than you are trying to suggest.

A fetus is not a person its a fetus.

Again, I direct attention to existing fetal Homicide Laws, which prove against your claim about that.

Its part of the mothers mind and body.

Biologically Impossible.

(Look up the "placental barrier" sometime and consider what its purpose is)

Basic human rights can conflict with others basic human rights.

The Constitutional principle is "Equal rights and equal protections."

Correct?

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know if I can unretard what you just said but I will try with this question.

If a child in the womb is so easily proven NOT to be a child or a person, as you are obviously convinced. . . Why are you, planned parenthood, the ACLU and or any other abortion proponents NOT using that "fact" to overturn any of the convictions or the very laws that establish them AS persons?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Well, first, you'd need a good test case. The problem is, most guys like Scott Peterson deny they killed the woman the fetus was inside.

Of course, they did find a good case to challenge it, and that was Purvi Patel. Except when confronted, IN backed down.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well, that's not true, because Bei-Bie Shuai and Purvi Patel challenged these laws and got their bullshit convictions overturned.

 

[pknopp]

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JoeB131]

Actually it was always a pretty simple point. DNA establishes person-hood. That is a fact. When a woman aborts her baby, she is aborting a specific person. Some people can't stomach the truth.

My stomach is just fine.

2/3rds of fertilized Zygotes never attach to the uterine wall, despite their "DNA".

Frozen Embryos in Fertility Clinics. No one is demanding their release under habeas corpus.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The amount of strawmans and red herrings is endless, my goodness.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, first, you'd need a good test case. The problem is, most guys like Scott Peterson deny they killed the woman the fetus was inside.

Of course, they did find a good case to challenge it, and that was Purvi Patel. Except when confronted, IN backed down.

Is the law still on the books?

It is.

Does it being on the books remain problematic for fucktards who want to deny that an abortion kills a child?

It does.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, that's not true, because Bei-Bie Shuai and Purvi Patel challenged these laws and got their bullshit convictions overturned.

Zone1 Post in thread 'Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy'

Feb 10, 2026

Well, first, you'd need a good test case. The problem is, most guys like Scott Peterson deny they killed the woman the fetus was inside.

Of course, they did find a good case to challenge it, and that was Purvi Patel. Except when confronted, IN backed down.

Is the law still on the books?

It is.

Does it being on the books remain problematic for fucktards who want to deny that an abortion kills a child?

It does.

• Chuz Life

 

[Chuz Life]

The amount of strawmans and red herrings is endless, my goodness.

Look at all the points they dodge in order to maintain their denials, also.

Just once I would like to have an opponent show enough spine and intellectual honesty to at least admit they are fighting in support of denying children's rights by denying them their humanity and personhood.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Look at all the points they dodge in order to maintain their denials, also.

Just once I would like to have an opponent show enough spine and intellectual honesty to at least admit they are fighting in support of denying children's rights by denying them their humanity and personhood.

It's just a clump of cells to them

 

[Chuz Life]

It's just a clump of cells to them

They are only clumps of cells to me, then.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Can a person in a coma be murdered? Recognized as a murder victim?

That's how you bust any pro-abortionists standard of "viability".

If viability is the standard that prevents us from being able just end their life without immorality.. then people in comas can have their cords yanked, and that "viability" arguing pro-abortionist would have no problem with it.

Of course, they do have a problem with it.. then they fidget and dance to try to evade their double standard.