I've painted you into a corner. You can't get out. Either you admit abortion ends a human life or you are admitting you wouldn't support abortion if it ended a human life. I win either way.
Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy
- Thread starter Mr. Friscus
- Start date
JoeB131
Diamond Member
He lives in that ******* corner and he's not alone.
Interesting list.
This list shows that even if you were convinced that an abortion kills a child. . .you would still support abortions anyway.
So, why not shed your ignorant denials an admit it, joey?
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Most of the country supports a woman's right to choose. So a lot of us are in this corner.
That's why nearly every state that has put abortion laws on the ballot, abortion rights win.
I think there are good reasons not to pass unworkable laws, yes. Again, I go back to Prohibition, that you never want to talk about. A good argument could be made for banning alcohol.
Admit what? I don't think zygotes, embryos or fetuses should have the same rights and protections as people.
Such laws would cause legal chaos for reasons I've listed.
Do you disagree that a human being's basic human rights should begin when their life does, Joe?
Answer with a clear yes or no, and then we can move to the next (obvious) questions that need to follow.
Last edited:
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,714
- 6,260
- 245
When a human life is inside a human life who acquired her basic human rights when she was born, the inside human has the same rights as every other human being unless the previously born person chooses not to continue her pregnancy. A born woman has sovereignty and autonomy to end the human life inside her body with reasonable access to a medical facility for a safe abortion. And it is no business of religious zealots to interfere or condemn her decision.
DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT TAKE MELANIA TRUMP’s WORD:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
There are no rights.
There are just privileges and protections that society agrees you should have.
Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
Or perhaps "Undocumented immigrants, 2025"
Not playing this sophistry with you. This shit might fly in some debate club, but in the real world we deal with pragmatism.
Pragmatism, giving "rights" to a fetus, means you have to take "rights" away from the woman it is inside.
This is how Fetal Homicide laws can't be extended to include abortions. The fetal homicide law is not there to protect the fetus, it's to protect the woman the fetus is inside. That you guys tried (and failed) to turn these laws around to go after women like Purvi Patel proves why you can't be trusted, even when your intentions sound good.
So, if your answer is no (i.e. you do NOT think a person's rights should begin when their life does), just say it.
Why avoid it?
Just because some (even a majority) might have the same opinion, that doesn't make it "true."
It especially doesn't make it "logical."
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,714
- 6,260
- 245
I have been clear for years. I admit abortion ends a human life and I support every woman who chooses to end the human life inside her body. Every woman has a right to do so with access to a safe abortion in every community on US soil. No religious zealot specifically white male Catholics or Evangelicals has a right to interfere in a choice that is none of their business.
Since I am a male who would never put a woman in a position to have to make that choice I will defer to a very famous woman loved by the religious right. Melania Trump.
Was your right to live and your right to defend yourself, to defend your loved ones, and even your neighbors a right that was "given" to you by the government or society, Joe?
Am I wrong when I declare that my rights (as acknowledged (not given) in the Constitution) are inherent?
Last edited:
The appeal to popularity (fallacy) is what it is. . . but at least you are honest enough to admit that you don't think a person's basic human rights and protections should begin when their biological life does.
P.S. not all of us who oppose abortion come from a religious perspective.
Anyone who thinks they need "God" in their life to know that an abortion kills a child has very little faith in science.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,714
- 6,260
- 245
My answer is not “no”. so I did not avoid it. I understand that religious zealotry does not allow for the superior right to life of an already born person when the born person has a new life inside her.
You can’t respond to my answer because you hold a religious belief that holds a doctrine of original sin over all your fellow believers. You have to believe a woman who terminates her pregnancy is committing a sin against your concept of God.
But in observable reality the NATURE that God created, terminates half the conceptions in the billions I’m sure since the first human conceptions ever happened. Your God kills billions apparently without remorse. I guess because of what Eve did in the Garden
In AMERICA Religious zealotry is not supposed to interfere iwith the rights of those who choose not to be religious zealots.
It would be such a productive leap forward if we could (through intellectual honesty) narrow the debate down to these two sides.
1. Those who do think a child's rights (to their life and to the protection of our laws) are inherent and begin when their biological life does
2. Those who think a child's right to their life and to the equal protections of our laws is NOT inherent but are "given" or "granted" TO the child, only after some arbitrarily decided point, after which those rights can't be denied any longer.
1. Those who do think a child's rights (to their life and to the protection of our laws) are inherent and begin when their biological life does
2. Those who think a child's right to their life and to the equal protections of our laws is NOT inherent but are "given" or "granted" TO the child, only after some arbitrarily decided point, after which those rights can't be denied any longer.
According to Wikipedia, DNA does not establish personhood.
person (pl.: people or persons, depending on context) is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.
Person - Wikipedia
A newly inseminated zygote does not have reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. No one knows exactly when these attributes develop in a fetus. Certainly a fetus at 9 month minus 1 day has some level of consciousness. So somewhere between these two extremes, personhood is achieved.
The question is where to draw the line. Personally, I would attach personhood at about the 20th week, splitting the pregnancy down the middle. I don't have any obvious reason to choose this point. It seems safe enough to avoid the sin of murder, while still allowing the mother enough time to abort the non-person inside her if she chooses.
Life is complicated/
Last edited:
An unborn fetus is not a child. A child is a human being between the ages of birth to puberty.
A child (pl. children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty, or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.
Child - Wikipedia
You are cherry picking from dictionaries and Wiki.An unborn fetus is not a child. A child is a human being between the ages of birth to puberty.
A child (pl. children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty, or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.
Child - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You know that, right?
Dictionary definitions are NOT exclusive.
One cherry picked definition does not exclude all others.
But, since you are into posting definitions, why don't you quote the most inclusive and basic definition for what a "natural person" is and then explain how it excludes any human being/ person who is only in the first stages of their life, growth and development?
I'm not religious so none of that gibberish applies to me.
Why don't you tell me what your cherry picked definition of a "natural person" is?
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,714
- 6,260
- 245
Can’t you read? I told you and Saint Misdemeanor ding. That every person’s right to life begins when their biological life does. That includes the woman when she becomes pregnant having a right to life and she comes first. Do you believe that no woman has ever died during childbirth? Your religious zealotry does not allow you to deprive a woman’s right to protect her life from dying during childbirth.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
The Globalist Powers that be May be Trying to Bring Trump Down
- Started by onefour1
- Replies: 5
-
Islamic bigot [Mehdi Hasan - Zeteo] who termed non Muslims as animals downplays Nazis- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
