Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

Nope. It's not viable, so not a human being.



No, it's a freak of nature.

You should actually read about what they did to keep "it" alive, including chopping off a third arm it had growing out of it's back.




No, that's just you stomping your little feet and saying, "Globby is a real person!"
Which is another way of you saying that if its human then abortion is wrong. Thank you very much. I win again.
 
If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

"If" isn't a basis of law, guy.
When the argument is that abortion isn't ending a human life it's because they know its wrong. You prove abortion wrong every time you dehumanize human life like a coward. My job is to make you do it as much as possible.
 
What is the broadest, most inclusive definition of what a natural person is?
I don't know and will probably never know unless you stop playing games.

Do you agree that the definition should be broad and open enough to include every human being, regardless of their age, gender, race, level of development, religion, etc.?
Not knowing the definition, I cannot comment on its scope.

It would be kind of fascist to use the definition to intentionally exclude any of those groups. . .

Wouldn't it?
😴
 
A person is a specific human being. Is it somehow more offensive to end a person's life than it is to end a human being's life?
There is no agreed on definition for what a "person" is.

I don't think a newly fertilized egg is a "person". Sorry if that bothers you.

(Just kidding. I'm not sorry. :auiqs.jpg:)

Person:
iu


Not a person:
iu
 
Last edited:
That's because you don't see abortion as ending a human life.
Stop lying.

I see abortion as ending a human life.

I do not see it as killing a person, at least not in the early stages of development.
 
Let's see what the U.S. Code says about what a person is - starting with the last paragraph, instead of the first.

1771313131573.webp

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

prev | next
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive as defined in this section.

 

Attachments

  • 1771313154989.webp
    1771313154989.webp
    11.6 KB · Views: 5
Intersex doesnt exist this is a term used to describe abnormal secondary sexual development not gender. They are still either male or female.
What is your definition, without exception, of female?
 
Anyway, just for some perspective about the sanctity of 'human' life...

pregnancy.webp
 
I'll just leave this right here.

Apparently a natural person is a human being with rights and obligations. As a matter of curiosity, what rights and obligations did this week old collection of cells have?

pregnancy.webp

The natural person argument refers to the distinction between a natural person, which is an individual human being with legal rights and obligations, and a legal person, which can be an organization or entity recognized by law. This argument is often used in legal contexts, particularly by tax protesters who claim that only legal persons are subject to certain laws, such as tax obligations.
Government of Canada Wikipedia
 
Apparently a natural person is a human being with rights and obligations. As a matter of curiosity, what rights and obligations did this week old collection of cells have?

View attachment 1220003
The natural person argument refers to the distinction between a natural person, which is an individual human being with legal rights and obligations, and a legal person, which can be an organization or entity recognized by law. This argument is often used in legal contexts, particularly by tax protesters who claim that only legal persons are subject to certain laws, such as tax obligations.
Government of Canada Wikipedia
I can't fix your poor reading comprehension.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: cnm
15th post
I can't fix your poor reading comprehension.
Nor can you fix my eye roll when finding how the 'natural person' argument is associated with freedumb crazies.
 
Last edited:
When the argument is that abortion isn't ending a human life it's because they know its wrong. You prove abortion wrong every time you dehumanize human life like a coward. My job is to make you do it as much as possible.

Nothing wrong with abortion at all.

Abortion is a benefit to mankind, given the planet is already overpopulated.
 
There is no agreed on definition for what a "person" is.

I don't think a newly fertilized egg is a "person". Sorry if that bothers you.

(Just kidding. I'm not sorry. :auiqs.jpg:)

Person:
iu


Not a person:
iu
person: a human being regarded as an individual.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom