CDZ Abortion

[Chuz Life]

Like everything in this world, laws and morals evolve over time. Unless one claims they come from God, only then can they be considered absolutes. I have no absolutes.

You seem like a logical person alang.

Can I ask you this.

Which is the most logical statement given that our Constitution makes the all inclusive statement that ALL persons are entitled to due process and to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

1. A child's life doesn't begin until it lives too long and develops past the point where society can't deny them anymore

Or

2. A child's life and rights begins at the earliest moment that we can determine their existence

3. A child's life and rights begins when they begin to display the uniqueness that makes us human and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. This comes down to the developing brain, if you don't have a functioning brain you do not qualify as a human being. < insert teenager joke here > If you're brain is dead you are dead, even if your body is being kept alive by artificial means.

Do you not see that your listed (3rd) choice is just a variation of the one I listed as number 1?

Your own position makes the same claim in only a slightly more pleasant way. . . that a child is not a child - nor worthy of legal protections (in your view) until they live long enough as to breech your ability to deny them anymore.

You say it all comes down to the need for a developing or functioning brain. . . when there is no such legal requirement for personhood on the books.

Are you expressing that view because that's the way you think it SHOULD be? Or are you expressing that view because you think that is what the laws say?

I'm asking because our current laws do NOT say that a developing / functioning brain is required for personhood. Nor is one required for Constitutional rights and protections.

There are children born who are born with no cerebral cortex at all. They have no capacity for thought, feelings or pain and there have been court cases and supreme courts rulings on their situations. (Children born with anencephalia for example)

Those courts ruled that those children (functioning brains or not) are just as entitled to the protections of our laws that anyone else is.

Does this information affect your answer to my question in any way?

 

[alang1216]

I have no absolutes.

Then you don't really believe in morals, which is your choice.

Sorry but I consider myself as moral as anyone.

Words have meaning.

but no morality

The word "morality" has a meaning, genius.

Most words have meaning, usually several. What exactly is your point? I appear to be missing it completely.

 

[alang1216]

Like everything in this world, laws and morals evolve over time. Unless one claims they come from God, only then can they be considered absolutes. I have no absolutes.

You seem like a logical person alang.

Can I ask you this.

Which is the most logical statement given that our Constitution makes the all inclusive statement that ALL persons are entitled to due process and to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

1. A child's life doesn't begin until it lives too long and develops past the point where society can't deny them anymore

Or

2. A child's life and rights begins at the earliest moment that we can determine their existence

3. A child's life and rights begins when they begin to display the uniqueness that makes us human and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. This comes down to the developing brain, if you don't have a functioning brain you do not qualify as a human being. < insert teenager joke here > If you're brain is dead you are dead, even if your body is being kept alive by artificial means.

Do you not see that your listed (3rd) choice is just a variation of the one I listed as number 1?

Your own position makes the same claim in only a slightly more pleasant way. . . that a child is not a child - nor worthy of legal protections (in your view) until they live long enough as to breech your ability to deny them anymore.

You say it all comes down to the need for a developing or functioning brain. . . when there is no such legal requirement for personhood on the books.

Are you expressing that view because that's the way you think it SHOULD be? Or are you expressing that view because you think that is what the laws say?

I'm asking because our current laws do NOT say that a developing / functioning brain is required for personhood. Nor is one required for Constitutional rights and protections.

There are children born who are born with no cerebral cortex at all. They have no capacity for thought, feelings or pain and there have been court cases and supreme courts rulings on their situations. (Children born with anencephalia for example)

Those courts ruled that those children (functioning brains or not) are just as entitled to the protections of our laws that anyone else is.

Does this information affect your answer to my question in any way?

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like everything in this world, laws and morals evolve over time. Unless one claims they come from God, only then can they be considered absolutes. I have no absolutes.

You seem like a logical person alang.

Can I ask you this.

Which is the most logical statement given that our Constitution makes the all inclusive statement that ALL persons are entitled to due process and to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

1. A child's life doesn't begin until it lives too long and develops past the point where society can't deny them anymore

Or

2. A child's life and rights begins at the earliest moment that we can determine their existence

3. A child's life and rights begins when they begin to display the uniqueness that makes us human and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. This comes down to the developing brain, if you don't have a functioning brain you do not qualify as a human being. < insert teenager joke here > If you're brain is dead you are dead, even if your body is being kept alive by artificial means.

Do you not see that your listed (3rd) choice is just a variation of the one I listed as number 1?

Your own position makes the same claim in only a slightly more pleasant way. . . that a child is not a child - nor worthy of legal protections (in your view) until they live long enough as to breech your ability to deny them anymore.

You say it all comes down to the need for a developing or functioning brain. . . when there is no such legal requirement for personhood on the books.

Are you expressing that view because that's the way you think it SHOULD be? Or are you expressing that view because you think that is what the laws say?

I'm asking because our current laws do NOT say that a developing / functioning brain is required for personhood. Nor is one required for Constitutional rights and protections.

There are children born who are born with no cerebral cortex at all. They have no capacity for thought, feelings or pain and there have been court cases and supreme courts rulings on their situations. (Children born with anencephalia for example)

Those courts ruled that those children (functioning brains or not) are just as entitled to the protections of our laws that anyone else is.

Does this information affect your answer to my question in any way?

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

As interesting as that position is. . . No.

I don't feel the same. You see, I used to hold many of the same positions that you are expressing about functioning brains being the threshold and all that. . But then I realized that I wasn't being objective.

Another human's Personhood should not be based upon where MY comfort level is towards MY ability to justify their denial.

It should be objectively based on the human traits and characteristics that they HAVE and not on those that it's that they may only temporarily lack.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

As interesting as that position is. . . No.

I don't feel the same. You see, I used to hold many of the same positions that you are expressing about functioning brains being the threshold and all that. . But then I realized that I wasn't being objective.

Another humans Personhood should not be based upon where MY comfort level is towards MY ability to justify their denial.

It should objectively based on the human traits and characteristics they have another not on those the may only temporarily lack.

It would be easy to abdicate the responsibility of determining personhood but you cannot since there is no objective line, only arbitrary ones, so not judging is a judgment.

If a man loses an arm does the arm become a second person that must be kept alive and given rights? Or are you willing to deny that arm personhood based on what human traits and characteristics it has at that time? What about my liver?

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

As interesting as that position is. . . No.

I don't feel the same. You see, I used to hold many of the same positions that you are expressing about functioning brains being the threshold and all that. . But then I realized that I wasn't being objective.

Another humans Personhood should not be based upon where MY comfort level is towards MY ability to justify their denial.

It should objectively based on the human traits and characteristics they have another not on those the may only temporarily lack.

It would be easy to abdicate the responsibility of determining personhood but you cannot since there is no objective line, only arbitrary ones, so not judging is a judgment.

I am not talking about abdicating. I am talking about being consistent with our laws, science and our existing definitions.

If a man loses an arm does the arm become a second person that must be kept alive and given rights?

Only if you can make the case that a severed arm is an organism and the young product of the parent who created it.

Can you agree that would be much more difficult than showing how a child in the fetal stage of their life (created by reproductive cells ) is?

Or are you willing to deny that arm personhood based on what human traits and characteristics it has at that time? What about my liver?

If you want to claim personhood for an arm or liver. . . Because you equate them somehow to a child in the womb?

Go right ahead.

 

[Unkotare]

...
I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

WTF?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

OMG 40 pages.

I'm anti-abortion myself, as in I don't think abortion should be used as a means of contraception. However I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, if the fetus is deformed etc and if the life of the Mother is at risk.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

As interesting as that position is. . . No.

I don't feel the same. You see, I used to hold many of the same positions that you are expressing about functioning brains being the threshold and all that. . But then I realized that I wasn't being objective.

Another humans Personhood should not be based upon where MY comfort level is towards MY ability to justify their denial.

It should objectively based on the human traits and characteristics they have another not on those the may only temporarily lack.

It would be easy to abdicate the responsibility of determining personhood but you cannot since there is no objective line, only arbitrary ones, so not judging is a judgment.

If a man loses an arm does the arm become a second person that must be kept alive and given rights? Or are you willing to deny that arm personhood based on what human traits and characteristics it has at that time? What about my liver?

There is a huge difference between organs, appendages and organisms. Your arm and liver are part of the organism which is you.

A fetus is a separate organism than its mother even during pregnancy while the mother is caring the fetus. A liver or an arm does not develop into a baby. A fetus, which is a living human organism will progress through various stages of human develop if it survives to do so (not aborted). To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology. If you don’t believe that a fetus deserves the legal protections afforded to people after birth, that is one thing, but what you believe does not change biology.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

As interesting as that position is. . . No.

I don't feel the same. You see, I used to hold many of the same positions that you are expressing about functioning brains being the threshold and all that. . But then I realized that I wasn't being objective.

Another human's Personhood should not be based upon where MY comfort level is towards MY ability to justify their denial.

It should be objectively based on the human traits and characteristics they have and not on those the may only temporarily lack.

It would be easy to abdicate the responsibility of determining personhood but you cannot since there is no objective line, only arbitrary ones, so not judging is a judgment.

If a man loses an arm does the arm become a second person that must be kept alive and given rights? Or are you willing to deny that arm personhood based on what human traits and characteristics it has at that time? What about my liver?

There is a huge difference between organs, appendages and organisms. Your arm and liver are part of the organism which is you.

A fetus is a separate organism than its mother even during pregnancy while the mother is caring the fetus. A liver or an arm does not develop into a baby. A fetus, which is a living human organism will progress through various stages of human develop if it survives to do so (not aborted). To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology. If you don’t believe that a fetus deserves the legal protections afforded to people after birth, that is one thing, but what you believe does not change biology.

Thank you.

I would like to add that the arguments for recognizing severed arms and livers would be a lot easier made if we already had laws of any sort that makes the killing of either one of them in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.

Like the laws we DO already have when it comes to children in the womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

Alang, you said you still disagree and that's fine. You said you thought that I have put a lot of effort into my position and I appreciate that.

Still would like to see your thoughts on these last few posts.

Been trying hard to give you something more to think about.

Like you said, I have put a lot into it and constructive feedback like yours doesn't happen often.

 

[MarathonMike]

If you need excuses or rationalizations to kill an unborn baby, then it is clear you know it is wrong.

 

[alang1216]

Or are you willing to deny that arm personhood based on what human traits and characteristics it has at that time? What about my liver?

If you want to claim personhood for an arm or liver. . . Because you equate them somehow to a child in the womb?

Go right ahead.

I'd probably support personhood for neither, depending of course on the development stage of the fetus. Certainly not for a fertilized egg. The arm and the person it came from are both collections of human tissues. One obviously can't survive on it's own but I think you'd agree that someone on a respirator is still a person. That fetus is likewise a collection of tissues that can't survive on its own. So what is the difference?

In the near future we might be able to mimic the starfish and grow a whole organism from that arm. How would that change the narrative?

 

[alang1216]

...
I'm not a lawyer, judge, or legal scholar. What I'm giving is my opinion on the topic. If the constitution or law is in contradiction of my opinion then the constitution or the law is clearly in the wrong and needs to be corrected. I suspect you feel the same.

WTF?

What part of the post is giving you trouble?

 

[alang1216]

There is a huge difference between organs, appendages and organisms. Your arm and liver are part of the organism which is you.

A fetus is a separate organism than its mother even during pregnancy while the mother is caring the fetus. A liver or an arm does not develop into a baby. A fetus, which is a living human organism will progress through various stages of human develop if it survives to do so (not aborted). To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology. If you don’t believe that a fetus deserves the legal protections afforded to people after birth, that is one thing, but what you believe does not change biology.

A fetus is hardly a separate organism. It is a collection of tissues, just like that arm, the fetus' tissues just happen to have a different set of DNA.

What it comes down to is this: You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

 

[alang1216]

Alang, you said you still disagree and that's fine. You said you thought that I have put a lot of effort into my position and I appreciate that.

Still would like to see your thoughts on these last few posts.

Been trying hard to give you something more to think about.

Like you said, I have put a lot into it and constructive feedback like yours doesn't happen often.

And you have thanks. I think I manage to distill my position into a single sentence:

You look at a fetus and see what it might become, I look at a fetus and see what it is.

 

[alang1216]

If you need excuses or rationalizations to kill an unborn baby, then it is clear you know it is wrong.

I don't see anyone protesting laws against theft or rape.

 

[Unkotare]

The pro-death crowd will go to any depth of irrationality to justify their unjustifiable position.

 

[tinynascarfan]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I think abortion equates to murder. But, I'm not fighting to stop abortion anymore. I'm more worried about all those babies out there in this country, who don't have at least 1 decent parent.

I was an adopted grandpa at 42, and a natural grandpa at 44, and my kids earn good money, yet I still see them struggling to make ends meet. And I see some families living in squaller, raising kids, and the parents aren't nothing but kids themselves.

Yes, abortion is murder, but are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

 

[tinynascarfan]

The question nobody seems to ask is, why do we need abortions?

Because our kids are under-educated about the real world.

It used to be, if a girl got pregnant, she might be sent away to an aunt, or somewhere to give birth and that was wrong. Now, if a girl gets pregnant, many parents want her to have an abortion, yet the parents never once talked to that girl about sex and the responsibilities of being a parent.

How hard is it for a young girl to be forced to have an abortion? Wouldn't a little education and talking prevent a lifetime's worth of possible regret?