CDZ Abortion

[PK1]

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"....The exception is an abortion, BUT logically how can one that causes death to an unborn be LEGAL, yet another ILLEGAL, as the outcome is the same, and the human, being killed, has NO SAY in the matter!

---
No say in the matter? Very funny! Like a fetus has ANY understanding of itself.
Why don't you stop the killing of innocent cattle & esp pigs, who have developed their consciousness & fear of death?
Are you without any empathy?
.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.
... are you going to step up and financially support your neighbors child?

---
You have an excellent point that is conveniently ignored by those who focus their "morality" on the unborn.

If all that pro-life energy (& funds) could be focused on the poor, unfortunate, INNOCENT young kids in this country & world, the world would salvage the potential of true personhood much more effectively. And that's moral.
.

Even if we (society) did all you claim we SHOULD be doing for children already born, the injustice would still remain for those in the womb who are facing death by abortion.

---
Get real. In our universe, death is a part of life. It's all relative to one's perspective,
By that i mean that the "death" of a single cell zygote is no big deal. Also, no value to anyone except for the prospective parents/relatives.

I value a kitten or puppy much higher than a zygote.
And i value the life of unknown, very unfortunate/distressed people (born humans) much higher than other animals (except maybe my pets).
Of course, that's my perspective and you cannot make a convincing case to me that you are more "ethical".

Why don't you worry about & help all those poor people on this world first, before getting your nose in other people's private affairs?
.

Show me where it is in our Laws or Constitution that says our basic human rights are contingent upon the value placed on our lives by others.

I would like to see that.

---
I was referring to my ethics, not the Constitution, which does NOT establish personhood prior to human birth.
.

We are a nation of laws which are based on the principles in our Constitution. Your personal ethics nor mine have any bearing on the issue.

Furthermore, our Constitution doesn't define PERSONHOOD for anyone. The closest it comes to doing that is when it defines a CITIZEN as a person BORN.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

If that were true, then you and your ilk would have had no problem at all overturning the fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed and you (your ilk ) were opposing them.

 

[Vigilante]

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"....The exception is an abortion, BUT logically how can one that causes death to an unborn be LEGAL, yet another ILLEGAL, as the outcome is the same, and the human, being killed, has NO SAY in the matter!

---
No say in the matter? Very funny! Like a fetus has ANY understanding of itself.
Why don't you stop the killing of innocent cattle & esp pigs, who have developed their consciousness & fear of death?
Are you without any empathy?
.

They are NOT HUMAN, an UNBORN IS HUMAN...Hard concept for some to grab! Next you'll be complaining about us killing corn, turnips, and trees....they all are alive!

 

[Chuz Life]

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"....The exception is an abortion, BUT logically how can one that causes death to an unborn be LEGAL, yet another ILLEGAL, as the outcome is the same, and the human, being killed, has NO SAY in the matter!

---
No say in the matter? Very funny! Like a fetus has ANY understanding of itself.
Why don't you stop the killing of innocent cattle & esp pigs, who have developed their consciousness & fear of death?
Are you without any empathy?
.

Mmmmm mmmmm bacon.

 

[Unkotare]

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

---
"pro-death crowd"?
That is an irrational stmt, ...
.

An accurate one...

 

[JoeMoma]

To deny that a human fetus is a human being at an early stage of development is to deny biology.

---
That is not a valid argument for what is referred to as "personhood", which is considered to be after successful birth & the baby is breathing independently, and qualifies for a SSN.

The fact that a human zygote has a unique set of DNA, reflecting its species' phylogenetic development, is less compelling to me than the life of a dog or cat (esp ape, elephant, dolphin) that has started its ontological development.
.

I was not making an argument for personhood. I was simply stating a biological fact. Do with it as you like.

I do find your concept of personhood interesting. It seems very arbitrary to me. A baby is a person at birth, so what was it 24 hours before birth? So a 4 week premature baby is a person, but a further to term baby in the womb is not.

 

[alang1216]

You have not addressed the aspects of potential and reality. Just because other cells MIGHT be able to be manipulated as you suggest. . . They would not be zygote stage or embryos until they ARE so manipulated.

Human zygote stage already ARE that which you are suggesting others cells MIGHT BE manipulated into being.

Lawmakers will see that as a clear distinction.

The similarities are greater than you see. Compare a skin cell and a zygote: neither has ANY potential to develop into a baby on its own. Both require an environment with the proper mix of chemical triggers, nutrients, hormones, etc. The skin cell just requires an artificial kick-start that the zygote has already gotten naturally. I think you'd agree that children born of invitro are still humans.

As to this whole talk of laws, they hold no water with me. Society's morality shapes laws, it does not work the other way round. Slavery was perfectly legal until it was wasn't.

 

[alang1216]

Clearly, I misunderstood your comments the first time I responded to this.

I responded with "WINNER!" because I TOO look at a human being in the fetal stage of their life and see them for what they ARE (the young child of the parents who created them) and I do not look at their potential to be anything more than that.

It's kind of difficult for me to follow these posts on my phone. I don't think my phone even displayed your avatar. So, I had no idea who I was responding to.

Hope that clears things up.

Darn, and I thought someone on the internet had actually changed their position on something, however slightly.

 

[PK1]

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"....The exception is an abortion, BUT logically how can one that causes death to an unborn be LEGAL, yet another ILLEGAL, as the outcome is the same, and the human, being killed, has NO SAY in the matter!

---
No say in the matter? Very funny! Like a fetus has ANY understanding of itself.
Why don't you stop the killing of innocent cattle & esp pigs, who have developed their consciousness & fear of death?
Are you without any empathy?
.

They are NOT HUMAN, an UNBORN IS HUMAN...Hard concept for some to grab! Next you'll be complaining about us killing corn, turnips, and trees....they all are alive!

---
Why are you a HUMAN extremist?
A zygote has a "HUMAN" pattern of DNA in its single set of chromosomes in its SINGLE cell reflective of our animal species. So, what's the big deal??
Half of those zygotes get aborted by mother nature; aka miscarriage.
That's life!

So, you don't care about all the NON-human animals that have matured into CONSCIOUS, SENTIENT beings who share this Earth with you and experience distress & fear death, like you do. The human zygote has no consciousness. Zip.
Hard concept for you to grab?

Are you also egocentric and ethnocentric as well as anthropocentric? And you believe our big GOV should control your personal affairs? Kinda hypocritical, i'd say.
.

 

[PK1]

I do find your concept of personhood interesting. It seems very arbitrary to me. A baby is a person at birth, so what was it 24 hours before birth? So a 4 week premature baby is a person, but a further to term baby in the womb is not.

---
Species life is a CONTINUAL developmental process, both phylogenetically as well as ontogenetically.
Mother nature makes the "arbitrary" decision as to when human organisms become independent individuals or "persons" -- at birth. Been that way for millions of years, apparently.
In birds, the natural "arbitrary decision" for biological independence occurs after the egg is hatched AND the organism breaks out of its shell.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

I do find your concept of personhood interesting. It seems very arbitrary to me. A baby is a person at birth, so what was it 24 hours before birth? So a 4 week premature baby is a person, but a further to term baby in the womb is not.

---
Species life is a CONTINUAL developmental process, both phylogenetically as well as ontogenetically.
Mother nature makes the "arbitrary" decision as to when human organisms become independent individuals or "persons" -- at birth. Been that way for millions of years, apparently.
In birds, the natural "arbitrary decision" for biological independence occurs after the egg is hatched AND the organism breaks out of its shell.
.

We already have laws which recognizes chilren in the womb as individual human beings.

Your claims have been defeated.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

If chilren in the womb in ANY stage of their development are not human beings or persons. . . How do you explain the MURDER charges and convictions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

Again, by those laws your denials have been defeated.

 

[Chuz Life]

You have not addressed the aspects of potential and reality. Just because other cells MIGHT be able to be manipulated as you suggest. . . They would not be zygote stage or embryos until they ARE so manipulated.

Human zygote stage already ARE that which you are suggesting others cells MIGHT BE manipulated into being.

Lawmakers will see that as a clear distinction.

The similarities are greater than you see. Compare a skin cell and a zygote: neither has ANY potential to develop into a baby on its own. Both require an environment with the proper mix of chemical triggers, nutrients, hormones, etc. The skin cell just requires an artificial kick-start that the zygote has already gotten naturally. I think you'd agree that children born of invitro are still humans.

As to this whole talk of laws, they hold no water with me. Society's morality shapes laws, it does not work the other way round. Slavery was perfectly legal until it was wasn't.

A child in the zygote stage of their life is already that which you claim a skin cell MIGHT be able to be manipulated into being.

Lawmakers makers again will make that distinction with no problem at all.

Also, you may disagree but a child in the zygote stage of their life is BIOLOGICALLY the young of the parents. It already is their "baby"

If my car or gun can rightfully be called my baby. . . So can a child in the womb.

 

[alang1216]

Lawmakers makers again will make that distinction with no problem at all.

You wish to use a group with a 16% approval rating to back your argument?

Also, you may disagree but a child in the zygote stage of their life is BIOLOGICALLY the young of the parents. It already is their "baby"

If my car or gun can rightfully be called my baby. . . So can a child in the womb.

Semantics are an even weaker argument. You can call a sow's ear anything you wish but it still has none of the characteristics of a silk purse.

 

[Chuz Life]

Lawmakers makers again will make that distinction with no problem at all.

You wish to use a group with a 16% approval rating to back your argument?

Also, you may disagree but a child in the zygote stage of their life is BIOLOGICALLY the young of the parents. It already is their "baby"

If my car or gun can rightfully be called my baby. . . So can a child in the womb.

Semantics are an even weaker argument. You can call a sow's ear anything you wish but it still has none of the characteristics of a silk purse.

I think it's safe to say that lawmakers can make a distinction like the one above - despite their low approval ratings.

It is more than only semantics when the "baby" is arguably the biological young of the parents who created it.

 

[alang1216]

I think it's safe to say that lawmakers can make a distinction like the one above - despite their low approval ratings.

They can and do whatever they please but it may not reflect the attitudes of the majority of citizens.

It is more than only semantics when the "baby" is arguably the biological young of the parents who created it.

It is only semantics when you call a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus a "baby" to confer a specific status to it based on that word. I've heard the term "baby" killer way more often than I have zygote, embryo, or fetus killer.

Another example of semantics is using the term "pro-life". No one is pro-life since we all must destroy life, animal and/or vegetable, to survive. What it does is it saves it's users from having to say pro-human-life and then having to define what human life actually is.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think it's safe to say that lawmakers can make a distinction like the one above - despite their low approval ratings.

They can and do whatever they please but it may not reflect the attitudes of the majority of citizens.

It is more than only semantics when the "baby" is arguably the biological young of the parents who created it.

It is only semantics when you call a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus a "baby" to confer a specific status to it based on that word. I've heard the term "baby" killer way more often than I have zygote, embryo, or fetus killer.

Another example of semantics is using the term "pro-life". No one is pro-life since we all must destroy life, animal and/or vegetable, to survive. What it does is it saves it's users from having to say pro-human-life and then having to define what human life actually is.

Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.

 

[alang1216]

Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.

This is true, it becomes a question of politics.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.

This is true, it becomes a question of politics.

If our fetal homicide laws were only political based, I doubt very much that our supreme Court would be upholding get them as they are today.