CDZ Abortion

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

How so? What gives it any rights?

 

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

so, unlucky for the human being growing inside her - and too bad for the father that may want the child.

that sounds reasonable (not)

What's unreasonable? If the father wants it, he can have it implanted. He and it have no right to coopt her body against her will.

 

[Bonzi]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

How so? What gives it any rights?

Umm... the fact that it is a human life

 

[Bonzi]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

so, unlucky for the human being growing inside her - and too bad for the father that may want the child.

that sounds reasonable (not)

What's unreasonable? If the father wants it, he can have it implanted. He and it have no right to coopt her body against her will.

That is a reasonable solution - I don't disagree

 

[Derideo_Te]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

Exactly, biology is consistent and based in reality, the law is contradictory. On one hand it isn't murder to abort your child, however if someone murders you and your child in the womb, they get charged with double homicide.

So using your "biological law" every woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage must be charged with "murdering her child in the womb".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

The baby is breathing through the umbilical cord.

You can't breathe without lungs. Only in week 32 (out of 39) does any "breathing" activity begin and even then the lungs are still not fully formed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

The fetus only has the rights that the woman grants it in the 1st semester.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A new human being with 46 chromosomes and a unique dna makeup is created at conception. This isn't up for debate.

BZZZT Wrong!

A potential human being is there at conception. There is no guarantee that it will even survive the first semester without a miscarriage. There is no guarantee that the dna will sequence correctly and form into a human being. There is no guarantee that the fetus won't die in the womb.

Conception is no guarantee that a fetus will survive.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

No. I need a blood transfusion and you happen to be a match for me. So I should be able to have to taken to the local hospital, at gun point if necessary, and take your blood (against your will) because I have a right to your body. Correct?

That has nothing to with it.
You have already been born.
I am talking about the rights of the unborn.

So you are saying the unborn aren't the same as everyone else?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

If you want to go down the slippery slope of granting constitutional rights to a fetus then where do they stop?

Let's take a few hypothetical situations after you have passed your laws granting fetuses all the same rights as everyone else under law.

If life begins at conception then if a newly married couple from Mexico were to fall pregnant while visiting Disneyworld on their honeymoon then their child has an automatic right to US citizenship according to your new law.

If a pregnant woman decides to go postal and uses an AR-15 to murder Christmas shoppers in a mall then she can't be held in custody because that would violate the rights of her innocent fetus under your new law since it would be incarcerated even though it has committed no crime at all.

 

[daws101]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

How so? What gives it any rights?

Umm... the fact that it is a human life

That's never mattered before why does a fetus deserve special treatment?

 

[daws101]

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

No. I need a blood transfusion and you happen to be a match for me. So I should be able to have to taken to the local hospital, at gun point if necessary, and take your blood (against your will) because I have a right to your body. Correct?

That has nothing to with it.
You have already been born.
I am talking about the rights of the unborn.

So you are saying the unborn aren't the same as everyone else?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

If you want to go down the slippery slope of granting constitutional rights to a fetus then where do they stop?

Let's take a few hypothetical situations after you have passed your laws granting fetuses all the same rights as everyone else under law.

If life begins at conception then if a newly married couple from Mexico were to fall pregnant while visiting Disneyworld on their honeymoon then their child has an automatic right to US citizenship according to your new law.

If a pregnant woman decides to go postal and uses an AR-15 to murder Christmas shoppers in a mall then she can't be held in custody because that would violate the rights of her innocent fetus under your new law since it would be incarcerated even though it has committed no crime at all.

Bravo!

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

No, a fetus does not have the same rights as someone who has already been born.

If you want to grant fetal rights then you will have to explain how you will deal with the questions I posed in post #109.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

That doesn't change the fact that it is murder. Murder of the defenseless and voiceless

It is not murder and it isn't a fact either.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

If you mean spontaneous as a miscarriage? obviously that is nature, not someone making a choice to end a life. but making a decision to end a human life, that's murder.

There are different degrees of murder. A spontaneous miscarriage would fit the definition of murder in the 3rd degree, AKA manslaughter, since you are applying a murder statute to abortion. Either way the woman is responsible for "ending the life of the unborn".

So how many millions of women are you planning on imprisoning for manslaughter each year? They should each have to serve a minimum of 20 years, right?

How do you expect to get this past the electorate given that women make up a majority of voters?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PEACH174 SAID:

“I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.”

A position that is ignorant, ridiculous, and completely untenable.

It also exhibits a complete lack of reasoning skills, an inability – or unwillingness – to contemplate what your postion actually means.

Are you actually stating that you advocate putting women and their doctors in prison for the 'crime' of abortion.

When a woman is convicted of the 'crime' of 'attempted abortion' and sent to prison, what's to become of her child once it's born.

Will a woman who has had a miscarriage be compelled to endure a 'criminal investigation.'

With regard to a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy, according to you the mother must be compelled to die because to save her life would mean 'violating' the 'rights' of the embryo/fetus.

Or are you so naïve and ridiculous as to believe that once abortion is 'outlawed,' women will just 'stop having sex'.

Your position is typical of most on the authoritarian right: compel conformity through force of law, violate citizens' rights to accommodate your capricious, subjective personal beliefs, while doing noting constructive to actually address – and end – the problem of abortion.

 

[PratchettFan]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.

Could someone else use their body to do this?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BONZI SAID: ↑

“That doesn't change the fact that it is murder. Murder of the defenseless and voiceless.”

Wrong.

This was proven to be factually incorrect in post #68.

As a fact of law abortion is not 'murder,' to maintain otherwise is to seek to remain willfully ignorant of the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Explain? Which human being are you talking about that has rights? The one in the womb, or the with the womb?

Any human being, period. I don't have a right to your body, even if your refusing me the use of you body means my death.

 

[daws101]

PEACH174 SAID:

“I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.”

A position that is ignorant, ridiculous, and completely untenable.

It also exhibits a complete lack of reasoning skills, an inability – or unwillingness – to contemplate what your postion actually means.

Are you actually stating that you advocate putting women and their doctors in prison for the 'crime' of abortion.

When a woman is convicted of the 'crime' of 'attempted abortion' and sent to prison, what's to become of her child once it's born.

Will a woman who has had a miscarriage be compelled to endure a 'criminal investigation.'

With regard to a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy, according to you the mother must be compelled to die because to save her life would mean 'violating' the 'rights' of the embryo/fetus.

Or are you so naïve and ridiculous as to believe that once abortion is 'outlawed,' women will just 'stop having sex'.

Your position is typical of most on the authoritarian right: compel conformity through force of law, violate citizens' rights to accommodate your capricious, subjective personal beliefs, while doing noting constructive to actually address – and end – the problem of abortion.

PEACH174 SAID:

“I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.”

A position that is ignorant, ridiculous, and completely untenable.

It also exhibits a complete lack of reasoning skills, an inability – or unwillingness – to contemplate what your postion actually means.

Are you actually stating that you advocate putting women and their doctors in prison for the 'crime' of abortion.

When a woman is convicted of the 'crime' of 'attempted abortion' and sent to prison, what's to become of her child once it's born.

Will a woman who has had a miscarriage be compelled to endure a 'criminal investigation.'

With regard to a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy, according to you the mother must be compelled to die because to save her life would mean 'violating' the 'rights' of the embryo/fetus.

Or are you so naïve and ridiculous as to believe that once abortion is 'outlawed,' women will just 'stop having sex'.

Your position is typical of most on the authoritarian right: compel conformity through force of law, violate citizens' rights to accommodate your capricious, subjective personal beliefs, while doing noting constructive to actually address – and end – the problem of abortion.

PEACH174 SAID:

“I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.”

A position that is ignorant, ridiculous, and completely untenable.

It also exhibits a complete lack of reasoning skills, an inability – or unwillingness – to contemplate what your postion actually means.

Are you actually stating that you advocate putting women and their doctors in prison for the 'crime' of abortion.

When a woman is convicted of the 'crime' of 'attempted abortion' and sent to prison, what's to become of her child once it's born.

Will a woman who has had a miscarriage be compelled to endure a 'criminal investigation.'

With regard to a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy, according to you the mother must be compelled to die because to save her life would mean 'violating' the 'rights' of the embryo/fetus.

Or are you so naïve and ridiculous as to believe that once abortion is 'outlawed,' women will just 'stop having sex'.

Your position is typical of most on the authoritarian right: compel conformity through force of law, violate citizens' rights to accommodate your capricious, subjective personal beliefs, while doing noting constructive to actually address – and end – the problem of abortion.

When dealing with the subject abortion, you must realize that to lots of people it's not a matter of reason it's instinct and religious dogma.

 

[daws101]

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?

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Explain? Which human being are you talking about that has rights? The one in the womb, or the with the womb?

Any human being, period. I don't have a right to your body, even if your refusing me the use of you body means my death.

Yep