Another discussion about abortion

[Chuz Life]

I'm talking when life begins. Not when a new organism is created. Life is present even before conception.

It's my experience that people tend to conflate the various terms, "life", "organism", "being", and "person". They are all different things.

All persons are some other person's progency (sons, daughters, young, offspring)

A human organism is all of those things, even in only the zygote stage of their life.


Ununited sperm and egg cells are not.

 

[Chuz Life]

We tried that for 50 years. Didn't work out.

Given that people in different states see the matter differently, it suggests that each state should be free to set its own standard.

So, you believe that personhood is determined by popular opinion.

Majority rules.

Got it.

 

[Eman623]

View attachment 1146395

It was an appeal to pragmatism, not popularity. In a democracy, the will of the people should be the guiding principle.

Most people are okay with early term abortions and not okay with late term ones. Our laws should reflect that.

 

[Eman623]

So, you believe that personhood is determined by popular opinion.

Majority rules.

Got it.

Democracy is the worst system of government ever devised, except for every other one.

 

[Chuz Life]

It was an appeal to pragmatism, not popularity. In a democracy, the will of the people should be the guiding principle.

Most people are okay with early term abortions and not okay with late term ones. Our laws should reflect that.

Agree to disagree.

Personhood is not simply a matter of popular opinion.

The Dred Scott case proved that.

 

[Eman623]

All persons are some other person's progency (sons, daughters, young, offspring)

A human organism is all of those things, even in only the zygote stage of their life.


Ununited sperm and egg cells are not.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[Eman623]

Agree to disagree.

Personhood is not simply a matter of popular opinion.

The Dred Scott case proved that.

Dred Scott was "settled law" for far less time than Roe. Both are on the ash heap of history now.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

You are not really agreeing with me either.

But that's ok.


It's not about you or me, personally.

 

[Eman623]

You are not really agreeing with me either.

But that's ok.


It's not about you or me, personally.

I agree that I'm not 100% in agreement with you! And that is okay,

 

[BackAgain]

Emma wrote:

It was an appeal to pragmatism, not popularity. In a democracy, the will of the people should be the guiding principle.

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic.

The distinction is gigantic. And wittingly or not, your post just highlighted it.

Most people are okay with early term abortions and not okay with late term ones. Our laws should reflect that.

If we were a ”democracy,” you’d maybe have a good point. But we aren’t. So, you don’t.

And our Constitution, being the “Supreme Law of the Land” serves to protect basic rights such as the RIGHT to life, itself:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

US Constitution, Amendment 14 (my emphasis added in above except).

Ergo, maybe it is way past time to have the SCOTUS at last make a call on whether a preborn human life is a ”person”?

 

[Votto]

Who told you a zygote wasn't life? Of course it is, just like hair and fingernails. None of those can be called an independent human person.

The state really needs to address this issue and officially declare the unborn as either human or otherwise.

But, that makes the Left very, very nervous, which is why it is talked around when the topic of abortion comes up.

Don't you agree that this topic needs to be tackled to accurately rule on the abortion issue?

To not do so is unforgivable.

 

[martybegan]

Who told you a zygote wasn't life? Of course it is, just like hair and fingernails. None of those can be called an independent human person.

Hair and fingernails are part of a unique person, a zygote isn't the same as the woman gestating it.

 

[martybegan]

1. If we look up the definition of “person” we see things like “a human being regarded as being an individual.” And since we aren’t talking about corpses, I say we must add “living” to “human being.”

2. We know when a male’s spermatazum succeeds in entering a female’s ovum, that new being has its own unique identity. And we also know what kind of being it is: a human being. Huh. A unique human being

3. It is accepted by a large percentage of doctors that “life” begins at the moment of conception.

Therefore, if we agree to use actual definitions, we would be forced to agree that, absent lawful duty (like an “executioner”), absent being engaged in a war and absent self-defense for life threatening crimes, the taking of a human life is a homicide.

I regularly see “liberals” argue for abortion “rights” by arguing that the blastula or zygote is merely a “cluster of cells” but not “life” yet because — stage of development. Yet, even some strident abortion rights advocates concede that life begins at conception. They argue against any abortion laws which “limit access to abortion” on when. When does a “life” become an”person?”

Well, given those first three numbered paragraphs, it should be considered a “person” also at conception.

All valid points, except law decides what a homicide is, as well as if it is unjustified or justified.

Abortion pulls on two parts of me, the moral part and the independent part. My line of balance is a ban on birth control abortions at 10-12 weeks (which covers rape, and rape covers incest) and allowing after for the life of the mother or non-viability of the fetus.

Also, we need to lock down the wording of laws on the bans so we remove the ammo for some claiming miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies would legally be considered abortions.

 

[BULLDOG]

The state really needs to address this issue and officially declare the unborn as either human or otherwise.

But, that makes the Left very, very nervous, which is why it is talked around when the topic of abortion comes up.

Don't you agree that this topic needs to be tackled to accurately rule on the abortion issue?

To not do so is unforgivable.

Medical science already addressed it.

 

[Votto]

Medical science already addressed it.

Incorrect

Supreme Court could redefine when a fetus becomes a person, upholding abortion limits while preserving the privacy right under Roe v. Wade

The upcoming debate at the Supreme Court is less about the existence of the right to abortion and more about how that right is limited by the emerging personhood of a fetus.

theconversation.com

In Roe, the core factual question was whether a fetus is a person—a human who holds rights and hence cannot be killed lawfully by another person.

The court, ruling in 1973, recognized the problem that, “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

But the justices were nonetheless compelled to do so. The court ruled that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Therefore, “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

In other words, the question was beyond their scope of expertise, so they just said "F*ck it!" and made it legal anyway.

 

[Eman623]

Emma wrote:


We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic.

The distinction is gigantic. And wittingly or not, your post just highlighted it.



If we were a ”democracy,” you’d maybe have a good point. But we aren’t. So, you don’t.

My point is still valid. People vote to decide who decide things. And the Constitution itself was ratified by state legislatures who were voted into office democratically.

And our Constitution, being the “Supreme Law of the Land” serves to protect basic rights such as the RIGHT to life, itself:


US Constitution, Amendment 14 (my emphasis added in above except).

Ergo, maybe it is way past time to have the SCOTUS at last make a call on whether a preborn human life is a ”person”?

Ergo? You've still not shown why the unborn should be persons, only that if they were, then they would have rights. That is true, but trite.

And you're no different than the folks who used unelected and undemocratic courts to push through their agenda to legalize abortions nationwide. Yes, the courts should protect rights. But I don't think they have the competence to decide all on their own whether an unborn fetus is a person. That's a fundamental decision with huge implications for the entire country and there needs to be broad consensus (or at least as much as we can musted in these fractious times) on such a thing.

 

[Votto]

My point is still valid. People vote to decide who decide things. And the Constitution itself was ratified by state legislatures who were voted into office democratically.


Ergo? You've still not shown why the unborn should be persons, only that if they were, then they would have rights. That is true, but trite.

And you're no different than the folks who used unelected and undemocratic courts to push through their agenda. Yes, the courts should protect rights. But I don't think they have the competence to decide all on their own whether an unborn fetus is a person. That's a fundamental decision with huge implications for the entire country and there needs to be broad consensus (or at least as much as we can musted in these fractious times) on such a thing.

The issue of whether an unborn child is human or not with rights is trite?

Try again fool.

 

[Eman623]

The issue of whether an unborn child is human or not with rights is trite?

Try again fool.

Try again yourself and this time read for comprehension.

 

[BackAgain]

All valid points, except law decides what a homicide is, as well as if it is unjustified or justified.

I know. Indeed, that’s the point.

If our Constitution recognizes our right to life, then whether a zygote or embryo or a fetus is a life means it deserves protection under law.

And even if the life it protects is that of a “person,” then the definition of person seems to apply to that unique life.

Finally, as to your later two paragraphs, I have conceded several times that if it is somehow a contradiction, it is one I embrace: I do believe that there have to be some exceptions to any rule or law prohibiting abortions.

 

[Chuz Life]

It was an appeal to pragmatism, not popularity. In a democracy, the will of the people should be the guiding principle.

Most people are okay with early term abortions and not okay with late term ones. Our laws should reflect that.

That is a classic example of mob rule, populism.