Another discussion about abortion

[Chuz Life]

But if My opinion is correct, then we are absolutely slaughtering millions of utterly helpless and innocent human beings.

An acknowledged problem is still a problem.

It’s a person and can be nothing other than a human being once its life begins.

“The” law? Some laws do. Others don’t. Why? Because “murder” involves the intentional and wrongful taking of the life of a person. So, laws vary depending on whether the State wishes to avoid any confrontation with abortion “rights” [sic] advocates.

The struggle is real.

 

[Eman623]

But if My opinion is correct, then we are absolutely slaughtering millions of utterly helpless and innocent human beings.

And if it's wrong, then we aren't.

An acknowledged problem is still a problem.

I don't acknowledge it as a problem.

It’s a person and can be nothing other than a human being once its life begins.

Person and human being are not the same thing.

“The” law? Some laws do. Others don’t. Why? Because “murder” involves the intentional and wrongful taking of the life of a person. So, laws vary depending on whether the State wishes to avoid any confrontation with abortion “rights” [sic] advocates.

Ideally, the state should not be confronting anyone. People should come together, discuss then come to a collective decision. In a controversial matter like abortion, the extremists on both sides will likely be less satisfied than those willing to compromise and find middle ground.

 

[buttercup]

Person and human being are not the same thing.

Incorrect. Even the dictionary says that a person is a human being....

PERSON Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

PERSON definition: a human being, whether an adult or child. See examples of person used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

And a human being is a person....

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is the definitive record of the English language, featuring 600,000 words, 3 million quotations, and over 1,000 years of English.

www.oed.com

 

[Chuz Life]

Person and human being are not the same thing.

Except:

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

www.law.cornell.edu

"(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."

and

"(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."

Now, do I think the laws are perfect and infallible? No, but the challenge to you is for you to convince me (others too?) why we should reject or change it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Incorrect. Even the dictionary says that a person is a human being....

PERSON Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

PERSON definition: a human being, whether an adult or child. See examples of person used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

And a human being is a person....

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is the definitive record of the English language, featuring 600,000 words, 3 million quotations, and over 1,000 years of English.

www.oed.com

Great Minds. . .

 

[Eman623]

Incorrect. Even the dictionary says that a person is a human being....

PERSON Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

PERSON definition: a human being, whether an adult or child. See examples of person used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

And a human being is a person....

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is the definitive record of the English language, featuring 600,000 words, 3 million quotations, and over 1,000 years of English.

www.oed.com

I see there are numerous definitions of person in those. But neither dictionary specifies whether an unborn human being is a person. Because that is the question here and the there is too much controversy for lexicographers to weigh in.

 

[BackAgain]

And if it's wrong, then we aren't.

Obviously. But why take such a huge risk? Why can’t a society take a stand that tips towards caution in this regard.

I don't acknowledge it as a problem.

Refusal to acknowledge a problem doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

Person and human being are not the same thing.

Yeah. They kind of are. Call it “synonyms.”

Ideally, the state should not be confronting anyone. People should come together, discuss then come to a collective decision. In a controversial matter like abortion, the extremists on both sides will likely be less satisfied than those willing to compromise and find middle ground.

I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that that would be “ideal.”

If we all got together and came to the conclusion that all people with red hair were deserving of a gruesome death, and because the majority rules, that shit happens, I’d call it something less than “ideal.”

Go figure.

 

[Midnight FM]

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.

It's pretty simple.

It may be a biologically alive at conception, but it doesn't have a brain or consciousness. I would argue that simply being "alive" isn't what gives it inherent rights, but having its own consciousness does.

So prior to it having consciousness, abortion should be allowed for any reason. Once consciousness exists, it has rights which should be protected.

 

[buttercup]

I see there are numerous definitions of person in those. But neither dictionary specifies whether an unborn human being is a person. Because that is the question here and the there is too much controversy for lexicographers to weigh in.

It is undeniable that the preborn is a human being. Even some proaborts concede that... they just disagree on personhood. Only the most ignorant, scientifically illiterate people claim that the baby in the womb is not a human.

 

[toobfreak]

Only the most ignorant, scientifically illiterate people claim that the baby in the womb is not a human.

If the baby in the womb is not human, then what else could it be? Babies are usually delivered around their 35th-40th week and until they are delivered, lefties claim they are still just tissue, so I wonder, what about babies delivered as early as their 22nd week?

I just read about such a baby a few weeks back--- I wonder, if it is a baby now at 22 weeks, then what about all the abortions done on babies in their 28th week or 30th week? How are these not babies, too?

When will pro-abortion people just admit that they are murdering children and treating innocent human life as no better than a slave to do with as you please?

 

[Eman623]

It is undeniable that the preborn is a human being. Even some proaborts concede that... they just disagree on personhood. Only the most ignorant, scientifically illiterate people claim that the baby in the womb is not a human.

I agree and would never claim that. The baby is clearly a human. And moreover a human being. But even the dictionary won't take the last step and say it's a person.

 

[Eman623]

Obviously. But why take such a huge risk? Why can’t a society take a stand that tips towards caution in this regard.

Not a good argument. If I told you to give me $100 right now or the world will end tomorrow, you'd probably think I was conning you. But how could you be sure? You can't. $100 bucks is not much to save the world, so why take the risk?

Refusal to acknowledge a problem doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

I guess so, in the same sense that refusing to acknowledge an invisible, intangible and completely undetectable unicorn in the room with me doesn't make it any less of a unicorn.

Yeah. They kind of are. Call it “synonyms.”

Synonyms always have shades of meaning.

I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that that would be “ideal.”

If we all got together and came to the conclusion that all people with red hair were deserving of a gruesome death, and because the majority rules, that shit happens, I’d call it something less than “ideal.”

Go figure.

Well. That went dark fast. I don't see that ever happening here, but it reminds me of The Lottery.

 

[Chuz Life]

I see there are numerous definitions of person in those. But neither dictionary specifies whether an unborn human being is a person. Because that is the question here and the there is too much controversy for lexicographers to weigh in.

So, even after all the arguments presented, you have to have a dictionary tell you now - what we have been trying to argue the dictionaries (and laws) should have been saying - but haven't sufficiently been saying.

I think I see the disconnect.

And, let's ignore the legal definitions (fetal homicide laws and such) that already DO - effectively establish personhood for "children in the womb."

Those definitions and recognitions seem to be meaningless to you.

 

[Zincwarrior]

On what basis?

Try not to be so ridiculous.

You are ridiculous..the woman can literally die.

If men keep their pants zipped this is not an issue . Cut off their balls and unwanted pregnancy will plummet.

 

[Chuz Life]

I agree and would never claim that. The baby is clearly a human. And moreover a human being. But even the dictionary won't take the last step and say it's a person.

Definition of CHILD

a young person especially between infancy and puberty; a person not yet of the age of majority; a childlike or childish person… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Chuz Life]

When will pro-abortion people just admit that they are murdering children and treating innocent human life as no better than a slave to do with as you please?

That is my biggest goal/ want!

I Just ******* want them to admit they are killing children and denying basic human rights and personhood to the smallest, youngest, most defenseless and vulnerable human beings of all.

 

[BackAgain]

Not a good argument. If I told you to give me $100 right now or the world will end tomorrow, you'd probably think I was conning you. But how could you be sure? You can't. $100 bucks is not much to save the world, so why take the risk?

Your example is of course non responsive and illogical. If that’s the best you’ve got, you shouldn’t bother.

I guess so, in the same sense that refusing to acknowledge an invisible, intangible and completely undetectable unicorn in the room with me doesn't make it any less of a unicorn.

That’s not the same “sense” at all, since it contains not a scintilla of sense. There is no such thing as a unicorn. But a person does exist and the question is about when one becomes a “person.” Do try to focus.

Synonyms always have shades of meaning.

Words have shades of meaning. So what? If we value life so highly (as I believe we should), then we should take pains to not treat it cavalierly.

Well. That went dark fast. I don't see that ever happening here, but it reminds me of The Lottery.

It was just an illustration as to why we aren’t a democracy. And some things aren’t susceptible to such arbitrary decision making mechanisms as just putting it to a vote. The majority is denied that ability where and when the Constitution has placed roadblocks.

So, just as a majority can’t decide to off the gingers, so too a majority doesn’t get to permit any class of persons to the randomness of death for mere convenience.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's pretty simple.

It may be a biologically alive at conception, but it doesn't have a brain or consciousness. I would argue that simply being "alive" isn't what gives it inherent rights, but having its own consciousness does.

So prior to it having consciousness, abortion should be allowed for any reason. Once consciousness exists, it has rights which should be protected.

Zone1 Post in thread 'A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, breathe on their own, feel pain, to ever become self-aware, etc. is a "person."'

Aug 9, 2025

If the parents want an abortion I'm OK with that. If the child is already born I'd say let nature take its course.

Is that what the OP is asking about?

• Chuz Life

 

[BackAgain]

You are ridiculous..the woman can literally die.

Anybody can literally die. And if the continuation of a pregnancy poses a legitimate (genuine) risk of that, we have (or ought to have) one of the exceptions against any law prohibiting abortions. So, it is very unclear how anything i posted suggests that either I am ridiculous or that my position is.

If men keep their pants zipped this is not an issue .

Now, let’s talk about your ridiculous (repeated) argument. Wear a condemn.

But once a zygote has been produced as a result of casual sex, it is pretty ******* grotesque to urge that such a preborn human being should be subject to slaughter because it’s an inconvenience.

Cut off their balls and unwanted pregnancy will plummet.

Keep on with that vapid “argument” because it really fails to make any valid point.

 

[Chuz Life]

What's wrong with using the current legal definition and applying it consistently?

Or, if you don't agree with the legal definition, provide a better one and explain why it should be the legal definition and not the one currently used.

I believe that there doesn't need to be a single legal definition. Because abortion is a state thing now.

Just a few observations here.

1. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the United States.

2. No State laws can trump the Constitution.

3. The Constitution says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protection of our laws."

4. I don't see where that language leaves any room for any State to deny any human being (natural persons) the "equal protection of our laws" by denying them their "personhood."

Maybe you do?