CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

[rightwinger]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it illegal to murder an innocent zygote? What’s the punishment?

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

So at what phase in the human life cycle is abortion ok with you?

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

 

[Chuz Life]

I suggest you study our fetal HOMICIDE laws for the answers to that. Some of it depends on the laws of that particular jurisdiction.

The FEDERAL law defines a "child in the womb" as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development while in the mother's womb." The maximum charge is MURDER for killing one in a criminal act and it forbids the use of the Death Penalty as a punishment.

>>>”Why would I challenge something I largely agree with?”

First of all, I am personally irrelevant to the issue. The justifications (if any) have nothing to do with "me" personally.

That said, abortion is never "ok" by me.

Objectively speaking, some abortions are (in some extreme cases) justifiable within the parameters of the Constitution. Whether I am personally "ok" with it or not. The most obvious justification is when it falls into the category as an act of "self defense."

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

 

[rightwinger]

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Look, I find the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” a bit absurd. I mean why would a zygote inside the womb have any different rights thAn one outside the womb? Absurd laws tend to not really get enforced. Having said that, we may be closer to agreement than we realize, and are largely arguing over semantics.

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Wrong.

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws protect a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not, where the woman is the victim of the crime, not an embryo/fetus.

That’s why fetal ‘homicide’ laws have provisions prohibiting prosecution of doctors who perform abortions, provisions acknowledging a woman’s right to privacy.

 

[Chuz Life]

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

 

[Chuz Life]

When a child in the zygote stage of their life is recognized as a human being and a murder victim in one legal setting but not all others. . . I agree, the law is absurd. But, the law is not absurd because of the fact that it recognizes the rights of children in the womb. . . it's absurd because it fails to recognize them in all other legal settings as well.

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Wrong.

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws protect a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not, where the woman is the victim of the crime, not an embryo/fetus.

That’s why fetal ‘homicide’ laws have provisions prohibiting prosecution of doctors who perform abortions, provisions acknowledging a woman’s right to privacy.

Woman Charged With Feticide For Giving Birth To Stillborn; Cops Blame Cocaine

 

[ScienceRocks]

Everyone deserves to be protected by the government.
Heterosexuals
Gays
Trans
Men
Women

I agree

 

[rightwinger]

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

It is the law until it is changed

Until that time.....

 

[MPS777]

Nope

14th amendment does not apply to zygotes

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

But you’re using the fact that a law can convict someone of “homicide” for killing a zygote, in order to prove your point. And that law reduces to absurdity. They had to make all those absurd carve outs in the law probably because they knew that it would be ridiculous to give a zygote full 14th amendment “personhood” protections in all circumstances.

I’m not attacking all “fetal homicide” laws in general, but my philosophical position, independent of law, is that they go too far if they say killing a zygote is equivalent to murder. So my philosophical stance holds, a zygote is not a person any more than an acorn is a tree.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

It is the law until it is changed

Until that time.....

No kidding.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

But you’re using the fact that a law can convict someone of “homicide” for killing a zygote, in order to prove your point. And that law reduces to absurdity. They had to make all those absurd carve outs in the law probably because they knew that it would be ridiculous to give a zygote full 14th amendment “personhood” protections in all circumstances.

I’m not attacking all “fetal homicide” laws in general, but my philosophical position, independent of law, is that they go too far if they say killing a zygote is equivalent to murder. So my philosophical stance holds, a zygote is not a person any more than an acorn is a tree.

Once they are recognized as persons it does.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fact.

They are not people
Never have been

Good luck selling that denial to anyone who has already been convicted under a fetal HOMICIDE law.

Good luck selling a conviction of a legal abortion

It is the law of the land and a Constitutional right to choose

What is the law should always be the law because the laws are infallible. . .

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is duly noted.

But you’re using the fact that a law can convict someone of “homicide” for killing a zygote, in order to prove your point. And that law reduces to absurdity. They had to make all those absurd carve outs in the law probably because they knew that it would be ridiculous to give a zygote full 14th amendment “personhood” protections in all circumstances.

I’m not attacking all “fetal homicide” laws in general, but my philosophical position, independent of law, is that they go too far if they say killing a zygote is equivalent to murder. So my philosophical stance holds, a zygote is not a person any more than an acorn is a tree.

A (germinated) acorn IS a tree in the first days of that trees life. . . Just as a human zygote is a person in the first days of THEIR life.

Biology 101.

 

[PredFan]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The only obligation government has is to not violate the rights of its citizens. I can protect my own rights. I don’t need the government.

 

[rightwinger]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The only obligation government has is to not violate the rights of its citizens. I can protect my own rights. I don’t need the government.

No you can't

 

[PredFan]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The only obligation government has is to not violate the rights of its citizens. I can protect my own rights. I don’t need the government.

No you can't

Yes I can.

 

[rightwinger]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The only obligation government has is to not violate the rights of its citizens. I can protect my own rights. I don’t need the government.

No you can't

Yes I can.

Tell me how you do it all by yourself

 

[JoeB131]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

fetuses still aren't people.

and until you guys say you are going to throw ladies in prison for using IUD's and morning after pills, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[PredFan]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The only obligation government has is to not violate the rights of its citizens. I can protect my own rights. I don’t need the government.

No you can't

Yes I can.

Tell me how you do it all by yourself

I protect my right to free speech for instance, by using it and voting for those who are advocates of free speech. I protect my right to own guns by my vote and supporting the NRA. I protect my right to vote in local elections by using it to vote for those who respect the constitution. I could go on through the bill of rights but by now even you can see the point.

The only thing the government has the responsibility and authority to do is not violate my rights.

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

fetuses still aren't people.

and until you guys say you are going to throw ladies in prison for using IUD's and morning after pills, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Philosophically, I think fetuses at a certain point are people. The question I grapple with is at what “point” that happens. It’s a grey area that I am not comfortable with, and most people I’ve ever talked with also aren’t comfortable with.. hence the controversy with abortion.

IUDs, as well as what are marketed as morning after pills, actually prevent fertilization; so I don’t think they are particularly relevant to this discussion. But talking about “throwing ladies in prison” is implicitly relevant because charges of “murder” often do come up in these discussions. For example, if a woman is raped and decides to take an “abortion pill” a week later, did she murder and innocent person? In cold scientific terms, she destroyed a blastocyst of around 200 mostly undifferentiated cells. Philosophically, I don’t view that as a “person” so I would never accuse the rape victim of murder.

In order to avoid metaphor, I’m going to pictorially elucidate my view:
Here is a zygote (does not have full 14th amendment personhood protections):

Here is a person (with 14th amendment personhood protections):

The two beings depicted above have a large number of distinct and scientifically verifiable differences. That is why they have different terms and, I believe, different legal protections.