CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

[Divine Wind]

Isn't a law that defines a zygote as a human being, a CHILD in the womb and makes it a crime of MURDER to kill it in a criminal activity PROOF enough that the CHILD killed was a person?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's law and there's science. By law, some people have "special rights" and others do not. You have no problem with a law that sends children to their deaths in a foreign country, so obviously you are more concerned about law than justice, a supremacist political agenda over scientific fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

Isn't a law that defines a zygote as a human being, a CHILD in the womb and makes it a crime of MURDER to kill it in a criminal activity PROOF enough that the CHILD killed was a person?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's law and there's science. By law, some people have "special rights" and others do not. You have no problem with a law that sends children to their deaths in a foreign country, so obviously you are more concerned about law than justice, a supremacist political agenda over scientific fact.

Scientifically AND legally "children in the womb" are already recognized as human beings / organisms.

That is undeniable and is not being debated except by fools who don't realize that it's not being challenged by lawmakers on either side.

The issue is about what rights the child in the womb has to the equal protections of our laws and when those rights begin.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Syriusly]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Because those same laws do not outlaw abortions.

Those laws attempt to create a recognition of 'personhood'- largely as part of a movement to ban abortions.

But those same laws clearly cannot recognize personhood because IF those laws did do that- then they would be saying that those laws allow the murder of persons.

 

[Syriusly]

Isn't a law that defines a zygote as a human being, a CHILD in the womb and makes it a crime of MURDER to kill it in a criminal activity PROOF enough that the CHILD killed was a person?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There's law and there's science. By law, some people have "special rights" and others do not. You have no problem with a law that sends children to their deaths in a foreign country, so obviously you are more concerned about law than justice, a supremacist political agenda over scientific fact.

Scientifically AND legally "children in the womb" are already recognized as human beings / organisms.

'Scientifically'? Interesting- support that.

Legally if the law allowed that, then women who had abortions- and the doctors that performed them- would be guilty of murder- which the law clearly states that they are not.

 

[Divine Wind]

Scientifically AND legally "children in the womb" are already recognized as human beings / organisms.

So what does science recognize a zygote as being? A human being or an organism?

 

[sakinago]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Also in the 14th

 

[Syriusly]

If an embryo is a human being- then any couple- and any IVF facility- would be responsible for ensuring the health and safety of every embryo created during the IVF process.

As a matter of fact- potential parents and the IVF facility would be risking the 'life' of every embryo it attempts to implant since the failure rate of implants is so high.

I don't know how IVF could possibly continue if every embryo is considered a human being.

And who is responsible for the health and welfare of all of those frozen embryos?

 

[sakinago]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I sure sakinago appreciates you covering for him.

Correct, as I've posted several times when you brought this up, our laws are convoluted on the issue. Also, I'm certain there are many laws in which you disagree.

You can stop trying to get a rise out of me. Not gonna work. And again your zygote argument is like asking someone to say "Is Chevy the same thing as a ford...no, then it isn't a car." Your setting the frame of the question with Chevy is to person, as ford is to zygote." There's the straw man.

And are you suggesting you disagree that it is murder if say someone strikes a pregnant woman in the belly hard enough to kill the fetus?

I also don't think laws should necessarily be our morality standard, seeing how Jim Crow was law, that's a double edge sword.

And Chuz life, you should probably get off the personhood argument, since it's such an abstract idea, that zero side can difinitively define. You two will be having separate conversations with each other.

 

[Divine Wind]

You can stop trying to get a rise out of me. Not gonna work.........

Awesome. I didn't realize asking a question like "Do you think a zygote is a person?" was attempting to get a rise out of you, but I'll accept your request to cease and desist doing so.

 

[sakinago]

You can stop trying to get a rise out of me. Not gonna work.........

Awesome. I didn't realize asking a question like "Do you think a zygote is a person?" was attempting to get a rise out of you, but I'll accept your request to cease and desist doing so.

Wasn't referring to that. I even put in an emoji for reference

 

[Chuz Life]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Because those same laws do not outlaw abortions.

Do you hear yourself?

Do you really not understand what an "exception" is? What it means? What the implications are?

Our State and Federal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER for anyone to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act. Several people are already doing time in prison for the MURDERS of "children in the womb" and our Supreme Court has so far declined to overturn those convictions.... but because those laws make an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal... your conclusion is that the "child" killed is not a PERSON?

Try selling that info to the defense attorneys for those already convicted and doing time. I'm sure they will be willing to pay you top dollar.

Those laws attempt to create a recognition of 'personhood'- largely as part of a movement to ban abortions.

Again, when we already have people doing time in prison for murder - for criminally killing a "child in the womb" - it is more than only an "attempt" at recognizing personhood. The recognition is clear enough and strong enough that the law has to make an exception to itself - just to keep abortions legal. If the exception were to be removed, abortions also would be murders under the same laws. Wouldn't it.

But those same laws clearly cannot recognize personhood because IF those laws did do that- then they would be saying that those laws allow the murder of persons.

MURDER by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another. If we have people doing time in prison - convicted of MURDER for killing a child in the womb... what does that say about the "personhood" status of the child that they are convicted of killing?

Do explain in detail how they can be convicted of MURDER for killing anything less than another PERSON.

 

[sakinago]

Scientifically AND legally "children in the womb" are already recognized as human beings / organisms.

So what does science recognize a zygote as being? A human being or an organism?

Human being and organism...organism is an umbrella term, a tadpole, a frog, a bacterium, and humans are all organisms.

 

[Polk]

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

What if personhood doesn't begin until a specific stage of development such as when the cerebrum becomes active?

Or, equally importantly, if personhood begins at conception, why would only "elective" abortions be banned?

 

[Chuz Life]

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

What if personhood doesn't begin until a specific stage of development such as when the cerebrum becomes active?

Or, equally importantly, if personhood begins at conception, why would only "elective" abortions be banned?

That is a fair question. However, again... I do not want to derail this thread with it. Would you like for me to start a new thread on the subject of "exceptions" to a ban on abortions?

 

[Chuz Life]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Also in the 14th

Yeah. I am pretty sure I said that.