New York legalizes infanticide

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 291
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@thett3
.................ww........bad hair day
.................}*v*{...... I am not a chicken
...............( * )( * ).....bosom buddies
..................( . )...just a wee bit pregnant
.................\*Y*/......external or internal
................./.....\.......leg, fin, side arm
............__/.......\__....tail-fin or tail fluke

Accept me for what I am, not what others falsely project that I am
And the conceptualized egg shouts out,

'I may not be an independent individual, that,
breaths air, hoeever, have no doubt, that

I Am Somebody and some day,
I will be set free from my physical attachment to this wom{b}an.

7 days later

DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@keithprosser
Very, very few late term abortions are due to pregnant women changing their mind about having a baby at the last minute. Almost all late abortions are performed for medical reasons.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!  Now that is funny.

According to the Guttmacher Institute (no friend of the Pro-Life side) there were "five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample"... “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@3RU7AL
So now you want to kill undocumented infants?
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@SkepticalOne
Aren't inalienable rights also the unborn children?  If rights are inalienable then they are intrinsically linked to the moment your life commences and hence fertilization.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@DeusVult

Very, very few late term abortions are due to pregnant women changing their mind about having a baby at the last minute. Almost all late abortions are performed for medical reasons.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!  Now that is funny.

According to the Guttmacher Institute...
Here is the original GI document.
I'm always glad to be better informed!  The paper shows the reasons some women have late abortions are complicted, but as I surmised few women are happily pregnant for 8 months and then decide on a whim to have an abortion.






mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
The paper shows the reasons some women have late abortions are complicted --corrected "complicated"--, but as I surmised few women are happily pregnant for 8 months and then decide on a whim to have an abortion.
Rational, logical common sense truth and facts do not go over well with irrational, illogical lack of common sense Trumpanzees nor their immoral proclivities.

Women are more complicated than men and men dont get that.  Men have harder time handling complex because the are more simple minded i.e. narrowly focused on the task at hand in the short term.

Women are more bilateral thinking ergo more omni-considerate in the short term.

Men see a principle and cannot see beyond the principle ergo narrow and short-sighted.

Women see principle, emotion{ feelings } and impact of those feelings on individual if not others i.e. more omin-considerate.



DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@mustardness
So murdering your offspring is omni-considerate?

If considerate now means considering yourself and ignoring your child...
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DeusVult
So now you want to kill undocumented infants?
Try and dial down the hyperbole.  Nobody wants to kill anything.

As I've said from the beginning,

(IFF) you don't care if deportees are harmed or killed after deportation (THEN) you don't care if embryos are harmed or killed after deportation.

Ectogenesis elegantly solves the problem of abortion. [LINK] 

On the other hand,

(IFF) citizenship, human rights and the full protection of the law are bestowed on a blastocyst at the moment of conception (THEN) every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated as a potential manslaughter, murder, or child endangerment criminal case.  Every conception should be registered immediately with the proper authorities so a certificate of citizenship can be issued.  Any pregnant woman engaging in high-risk behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

(IFF) every life is precious (THEN) we should protect every precious human being within our sovereign territory.  Including those accused of crimes.  Including those drinking water contaminated with lead.

It's not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of following your own axioms.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DeusVult
Aren't inalienable rights also the unborn children?  If rights are inalienable then they are intrinsically linked to the moment your life commences and hence fertilization.
For inalienable rights to be attached to the moment of conception is to create circumstances in which a person's irrevocable rights must be revoked. For this reason, personhood is attached to birth.

DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@SkepticalOne
Irrevocable right is a term you just made up.  Nothing says that abortion is an irrevocable right, except your desire for it to be so.

An inalienable right is attached to the organism itself by definition.  It cannot be attached to an event, because that means that it is not an inalienable right, but rather a granted right.  Since the life of the unborn begins at fertilization, inalienable rights are tied to fertilization.  Or to be more precise:

P1 - Humans have inalienable rights.
P2 - A new human life begins with the zygote at fertilization.
C1 - Zygotes have inalienable rights.
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you don't care if deportees are harmed or killed after deportation (THEN) you don't care if embryos are harmed or killed after deportation.
'care' is a very loose term.  To have or lack concern over a negative consequence is different than to cause a negative consequence.

Whether I'm concerned about somebody driving on icy roads with bald tires, has no bearing on whether I can ram the car next to me off a cliff.

Ectogenesis elegantly solves the problem of abortion.
Except that it does nothing of the sort.  It isn't currently available, and it would likely be highly immoral to implement in the vast majority if not all cases.

(IFF) citizenship, human rights and the full protection of the law are bestowed on a blastocyst at the moment of conception (THEN) every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated as a potential manslaughter, murder, or child endangerment criminal case.  Every conception should be registered immediately with the proper authorities so a certificate of citizenship can be issued.  Any pregnant woman engaging in high-risk behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There is actually no need for any of that unless there were reason to suspect foul play.  As life at a young age is tenuous, there is a natural high level of death.  It was historically assumed that the majority of people were not evil monsters who willed the death of their own children.  As such citizenship recognition can wait until birth as this will pass the time when most deaths are likely to occur and minimize useless bureaucracy. 

(IFF) every life is precious (THEN) we should protect every precious human being within our sovereign territory.  Including those accused of crimes.  Including those drinking water contaminated with lead.
If the person is drinking the lead laden water with the intention of harming the child, then fine charge them once you have proof harm has been done.  If they do not realize they are inflicting harm then they are guiltless.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DeusVult
(IFF) you don't care if deportees are harmed or killed after deportation (THEN) you don't care if embryos are harmed or killed after deportation.
'care' is a very loose term.  To have or lack concern over a negative consequence is different than to cause a negative consequence.
The motivation and the end result is the same.

Whether I'm concerned about somebody driving on icy roads with bald tires, has no bearing on whether I can ram the car next to me off a cliff.
(IFF) a person is considered sovereign (THEN) everything that happens inside that person is a matter of sovereign privacy.

In the exact same way that a country can choose who gets to stay and who gets deported, a person can decide for themselves who gets to stay and who gets deported from their own body.

Ectogenesis elegantly solves the problem of abortion.
Except that it does nothing of the sort.  It isn't currently available, and it would likely be highly immoral to implement in the vast majority if not all cases.
Certainly the technology requires more research and development before it is implemented for human embryos, but I fail to understand why you would imagine it would be "highly immoral".  Please explain.

(IFF) citizenship, human rights and the full protection of the law are bestowed on a blastocyst at the moment of conception (THEN) every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated as a potential manslaughter, murder, or child endangerment criminal case.  Every conception should be registered immediately with the proper authorities so a certificate of citizenship can be issued.  Any pregnant woman engaging in high-risk behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There is actually no need for any of that unless there were reason to suspect foul play.  As life at a young age is tenuous, there is a natural high level of death.  It was historically assumed that the majority of people were not evil monsters who willed the death of their own children.  As such citizenship recognition can wait until birth as this will pass the time when most deaths are likely to occur and minimize useless bureaucracy.
(EITHER) an embryo is a citizen with human rights and the full protection of the law (OR) they are part of the host organism.

You can't have it both ways.  If someone's child dies, even if it was unintentional, it is still a crime that should be fully investigated. 

(IFF) every life is precious (THEN) we should protect every precious human being within our sovereign territory.  Including those accused of crimes.  Including those drinking water contaminated with lead.
If the person is drinking the lead laden water with the intention of harming the child, then fine charge them once you have proof harm has been done.  If they do not realize they are inflicting harm then they are guiltless.
You seem to be unaware of the concept of "criminal negligence".
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DeusVult
Irrevocable right is a term you just made up.
Inalienable and irrevocable are essentially synonyms.

Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Given a better understanding of the terms being used, perhaps you can better understand my point. Granting a fetus inalienable rights while inside, and part of, another body with inalienable (irrevocable) rights is nonsensical. 

It's like saying someone has an absolute right...except when they don't. 😂
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@SkepticalOne

Actually inalienable and irrevocable are not synonyms.  Inalienable means that the right is effectively part of the being and that it is not possible to grant or remove this right it simultaneously exists with the being.  Irrevocable means not that it cannot be removed, it does not mean that it is always given.

Granting a fetus inalienable rights while inside, and part of, another body with inalienable (irrevocable) rights is nonsensical. 
You see, you made an error with the first word.  Granting.  Inalienable rights are not and cannot be granted.  Negative rights are not granted, they exist by the very virtue of being.  A better synonym for inalienable would be inherent. So there is no conflict for one being with inalienable rights to exist within another being with inalienable rights.  They both possess their full inalienable (negative) rights.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
So quick question. And actually serious, but cuts at the heart of the debate.

Lets say that head transplants became possible. If someone performed the head transplant, and then the original body died. Why would this not be murder?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DeusVult
It seems you are attempting to redefine inalienable. However, I've provided the definition above.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@DeusVult
What child?
And what right do you think you have over every woman's body?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@DeusVult
P1 - Humans have inalienable rights.
Who says?

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
because brain death = dead, hence the brain wave activity argument for when and what is live.

7 days later

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@thett3
Using the word mother is good rhetoric to show how much of a betrayal this is to the baby. We did not create man in our image so that he would be destroyed by people who have fallen from our grace.

A person who would destroy one of my creations will be destroyed in return.

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@disgusted
Who says?

The person who created them says so.