-->
@TWS1405
No such thing as "virtual" rape for a girl/woman who is already pregnant.
Clueless or in denial, you figure it out. I already have. Sad :--(
Abortion is NOT Murder, and it is perfectly SAFE
Posts
Total:
122
-->
@Vici
i. “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 “individ ual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”[iv]
Humans laws are not impervious to error i..e lack of good judgement or worse. You need to get off your high horse and stop acting like a sheeple.
Sheep Story
....ebuc
We
are sheep,
We
have no mind,
Sniff
sheep ass,
Follow
in a line.
We
are sheep,
Got
no free will,
Just
shave my hide,
To
give yourself a frill.
We
are sheep,
All
wooly and soft,
Trapped
by a fence,
Yet
we dont scoff.
We
are sheep,
Blind
to truth,
Follow
the commands,
Of
a human named Ruth.
We
are sheep,
We
dont deny,
New
positronic brain,
No
need to cry.
We
dont dream,
We
dont chase cars,
Just
empty biologicals,
Staring
at the stars.
-->
@Vici
Every one of your 8 points is easily contradicted.
From gamete fusion to birth, the zygote/embryo/foetus is naturally* reliant upon the host for survival.
Baby and child are emotive arguments.
Babies and children are not necessarily naturally* reliant upon the host for survival.
* Nature:
Surgical and medical intervention is the application of scientific knowledge, such that foetal development can be unnaturally maintained both within and outside the host environment.
Though how one chooses to define nature is yet another philosophical/semantical dilemma. But I would suggest that there is a distinction to be made between a medically/surgically assisted pregnancy and and a totally unassisted pregnancy.
Point of fact being, that if all interferences of pregnancies from conception to birth were outlawed, then the failure rate of the zygote/embryo/foetus and host death rate, would considerably exceed that of current abortion rates.
The ABORTION issue.....Selective morality as ever....Often relative to fantasy creation hypotheses.
-->
@zedvictor4
The ABORTION issue.....Selective morality as ever....Often relative to fantasy creation hypotheses.
True, until we get to the reality of the pregnant woman who is not dealing with a hypothetical pregnancy.
Some call reality actuality. Then we get to the reality of whether;
....1} she asks for assistence,
....2} others offer assistance with her consent,
....3} others stick their noses into her bodily business, with out her consent, to immorally take away her ability to choose the direction she wants her pregnant reality to proceed. God { perverts of God ] save the fertilized egg (*) aka zygote...(:)blastula....(((V))) gastrula....before human population drops back below 8 billion on Earth.
Begin chant save the zygote, save the zygote, save the zygote and were going to march to the capitol and make america { statue of liberty ] pregnant again or we will die trying.
-->
@K_Michael
Nothing is perfectly safe. I would say that on balance early term abortion is likely safer than carrying a baby to term for the mother for her long-term health.
well stated
-->
@TWS1405
But cellular life is not = to personhood.
bingo
-->
@TWS1405
95% of biologists believe human life begins at fertilization, regardless of political belief or stance on abortion. [1]
Additionally, the four qualities of life are present shortly following fertilization. These four qualities are: growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. [2]
Thirdly, the known medical science has found that a baby has it's own completed human DNA the moment of fertilization. [2]
Based on this, abortion is definitely killing a baby. But, legally, it would not be wrong to call it murder in certain cases since it fits with the definition of murder in the U.S. Code:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." [3]
The reason I argue, some cases, is because, even though abortion is a killing of a human being with aforethought, there is not always malice. Only in cases where the mother holds malice toward the baby, in a state that bans abortion, would be cases of murder under the U.S. Code.
However, according to various religious systems, abortion is considered murder.
The Bible and Tanakh both condemn murder as wrong. The Hebrew word for murder used in Exodus 20:13 is a word that means to "murder, slay." [4] In other instances it means to assassinate. [4] It is a completely different word than the Hebrew word to kill.
So, at face value, to take life from a fetus is murder, which violates Exodus 20:13.
The current Pope of the Catholic Church has called abortion murder. [5]
Furthermore, in Theravada Buddhist texts, a baby is considered a human being at the moment of fertilization, and that aborting it is the same a killing a human being, which is not allowed. And any Buddhist monk who does not tell a woman "no" on being asked whether to get an abortion is immediately expelled. [6]
So many of the world's biggest religions condemn abortion as morally wrong. The only notable exception is Islam, where the community is starkly divided.
Sources:
-->
@Vici
The legal definition of a human person is identified in 1 U.S.C. §8:i. “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.”[iv]note EVERY INFANT MEMBER OF THE SPECICES HOMO SAPEIN AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPEMTN
You conveniently left out, "...who is born alive..."
That USC is consistent with the 14th A.
Birth is the delineating factor from pregnancy to person under the law and societal cultural norms.
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS140595% of biologists believe human life begins at fertilization, regardless of political belief or stance on abortion. [1]
I agree, and it should be 100% of biologists. The basic biological criteria for life is met at conception. Every living cell in the human organism meets the same definition. But just because [a] cell is biologically alive, does not mean that that cell = [a] human being.
Additionally, the four qualities of life are present shortly following fertilization. These four qualities are: growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. [2]
Again, I agree. Still doesn't make it [a] human being.
Thirdly, the known medical science has found that a baby has it's own completed human DNA the moment of fertilization. [2]
Irrelevant. DNA merely identifies the origin of the biological material and/or organism.
When forensic scientists test biological matter collected from a crime scene, they look to identify it. DNA is one of those ways. Once identified a blood sample or organic tissue came from a human being, it does not make that sample or tissue [a] human being just because it has its own unique DNA, now does it!
Based on this, abortion is definitely killing a baby. But, legally, it would not be wrong to call it murder in certain cases since it fits with the definition of murder in the U.S. Code:
No, abortion is not killing [a] baby. The use of the terms baby & child is an appeal to emotion via obvious misnomers. And it does not fit any definition of murder in the US Code, or any other statute, state or federal, for that matter.
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." [3]The reason I argue, some cases, is because, even though abortion is a killing of a human being with aforethought, there is not always malice. Only in cases where the mother holds malice toward the baby, in a state that bans abortion, would be cases of murder under the U.S. Code.
Murder only applies to an already born human being protected by law being murdered by another already born human being protected by and subject to the law. A pregnancy has had no legal rights. Period.
However, according to various religious systems, abortion is considered murder.
Religion is irrelevant where the law is concerned.
The current Pope of the Catholic Church has called abortion murder. [5]
I could care less what the Pope thinks. He bends to whatever agenda is most popular among the sheeple.
So many of the world's biggest religions condemn abortion as morally wrong.
Again, religion is irrelevant in this discussion. Especially when so much violence and bloodshed has been caused/done by those claiming to carry out the word of 'God.' Pure hypocrisy.
Who here is actually willing to debate a pro life conservative on this topic?
-->
@Novice_II
I am a pro-choice conservative.
-->
@Novice_II
@TWS1405
I am am a moderate pro choice pro lifer.
-->
@zedvictor4
huh?
Please clarify how you are both pro choice, pro file?
-->
@zedvictor4
@TWS1405
Do either of you want to debate this?
-->
@TWS1405
Most pro-lifers are selectively moral.
And any reasonable pro-choicer is preferably pro-life.
-->
@Novice_II
Sure. I will accept as my first debate.
Remember I am new here. So, I will have to review how others have drafted (FORMATTED) their debates to make it crystal clear. I am rusty.
Thanks
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, as a conservative pro-choicer....I see your point.
I have no issue with abortion up to viability. If a woman cannot decide by the 20th week, then hands off. She should carry to term.
Since 90-94% of all abortions are before 14 weeks, I have no issue with that for the sake of the girl/woman to continue with their life for a better future for themselves; working toward that point where they would be in a far better financial and psychology state/position to properly raise a healthy law abiding citizen.
-->
@TWS1405
Nice.
As a Pro choicer I also agree that there should be strict limits on abortion.
I would not object to it being set at considerably less than twenty weeks though.
The majority of women know that they have conceived within the first two to four weeks.
And all women should be aware that they have participated in unprotected sexual intercourse.
Enjoy your debate.
-->
@TWS1405
The issue/matter/reality of abortion is solely a human being issue
Why?
-->
@TWS1405
any stage of development? does that not ring for you?
-->
@TWS1405
The entire argument you make hinges on dehumanizing the preborn before the point of viability (22 weeks).
Human life only begins at viability is a simplistic argument and I don't buy it.
Define human life. Make the semantic distinctions and provide the prenatal evidence that supports not calling this thing human.
Pro-lifers base their argument on the humanity of the embryo/fetus/unborn. Pro-choicer denies the humanity of the unborn. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if there is a good measure. Nor do I think most people possess the qualifications to accurately answer the question.
-->
@zedvictor4
And all women should be aware that they have participated in unprotected sexual intercourse.
unless they recently had a job interview with bill cosby
-->
@CoolApe
Nor do I think most people possess the qualifications to accurately answer the question.
human or not-human is NOT the question here
it's a simple matter of JURISDICTION
just like the recent supreme court case where a border guard shot a mexican kid
it was ruled "not murder"
and also, "not self-defense"
the dead kid's parents were not allowed to seek civil damages, because their courts do not have JURISDICTION over the shooter
-->
@K_Michael
->@TWS1405The issue/matter/reality of abortion is solely a human being issueWhy?
It is a uniquely human issue/matter/reality because it only relates to human beings.
Non-homo sapiens do not worry about population control, crime, single parent households, the 18-year legal obligation to raise a child (cloth, feed and educate it), being financially stable and/or psychologically ready, let alone the factors going on in the world that could impact that child's life as it grows older and lives in the real world. In fact, non-homo sapiens just don't "worry" at all. They operate on instinct when it comes to procreation, never any desire on par with human beings to procreate and raise a family within a nuclear structure.
-->
@CoolApe
->@TWS1405The entire argument you make hinges on dehumanizing the preborn before the point of viability (22 weeks).Human life only begins at viability is a simplistic argument and I don't buy it.Define human life. Make the semantic distinctions and provide the prenatal evidence that supports not calling this thing human.Pro-lifers base their argument on the humanity of the embryo/fetus/unborn. Pro-choicer denies the humanity of the unborn. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if there is a good measure. Nor do I think most people possess the qualifications to accurately answer the question.
Wrong. I am not dehumanizing the pregnancy.
We all know it is human in origin with the potential to become an actual human being.
Nowhere did I ever state that "human life only begins at viability," that's your strawman version.
No, you define human life. You clearly do not understand it, so show us why by incorrectly (or correctly) defining it.
Also, I never ever implied that "this thing" is "not" human. In fact, I have repeated stated it is human in origin, but being human in origin does not equate to being [a] human being. A decapitated head (or any removed body part) of a woman (or man) found at a crime scene with no body is clearly human in origin, but it doesn't make that human head = to [a] human being, now does it!! No, it does NOT!
Definition of humanity
1: compassionate, sympathetic, or generous behavior or disposition : the quality or state of being humanebespeaking humanity for the enemy in the midst of a bloody struggle— C. G. Bowers
Where in those definition of "humanity" does a pregnancy fit within? It doesn't. Cannot deny what isn't there.
-->
@TWS1405
Obviously, I'm not talking about virtue of humanity. Wrong definition.
Humanity = the necessary characteristics of being part of human race or a human being.
Nowhere did I ever state that "human life only begins at viability," that's your strawman version.
Human being = human life
You don't think a fetus is a human being until the point of viability.
In fact, I have repeated stated it is human in origin, but being human in origin does not equate to being [a] human being. A decapitated head (or any removed body part) of a woman (or man) found at a crime scene with no body is clearly human in origin, but it doesn't make that human head = to [a] human being, now does it!! No, it does NOT!
Condescending, but yes. Something human in origin is not necessarily a human. Why does the preborn get the status of human being instantly when it becomes viable and not this status before 22 weeks? Viability can not be the only answer.
A person who is unviable still persists being a human being. You can't simply pull the plug on comatose patients.
The humanity (being a human being) of the unborn is in question.
Pro-choicer logic
Killing an innocent human being is immoral and murder
The pregnancy is not a human being
Therefore, abortion is not the immoral killing of a human being.
Pro-lifer logic
Killing an innocent human being is immoral
The pregnancy contains a human being
Therefore, abortion is immoral and murder.
What is a human being has moral implications? The definition is important for both arguments.
-->
@TWS1405
So when does it become a human? Right now, you and I are collections of cells. What makes our cells any more relevant than a preborn human's cells? Every living thing is comprised of clumps of cells. A preborn human is no different.
If human life begins at conception, a point you agree with, then it follows that it is a human at conception. Or else it would not be human life, it would just be life. So if it is a human at conception, and it is alive, then it is murder to kill it premeditatively with malice according to the U.S. Code.
Btw, the U.S. Code does qualify preborn humans as life, and does charge intentional murder for it when a pregnant woman is killed. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 paragraph 2c:
"If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." [1]
So it isn't irrelevant. The question is over whether abortion is murder and the U.S. Code for murder would qualify. There is a legal definition of murder and, in some cases, it is murder to kill a baby in the womb. The U.S. Code does recognize they are safe from murder. Abortion is simply legalized murder in certain states. But Federally a child is considered alive in the womb, the same as with the biological definition and the religious ones for most of the world's major religions.
And for the person who earlier asked if they would debate a pro-life conservative on whether abortion is murder: honestly it would be a pointless debate because neither party would agree to a specific moral code. So why even bother debating it?
Now, as to the SAFETY of abortions, that would be a very easy debate for the Conservative, since the preponderance of scientific evidence proves abortions are significantly less safe than pregnancies and result in an increase in suicides, unintended medical consequences, and an increase in miscarriages. [2]
Source:
-->
@CoolApe
-->@TWS1405Obviously, I'm not talking about virtue of humanity. Wrong definition.Humanity = the necessary characteristics of being part of human race or a human being.
No, it was not obvious. Your fault, not, mine.
A pregnancy is NOT = to being an active member of the human race, let alone [a] human being.
I repeat myself. Potentiality does NOT equal actuality. Never has. Never will. Period. Fact. Period.
Nowhere did I ever state that "human life only begins at viability," that's your strawman version.Human being = human lifeYou don't think a fetus is a human being until the point of viability.
You are ignorantly conflating terminology.
While [a] human being = [a] human life...human life does NOT = [a] human being.
In fact, I have repeated stated it is human in origin, but being human in origin does not equate to being [a] human being. A decapitated head (or any removed body part) of a woman (or man) found at a crime scene with no body is clearly human in origin, but it doesn't make that human head = to [a] human being, now does it!! No, it does NOT!Condescending, but yes. Something human in origin is not necessarily a human. Why does the preborn get the status of human being instantly when it becomes viable and not this status before 22 weeks? Viability can not be the only answer.
Do you not understand/comprehend "viability"?
Viability is the ONLY answer.
A person who is unviable still persists being a human being. You can't simply pull the plug on comatose patients.
An already born human being cannot be "unviable."
This is a debate about huma procreation, abortion, and "fetal viability" where gestational development is concerned. Sorry if you are too ignorant to comprehend that fact. but that is a fact.
What is a human being has moral implications? The definition is important for both arguments.
No, it does not. Viability is the only measure of implication.
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@TWS1405So when does it become a human? Right now, you and I are collections of cells. What makes our cells any more relevant than a preborn human's cells? Every living thing is comprised of clumps of cells. A preborn human is no different.
Is reading comprehension an issue for you??? Seriously!!!
This debate is about human reproduction. Nothing else. Asking when it becomes human just demonstrates your place on the Dunning Kruger Effect ladder.
If human life begins at conception, a point you agree with, then it follows that it is a human at conception. Or else it would not be human life, it would just be life. So if it is a human at conception, and it is alive, then it is murder to kill it premeditatively with malice according to the U.S. Code.
No, "human life" does not begin at conception, but rather the very basic biological criteria FOR "life" begins at conception that is human [in] origin. It is just life. Cellular life. Nothing more. Cellular does NOT = personhood. Same as potentiality does NOT = actuality. Never has. Never will.
It is clear you do not understand let alone comprehend statutory law whereas murder is concerned. Most you pro-lifers do not. Hence your flagrant ignroance of the law.
Btw, the U.S. Code does qualify preborn humans as life, and does charge intentional murder for it when a pregnant woman is killed. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 paragraph 2c:
It is a "stacking charge," it does not define a pregnancy = [a] human being.
The pregnancy is [a] legal victim, that's it.
Reading comprehension matters.
So it isn't irrelevant. The question is over whether abortion is murder and the U.S. Code for murder would qualify.
If it did, genius, RvW would have been outlawed LONG AGO!!!
There is a legal definition of murder and, in some cases, it is murder to kill a baby in the womb.
No, it is not. Uneducated pseudo-law expert.
Try again.
-->
@TWS1405
You keep saying reading comprehension matters but you then proceed to misread my statements and those of biologists and even the federal law repeatedly.
Also, insulting people doesn't make you smart, if you have to resort to ad hominem and appeal to ridicule then that means you can't actually attack the position. Your arguments are fallacious and an if-by-whiskey attempt at credibility and therefore irrational.
An animal lashes out in feelings, a rational person lashes out in logic and discipline.
If you want to simply assert your own personal definition of personhood without any logic or reason or even a study or statement of fact associated with it, then so be it. But biologists, world religions, and the U.S. code have all assigned personhood to a preborn human. I am simply repeating what is already being said by others.
It isn't just my own personal opinion that a baby is a human. It is the opinion of almost every biologist in surveys, and they (and I) base said opinion on the current known science.
If you disagree, then assert facts and studies and reality as your point of contention, not insults. Insults are not arguments, they are irrational statements masquerading as intelligence when there is none present in the actual argument.