3RU7AL

And so what two cleanly divisible categories are you alluding to.

So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.

If someone repeatedly posts stupid things, they are probably stupid. I never said that he is stupid, therefore his arguments are.

It gets worse when you consider how impactful the term is. For something so poorly defined, it has the ability to end careers and cause complete social ostracization.

The vast majority are not anti-vax. They are anti MANDATORY vax.

Not all tragedies can be legislated out of existence.

True, but abortions and covid deaths can be, so should we have vaccine mandates and abortion bans?  

There is not a way to perfect way to bridge this gap.

So, when you find a young woman half bleeding to death because she botched a coat-hanger abortion on herself, you send her away for life-in-prison.

Don't know what the punishment would be, but she just ended a life.

Where did you pull this out from? The US does not prosecute people for doing things legally in other countries.

Yes, there will always be those that intentionally miscarried or were reckless and caused the death of of the unborn child that never get caught, but that is true of all crime everywhere. That doesn't mean you do nothing.

Who has jurisdiction over a woman's own uterus ?

That's an absurd question.

That's the gap between "legal" and "moral".

Similar to justifying abortion on the basis that it violates medical privacy. Even if the law allows one to murder people across the border, it is morally wrong. Even if the law allows a woman to murder her children just because of their location within the uterus, it is morally wrong.

Without violating medical privacy, how can anyone determine the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion ?

You are aware that medical privacy is 'violated' all the time when it comes to legal issues, right? If child abuse is suspected, as one example, doctors will ignore medical privacy and report it to the police There are many instances of this, how would it be any different here? If a doctor suspects that it was an abortion then it can be reported and then an investigation happens.

For example, when an american border guard shot a mexican citizen to death across the border, a case that was reviewed by THE SUPREME COURT no less, it was ruled "not a crime" because nobody in the united states has legal standing to file a case against the border guard.

I don't know the specifics of the case. But if the killing of that Mexican citizen was unjustified, was it immoral to kill that citizen, even if the border guard was not found guilty in court?

(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTER

Disagree. When a baby dies of SIDS there is rarely that much of an investigation into manslaughter. Miscarriages and stillbirths should be treated the same. If there is good reason to suspect that the guardian/parent did something that is when you might investigate, but otherwise there is little reason to.

This is a statement of legal fact.

Slavery was also legal at the time. That was the point. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just because people used to be able to own slaves doesn't make it moral. Just because women can legally murder their children doesn't make it moral.

You can't "murder" a tumor.

And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.

The phrase "Even if you could" would be interpreted to say "Even if we assume the unborn baby is a human life..."

We are working off that assumption for the sake of argument. So, for the sake of argument, if we assume the unborn child is a human life, and ending that life under normal circumstances would be considered murder, you are saying that the murder would be acceptable because no one can legally file a wrongful death claim. Is that correct?

What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).

The legal guardian of a newborn baby (CITIZEN) has moral and legal obligations which can, in some instances, limit the freedoms said guardian would enjoy if they did not have these obligations. This is why neglect of a child is a legal issue.

Isn't the entire function of government to PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS ?

Not the "freedom" to murder their children.

the core disagreement in this debate will always be the question of whether we think of a fetus as a human being or not.

Do you "support" the idea of FREE-MARKETS ?

In a sense yes, but I am not a libertarian. For example, I don't see prostitution as a legitimate "business." The government has certain roles in protecting it's citizens, but there will always be tension between a government's authority and it's citizens' freedom.

What a person does with their own property is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY.

Was I understanding you correctly in my analysis of your argument in my post #91?

Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?

Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.

This gnome has attached itself to your power mains and water pipes and is siphoning off an increasing amount of both.

You also realize that if gnome thing keeps growing, it will permanently change the shape of your house.

You also understand that forcibly removing the gnome will likely result in its demise.

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an unwelcome guest ?

Do you believe you are obligated to provide life-support for an illegal-alien-immigrant ?

These are not at all analogous. A tiny gnome just appearing out of thin air vs a life being born from the very act used to create human life.

And if the argument is that this should be based on "bodily autonomy", then your illegal immigrant analogy is also irrelevant because a country is not a body.

If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus and medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?

It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others

The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.

That's the status quo. But simply being the status quo is not an argument in favor of a law.

It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.

Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.

Do you really and truly believe that someone who would even consider aborting their unborn child SHOULD be a parent of that unborn child ?

Do you really and truly believe that if a parent is unfit to raise their child, that justifies murdering the unborn child?

I hope your not implying once you have an abortion you are damaged and can never parent. 

I am just rejecting the idea of open borders as a bad policy for the good of a nation.

Because what I hear is that you want to use taxpayer dollars to try to violate MEDICAL PRIVACY.

Are you trying to say that child murder should be legal for the sake of protecting medical privacy?

Because what I hear is that you want to use taxpayer dollars to try to violate MEDICAL PRIVACY.

Are you trying to say that child murder should be legal for the sake of protecting medical privacy?

It certainly seems like a perfect solution to the "problem".

No, parents raising their children instead of murdering them would be the perfect solution.

Do you believe the state should invest in ECTOGENESIS ?

Absolutely not

The "legality" of immigration is historically amorphous.

But I - and I would guess nearly all nations historically - see open borders as an untenable policy. There has to be limits on how many people can become citizens. What parameters are used for limits is certainly up for debate. What is not up for debate is that entering a foreign country without permission is a crime.

Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.

False analogy, people don't just wake up pregnant.

And just because I don't want massive social welfare programs

And being against illegal immigration should be a non-issue for any law-abiding citizen.

Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.

False analogy, people don't just wake up pregnant.

Plus, an unwilling parent can legally give the child up.

So somehow terminating a pregnancy is evil but letting people die some other ways just fine it's complete and utter hypocrisy.

"Terminating a pregnancy" is child murder. "Letting people die" is an ambiguous statement that often just means "you don't want massive welfare programs!" Limiting welfare is not the same as actively murdering someone so there is no hypocrisy.

Without a connection drawn on how we jump from recognizing a person, principally as soon as we know of their existence, and similarly respecting human rights for cancer, gametes, or animals, the statement is unintelligible.  A gamete will never develop as a person.  Cancer will never develop as a person.  Humans are animals, but not all animals are human.  

That is irrelevant. The baby in the womb is either a life or it isn't. If it's a life, then abortion is murder.

But if life doesn't begin until birth, then late term abortion should be view conceptually the same as an abortion in the first trimester. You can "terminate the pregnancy" at any time with no moral issue. It's no different than clipping a fingernail, right?

Pro lifer conservatives: 800,000 painless abortion deaths is a tragedy.

Also pro life conservatives: 600,000 extremely painful covid deaths are no big deal.

Me: Do you have ANY self awareness whatsoever?

Why is there no right to the use of the body of another?

You say this as though it makes a difference. If life doesn't begin until birth, then abortion at 4 weeks is no different than abortion at 40 weeks. Do you believe that abortion 10 seconds prior to birth is child murder or not?

If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes,  for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.