CDZ Abortion

[Holos]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

What are those laws, if you don't mind me asking? Is there an online documented copy of them?

I was going to attempt and do what the OP proposed, defend abortion or whatnot, but since you are mentioning the existence of already instated laws it would be unwise of me to enter into a debate from nothing to back me up when the debate obviously already took place (if the law you are mentioning has in fact been already instated).

Then we can move on to debate more keenly closer to what it means to be a human being and not what it means to murder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

What are those laws, if you don't mind me asking? Is there an online documented copy of them?

I was going to attempt and do what the OP proposed, defend abortion or whatnot, but since you are mentioning the existence of already instated laws it would be unwise of me to enter into a debate from nothing to back me up when the debate obviously already took place (if the law you are mentioning has in fact been already instated).

Then we can move on to debate more keenly closer to what it means to be a human being and not what it means to murder.

Since he took the affirmation, I asked him for those laws, but he has been dancing around.

 

[PK1]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

---
I agree, more or less.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Consider that half of pregnancies are aborted naturally (miscarriage), and until a few hundred years ago, infant mortality rates (death < age 1) were a third or more!
Would a benevolent "God" be that much of an asshole?

Science/medicine and technology are responsible for increasing our avg life expectancy from < age 30 a few hundred years ago to 70-80 yrs+ nowadays.

I pray to science; it's much more rational, and practical too.
.

 

[Holos]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

What are those laws, if you don't mind me asking? Is there an online documented copy of them?

I was going to attempt and do what the OP proposed, defend abortion or whatnot, but since you are mentioning the existence of already instated laws it would be unwise of me to enter into a debate from nothing to back me up when the debate obviously already took place (if the law you are mentioning has in fact been already instated).

Then we can move on to debate more keenly closer to what it means to be a human being and not what it means to murder.

Since he took the affirmation, I asked him for those laws, but he has been dancing around.

Don't misunderstand me, I would only defend abortion if education had already terribly failed.

My opinion is that if for whatever reason pregnancy occurs followed by genuinely forced sex (which is a very fine line to assess, and perhaps even more than just a single fine line, but not altogether a fine line or many fine lines that can be dismissed) then the right of abortion must be conceded.

I do not think the right of abortion should or can be entirely free for the entire society because that would mean of course greater possibility of forced and unmeasured sex (which contains the measure of protection but is not only made of the measure of protection), which would tend not only to harm fetal human beings but also fully developed human beings. The "limited freedom" I would concede for abortion does not mean the right of abortion should be payed in monetary currency by whatever transgressing parties - that part of the right should of course be payed by all tax payers - but for the people especially involved in the case they would have to go through a judicial assessment process to know if there is any malice in the relationship that caused the pregnancy or if they would only need further governmental assistance to raise the child. The tax payers money would go either to the abortion clinic and rehabilitation facilities for the people involved according to the situation or to the newly made family and their "family relations" school, if they simply happened to have miscalculated their sexual relations for not following the instated protocol for measured and protected sex.

 

[Chuz Life]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

Do you deny that you are simply making assertions with no concrete evidence for them? So go ahead and post you evidence and do make sure to answer whether fetal homicide laws absolute and all inclusive
.

Would you like to try that again in English maybe?

 

[Chuz Life]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

What are those laws, if you don't mind me asking? Is there an online documented copy of them?

I was going to attempt and do what the OP proposed, defend abortion or whatnot, but since you are mentioning the existence of already instated laws it would be unwise of me to enter into a debate from nothing to back me up when the debate obviously already took place (if the law you are mentioning has in fact been already instated).

Then we can move on to debate more keenly closer to what it means to be a human being and not what it means to murder.

I'm not sure specifically what you are expecting but here is a link to a list of the more than 30 States who have State Fetal Homicide laws in addition to our Federal Law - which defines a "child in the womb" as a "child" and as "a human being."

I use these laws and lot of other biological facts to support my conclusion that a "child in the womb" is "a human being" and therefore also a "person" regardless of what stage of their life, growth and development the child is in.

 

[Holos]

Of course, this is only a thought process like any civilized progress.

If thinking far enough into development, we would be so well educated as a society that any kind of transgression would indeed be punishable by death in favor of the life (or lives) that would be exhonerated from such a terrible transgression.

A fetus or its nursing party should be made to live well and not again go through the trauma of abortion after having already been forced and coherced to experience what was not only unsought but harmful. This could however only be effectively accomplished in a society that would punish any forced transgression with a death sentence immediately after the situation had been judicially assessed.

That's the final point of social evolution in my opinion. You make a single mistake against any life form, you die immediately after it is socially and unanimously recognized. Despite all rumor that may still permeate in ours, we don't really learn from mistakes, we learn from already established, constructive knowledge. Mistakes are transgressions and should not exist in a learned and learning society, even one in which the educational system is still institutionalized through private and public distinctions.

 

[Holos]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

What are those laws, if you don't mind me asking? Is there an online documented copy of them?

I was going to attempt and do what the OP proposed, defend abortion or whatnot, but since you are mentioning the existence of already instated laws it would be unwise of me to enter into a debate from nothing to back me up when the debate obviously already took place (if the law you are mentioning has in fact been already instated).

Then we can move on to debate more keenly closer to what it means to be a human being and not what it means to murder.

I'm not sure specifically what you are expecting but here is a link to a list of the more than 30 States who have State Fetal Homicide laws in addition to our Federal Law - which defines a "child in the womb" as a "child" and as "a human being."

I use these laws and lot of other biological facts to support my conclusion that a "child in the womb" is "a human being" and therefore also a "person" regardless of what stage of their life, growth and development the child is in.

Thank you! Knowing of the existence of those laws and having them so nicely compiled and so easily accessible is very helpful!

With your first link I think I just made a little leap in my own logic that was seemingly only grasping for straws before.

The apparent never ending debate between pro-life and pro-choice isn't really what I had it to be - unproductive repetitivenness. It may indeed be repetitive and circularly conveying, but that's - I just realized - a technique within the judicial system that actually proceeds from legislation and returns to it, instead of a constant attempted obtrusion by a legislation and a judicial system partly in shambles and struggling to stay efficiently balanced.

The debate has evolved, it seems, to include both sides beginning their positions for the sole well being of the pregnant women involved (already distancing itself from the convoluted and largely dissociating discussions of the entire society's well being). Pro-life defends the life of the woman. Pro-choice defends the choice of the child beyond its own life and the life of the pregnant woman.

I think the debate continues to evolve, but now it at least makes some orientational logic to me.

Again, thanks for sharing the documents. Much helpful.

 

[PK1]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

---
I agree, more or less.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Consider that half of pregnancies are aborted naturally (miscarriage), and until a few hundred years ago, infant mortality rates (death < age 1) were a third or more!
Would a benevolent "God" be that much of an asshole?

Science/medicine and technology are responsible for increasing our avg life expectancy from < age 30 a few hundred years ago to 70-80 yrs+ nowadays.

I pray to science; it's much more rational, and practical too.
.

---
* To "a" MODERATOR:

What was the reason you inserted those red-colored XXXXXXX's?

An explanation would be helpful.
Thx.
.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Hypothetical question for you.

If someone walked up to your bedside one night while you were sleeping. . . and they connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if the connection was severed at any time before nine months. . .

How would you not have the right to the use of the other person's body during that time?

Certainly, even if they severed the connection themself and you died as a result. . . they would be charged with murder.

Wouldn't they?

Are you seeing the analogy yet?

Huh?

You are pro-choice right? Your name is "Chuz Life". I presume you realize it isn't a choice if government forces it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

I'm looking at the feticide law for my state and it doesn't say anything about a fetus being a human being. It does define the act as "feticide" - not "homicide". Seems it is a crime to kill a fetus without the pregnant woman's consent. It would also be a crime to cut off my arm without my consent - does that mean the state recognizes each of my limbs as separate and distinct human beings? If that's the case I want a vote for each of them.

 

[Chuz Life]

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Hypothetical question for you.

If someone walked up to your bedside one night while you were sleeping. . . and they connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if the connection was severed at any time before nine months. . .

How would you not have the right to the use of the other person's body during that time?

Certainly, even if they severed the connection themself and you died as a result. . . they would be charged with murder.

Wouldn't they?

Are you seeing the analogy yet?

Huh?

You are pro-choice right? Your name is "Chuz Life". I presume you realize it isn't a choice if government forces it.

Do you think there is something wrong with supporting everyone's right to make choices and to also support legal consequences for choices that are made that violate the rights of another or something?

I'm pro-choice for everyone. I even think people should be free to make criminal choices. Unlike you though (or so it seems), I also support consequences for some of the choices people make. Especially those that violate the rights of others.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Hypothetical question for you.

If someone walked up to your bedside one night while you were sleeping. . . and they connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if the connection was severed at any time before nine months. . .

How would you not have the right to the use of the other person's body during that time?

Certainly, even if they severed the connection themself and you died as a result. . . they would be charged with murder.

Wouldn't they?

Are you seeing the analogy yet?

Huh?

You are pro-choice right? Your name is "Chuz Life". I presume you realize it isn't a choice if government forces it.

Do you think there is something wrong with supporting everyone's right to make choices and to also support legal consequences for choices that are made that violate the rights of another or something?

I'm pro-choice for everyone.

Its not really a choice if the government compels it under penalty of law.

I even think people should be free to make criminal choices.

I don't.

Unlike you though (or so it seems), I also support consequences for some of the choices people make. Especially those that violate the rights of others.

If the government compels you to do something (or to not do something) by force of law, then you do not have the freedom to do that something (or to not do that something). That's the definition of what freedom is. At least, for the entire rest of the world.

 

[Chuz Life]

Then put up the pro and the con for "At conception the baby is a distinct human being, by all science." Put it all of it up for consideration.

What is it that you think is the basis for our Fetal Homicide laws. . . if it's not that the child killed is an actual human being / child?

That is just you talking, not the law. Put it up, Chuz.

Put what up?

Do you deny that our fetal homicide laws define and recognize "children in the womb" as human beings?

Or what?

I'm looking at the feticide law for my state and it doesn't say anything about a fetus being a human being. It does define the act as "feticide" - not "homicide". Seems it is a crime to kill a fetus without the pregnant woman's consent. It would also be a crime to cut off my arm without my consent - does that mean the state recognizes each of my limbs as separate and distinct human beings? If that's the case I want a vote for each of them.

Our Federal Laws define it as "a human being."

That's good enough for me.

Also, the charge under a fetal homicide law is "murder."

That means a "person" was killed.

You can't cite a law that says the same about one of your limbs being cut off.

 

[Chuz Life]

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Hypothetical question for you.

If someone walked up to your bedside one night while you were sleeping. . . and they connected your body to theirs in such a way that you would die if the connection was severed at any time before nine months. . .

How would you not have the right to the use of the other person's body during that time?

Certainly, even if they severed the connection themself and you died as a result. . . they would be charged with murder.

Wouldn't they?

Are you seeing the analogy yet?

Huh?

You are pro-choice right? Your name is "Chuz Life". I presume you realize it isn't a choice if government forces it.

Do you think there is something wrong with supporting everyone's right to make choices and to also support legal consequences for choices that are made that violate the rights of another or something?

I'm pro-choice for everyone.

Its not really a choice if the government compels it under penalty of law.

I even think people should be free to make criminal choices.

I don't.

Unlike you though (or so it seems), I also support consequences for some of the choices people make. Especially those that violate the rights of others.

If the government compels you to do something (or to not do something) by force of law, then you do not have the freedom to do that something (or to not do that something). That's the definition of what freedom is. At least, for the entire rest of the world.

All criminals make choices and they (even as criminals) are free to make choices.

The question is never about their freedom to make choices.

The question is "what consequences (if any) should there be to the choices made."

Generally speaking, the rule is when it (a choice) is shown to be a violation of the rights of another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

 

[PK1]

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

---
It's the woman's body and her final choice. Unless asked or closely related to her, everyone else should not interfere, ESPECIALLY government and religious kooks.
.

 

[JoeMoma]

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

---
It's the woman's body and her final choice. Unless asked or closely related to her, everyone else should not interfere, ESPECIALLY government and religious kooks.
.

There are two bodies involved, and one of the bodies often ends in destruction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

---
It's the woman's body and her final choice. Unless asked or closely related to her, everyone else should not interfere, ESPECIALLY government and religious kooks.
.

There are two bodies involved, and one of the bodies often ends in destruction.

One is a mother, the other entity is a fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

Chuz's opinion is simply that abortion should not be performed except when the mother's life is in danger and not even then at times. OK. I disagree.

Oh no. . . . someone disagrees with me on the internet.