It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[MarkDuffy]

No.

So why did you think that was some kind of gotcha question?

I believe your mistake there is equating "not a person" with "zero value". Since that's only your fallacy, it's only your problem.

What normal people believe, and what I believe, is that the worth of the zygote/embryo/fetus grows as it grows. Something does not need to be a person to have moral value. A late-term fetus is not a person, but it still has significant moral value.

A person is simply a human being. The pre-born is a human being. If your whole argument rests on what the current law is, then there's no point in even debating this.

A minor cannot drink, smoke nor have sex.

Society has rules for the stages of life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You, obviously. And you're making logic scream as well. "Human being" is not a scientific term, but you're pretending it is.

No, in fact the OP cited peer reviewed source material. You? Only your talking points. Your definition of human beings or human life is dictated by your political biases, not science.

Human life is obviously a continuum. That's what the science says. Your claims about the science are very obviously wrong. Congratulations, you've failed at the science here as well.

What are you talking about? "Human life is a continuum"? Your ad hominem arguments are boring.

Here, educate yourself...

A Scientific View of When Life Begins | Charlotte Lozier Institute

You being stupid doesn't make us look like hypocrites, you know.

When you have no argument... scientifically speaking, you start calling people stupid. Charming.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Indeed it does not

Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?

The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.

Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?

A wanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no difference in the baby that is in the womb.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[mamooth]

How is a pre-born not a human being?

Because it's not born.

What, in your opinion, makes it any less human?

It's not less human. Pro-lifers tend to have problems understanding adjectives.

It has the exact same DNA it will have after it's born. So what makes it less human?

DNA has nothing to do with being a person. We knew exactly what a person was before we knew what DNA was.

If you think otherwise, define human DNA for us. In a non-circular fashion. That is, no "Human DNA is the DNA that humans have." If you're going to claim it defines humanity, you need to be able to quantify it precisely.

 

[buttercup]

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Wrong, because I know full well that hearts and minds need to be changed first before laws are changed. All I'm doing is trying to get people to wake up and see that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the birth canal. And that human life is precious, at every stage.

Just to add… More and more people are waking up. According to studies, more and more young people are becoming prolife and abortion is becoming more a thing of the past. It probably has a lot to do with new technologies that show the baby in the womb, but for whatever reason, times are changing.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

So proof by colloquialism is what you're going to use to justify removing liberty?

You do not have the "liberty" to trample over the rights of another… especially the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

Rights are protected. The rights of the mother.

That you don't like it is too bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you a parent?

Most parents don't think of zygotes as babies, you know.

I have never known a parent in all my 50 plus years that did not view the "thing" in the womb as their baby from the day they found out they were pregnant. Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

A person is simply a human being.

Yes.

The pre-born is a human being.

No. That's your very subjective opinion, and repeating it over and oever won't make it any ess of a subjective opinion.

By the way, such an interesting PC lingo you pro-lifers have, little phrases like "the pre-born".

If your whole argument rests on what the current law is, then there's no point in even debating this.

Good thing I've never done that then. You're just flailing now.

How is a pre-born not a human being? What, in your opinion, makes it any less human? It has the exact same DNA it will have after it's born. So what makes it less human?

That you truly don’t get it comes as no surprise.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Personhood does not begin at conception.

Why do you say that? A zygote has the same DNA as a fully grown person. That makes it a person.

Nope

 

[Natural Citizen]

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Well, no, she's on the Lord's side. Thou shalt not murder?

 

[RWNJ]

Indeed it does not

Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?

The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.

Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?

A wanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no difference in the baby that is in the womb.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Wrong, because I know full well that hearts and minds need to be changed first before laws are changed. All I'm doing is trying to get people to wake up and see that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the birth canal. And that human life is precious, at every stage.

The law is confused on this. Who was that woman who killed her 30 week old baby after it was born and went to prison for murder? If it was murdered in the womb at 30 weeks, it's perfectly legal. How did that one get past the jury?

 

[buttercup]

Rights are protected. The rights of the mother.

That you don't like it is too bad.

How very liberal of you… discriminating against age and location. Might makes right, huh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because it's not born.

Is that based off of science or politics?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Of course not and that does not happen

EVER

Actually, late term abortions do happen. You can look up the statistics if you don't believe me. They're rare, but so are chainsaw massacres… That doesn't make it OK.

You are a liar. This is what you said

If you really believe that, please answer this question. If a woman who is five minutes away from giving birth decided she didn't feel like being a mother… Do you think it would be perfectly OK to take that full-term, healthy baby just minutes before delivery, ram scissors into the back of his head, dismember the baby and kill him, for no reason except that the mother simply didn't want the baby?

That has NEVER happened

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nobody has ever said they were pregnant with a zygote.

So proof by colloquialism is what you're going to use to justify removing liberty?

You do not have the "liberty" to trample over the rights of another… especially the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

'Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."' ibid

You’re at liberty to disagree with this to your heart’s content – but your errant, subjective opinion doesn’t change this fact of law.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That you don't like it is too bad.

Well, have to tell you, we're working hard to turn it over to the states to write their own laws on it and to get a majority vote in congress to treat it as a violent crime like any other violent crime that the states would usually handle. That'd be how you repeal RvW overnight.

 

[buttercup]

'Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."' ibid

You’re at liberty to disagree with this to your heart’s content – but your errant, subjective opinion doesn’t change this fact of law.

Oh my gosh. How many times have I said this now… Maybe six or seven? I'm not here to discuss the legal side of it with you. Feel free to discuss it with others. Laws are not always correct.

 

[mamooth]

No, in fact the OP cited peer reviewed source material.

No, it cited subjective opinions. I can find "peer-reviewed" material basing personhood on skin color. By your standards, we'd have to accept that. I reject your standards.

You? Only your talking points. Your definition of human beings or human life is dictated by your political biases, not science

It's defined by what humanity has always used. Yours is defined by very recent bizarre historical revisionism.

Tell us, if your weird definition is correct, how is it humanity knew what a person was before we knew how conception worked?

What are you talking about? "Human life is a continuum"? Your ad hominem arguments are boring

So you're saying sperm and egg aren't alive? You don't seem grounded in reality.

Here, educate yourself...

That's somebody's subjective opinion. Repeating a subjective opinion over and over doesn't make it less subjective.

When you have no argument... scientifically speaking, you start calling people stupid. Charming.

When you insult people then whine about insults, you look like a whiner and a hypocrite. Laughable.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You are not the decider of law.

I wasn't even talking about the law, I was talking about the simple fact that people do not have the right to trample over the rights of others.

W/o law you have no rights

 

[RWNJ]

Rights are protected. The rights of the mother.

That you don't like it is too bad.

How very liberal of you… discriminating against age and location. Might makes right, huh?

'Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."' ibid

You’re at liberty to disagree with this to your heart’s content – but your errant, subjective opinion doesn’t change this fact of law.

Oh my gosh. How many times have I said this now… Maybe six or seven? I'm not here to discuss the legal side of it with you. Feel free to discuss it with others. Laws are not always correct.

Seems to me like the wheel is turning but the gerbil is dead. Keep trying though. LOL!

 

[buttercup]

You are a liar. This is what you said

If you really believe that, please answer this question. If a woman who is five minutes away from giving birth decided she didn't feel like being a mother… Do you think it would be perfectly OK to take that full-term, healthy baby just minutes before delivery, ram scissors into the back of his head, dismember the baby and kill him, for no reason except that the mother simply didn't want the baby?

That has NEVER happened

Do you not understand a hypothetical example? The person I was posting to said that birth is the cut off line. So I asked her (or him) what she thought of that example.

I stated that late term abortions do happen, I didn't say that that exact example happens. Although who knows? I wouldn't rule it out, in this crazy, twisted world we live in.