Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?

[NatMorton]

So what? It's a given...it has Homo sapiens DNA and is alive. What argument will you bring that places that in doubt?

I am not attempting to bring any scientific defintion of life into doubt. I am asserting that the core the abortion debate is regarding a legal defintion of human life (or, if you prefer, a defintion of when a fetus acquires a basic right to life).

Great...where are your "clear" answers? You avoided that again. Why?

You've read them already. You're just gainsaying at this point.

Dont lie, I'm trying to cut thru your word games and get to an actual discussion.

You're welcome to try and prove I'm lying, but you'll fail at that, too.

 

[Gordy327]

I am not attempting to bring any scientific defintion of life into doubt. I am asserting that the core the abortion debate is regarding a legal defintion of human life (or, if you prefer, a defintion of when a fetus acquires a basic right to life).

Still waiting for you to cite the definition. Otherwise your assertions are meaningess!

You've read them already. You're just gainsaying at this point.

Really? Where is your clear legal definition of human life?

 

[Lursa]

I am not attempting to bring any scientific defintion of life into doubt. I am asserting that the core the abortion debate is regarding a legal defintion of human life (or, if you prefer, a defintion of when a fetus acquires a basic right to life).

So answer the question...why do you need the factual, agreed upon scientific definition? It's not in question.

Why arent you just asking the bold?

You've read them already. You're just gainsaying at this point.

Dont lie. You have not...or just give me the post number.

Do you believe the unborn should have the same legal status as born people? Yes or no and explain? (It is a debate forum)

If you believe "yes", then just argue that. If you believe it should be different...where is YOUR recommended definition that can be discussed?

You're welcome to try and prove I'm lying, but you'll fail at that, too.

Since your answer is not in this thread, I prove it by its absence. If you want to prove me wrong...let's see the post number. It's possible you did answer to someone else and I didnt see it. So...prove me wrong. You know you want to.

 

[AZRWinger]

"Human life" is not in question. Neither is it relevant or being argued. It's about when that "life" is a legal person with rights and protections.

Ah, human life is THE central issue. When the right to life can be reduced via a political contrivance to something that can be withdrawn on a whim, there are no human rights.

 

[weaver2]

So a dependent life is not a life?

Of course a dependent life is life. A human embryo is life; it has living cells that reproduce and grow, but it isn't independent. It isn't a human being.

Be·ing
verb: present participle of to be
noun:
1. existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being"
▪ being alive; living: "holism promotes a unified way of being"
2. the nature or essence of a person: "sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others"
3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one: "alien beings"

It is the independence, the ability to live out of the womb, in the world of people that makes a being of value to society and as an independent,valued human being it has rights. A fetus is not a human being. It is human life, but not a human being, a person. Defining a fetus as a human being is semantically and biologically dishonest.


E

Sorry, no, the right to privacy does not supersede another's right to life. That is why third trimester abortions were almost always illegal even under Roe.
The critical issue is a legal definition of human life. Proclamations about other considerations amount to no more than grandstanding.

Roe did not make abortion illegal after viability. They left the legal aspects of second and third trimester up to the states.

Human life has been defied. Human being has been legally defined. The grandstanding noise is coming from those that want the the zygote/embryo/fetus legally defined as a human being. It is not a human being. This isn't an opinion; it's a fact. Refusing to accept that fact doesn't change the meaning of a human being no matter how many semantic contortions one goes through.

 

[Lursa]

Ah, human life is THE central issue. When the right to life can be reduced via a political contrivance to something that can be withdrawn on a whim, there are no human rights.

Well you are welcome to forfeit yours. The rest of us born folks will soldier on protected by the Const and the federal laws and decisions based on that.

Do you find the Dobbs decision acceptable?

 

[Lursa]

Of course a dependent life is life. A human embryo is life; it has living cells that reproduce and grow, but it isn't independent. It isn't a human being.

Be·ing
verb: present participle of to be
noun:
1. existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being"
▪ being alive; living: "holism promotes a unified way of being"
2. the nature or essence of a person: "sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others"
3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one: "alien beings"

It is the independence, the ability to live out of the womb, in the world of people that makes a being of value to society and as an independent,valued human being it has rights. A fetus is not a human being. It is human life, but not a human being, a person. Defining a fetus as a human being is semantically and biologically dishonest.


E

Roe did not make abortion illegal after viability. They left the legal aspects of second and third trimester up to the states.

Human life has been defied. Human being has been legally defined. The grandstanding noise is coming from those that want the the zygote/embryo/fetus legally defined as a human being. It is not a human being. This isn't an opinion; it's a fact. Refusing to accept that fact doesn't change the meaning of a human being no matter how many semantic contortions one goes through.

Why are you going off into the weeds with him again? That's what he wants. He refuses to propose what he would recommend for a fetal right to life, or when. Or even if the unborn should have the same legal status and rights recognized as born people. He's avoiding all that...and I dont know why...timidity perhaps. So he's happy to go in circles focusing on semantic minutiae.

But he knows very well at this point, his own admission, that the biological definition does not include legal status...and has stated THAT is what he wants defined.

 

[Gordy327]

Ah, human life is THE central issue.

nope. Its legally irrelevant. When said life is a legal person is what is relevant.

When the right to life

is not enumerated. What about the woman's life?

can be reduced via a political contrivance to something that can be withdrawn on a whim, there are no human rights.

What about the rights and autonomy of the woman gestating? Her rights & autonomy are being withdrawn on a whim of law with no rational or legal basis. Rights cannot be granted to both the woman and fetus equally.

 

[NatMorton]

So answer the question...why do you need the factual, agreed upon scientific definition? It's not in question.

Correct, that is not needed. This question is as much moral as it is scientific.

Why arent you just asking the bold?



Dont lie. You have not...or just give me the post number.

Do you believe the unborn should have the same legal status as born people? Yes or no and explain? (It is a debate forum)

If you believe "yes", then just argue that. If you believe it should be different...where is YOUR recommended definition that can be discussed?

That is not a debate I wish to have, so I am not answering that question. If you want to have that debate with someone, I suggest you find someone else. You're wasting your time pressing me for an answer.

 

[NatMorton]

Of course a dependent life is life. A human embryo is life; it has living cells that reproduce and grow, but it isn't independent. It isn't a human being.

Be·ing
verb: present participle of to be
noun:
1. existence: "the railroad brought many towns into being"
▪ being alive; living: "holism promotes a unified way of being"
2. the nature or essence of a person: "sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others"
3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one: "alien beings"

It is the independence, the ability to live out of the womb, in the world of people that makes a being of value to society and as an independent,valued human being it has rights. A fetus is not a human being. It is human life, but not a human being, a person. Defining a fetus as a human being is semantically and biologically dishonest.


E

Roe did not make abortion illegal after viability. They left the legal aspects of second and third trimester up to the states.

Human life has been defied. Human being has been legally defined. The grandstanding noise is coming from those that want the the zygote/embryo/fetus legally defined as a human being. It is not a human being. This isn't an opinion; it's a fact. Refusing to accept that fact doesn't change the meaning of a human being no matter how many semantic contortions one goes through.

You're getting rapped up in semantics. When I say (and when most of us say) "human being" in this context we are referring to an entity with a basic right to life. If you want to continue to split semantic hairs, like Lursa, be my guest, but it's a waste of time so I won't be responding to any more of it.

And while you certainly hold the belief that a zygote is not a human being, that is still only an opinion. It is not "fact." What is and what is not human in a legal context is, ultimately, a subjective assessment.

 

[Lursa]

Correct, that is not needed. This question is as much moral as it is scientific.


That is not a debate I wish to have, so I am not answering that question. If you want to have that debate with someone, I suggest you find someone else. You're wasting your time pressing me for an answer.

What debate do you want to have? It's not this?

What you would recommend for a fetal right to life, or when. Or if the unborn should have the same legal status and rights recognized as born people.​

​

By your own admission, the biological definition does not include legal status...and you havestated THAT is what you want defined. Feel free to include the moral implications that interest you in developing that legal status...what's holding you back?​

Yes or no and why arent you presenting your recommendations and reasoning? Otherwise, please state clearly what you do wish to debate?

 

[Lursa]

You're getting rapped up in semantics. When I say (and when most of us say) "human being" in this context we are referring to an entity with a basic right to life. If you want to continue to split semantic hairs, like Lursa, be my guest, but it's a waste of time so I won't be responding to any more of it.

And while you certainly hold the belief that a zygote is not a human being, that is still only an opinion. It is not "fact." What is and what is not human in a legal context is, ultimately, a subjective assessment.

You are the one going on and on about semantics. You're not even correct. A zygote is not legally a human being in the US. Do you really need that definition again? Why do you lie? US Code 8.

And why dont you present your argument, YOUR subjective assessment to discuss? Why are you here?

 

[weaver2]

You're getting rapped up in semantics. When I say (and when most of us say) "human being" in this context we are referring to an entity with a basic right to life. If you want to continue to split semantic hairs, like Lursa, be my guest, but it's a waste of time so I won't be responding to any more of it.

And while you certainly hold the belief that a zygote is not a human being, that is still only an opinion. It is not "fact." What is and what is not human in a legal context is, ultimately, a subjective assessment.

 

[weaver2]

It is not semantics. The legal definition of a human being is in US Code. The only people that refuse to recognize it as the legal definition are those trying to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal reproductive life by forcing every pregnancy to go to term. And the only way they can take away that right is by redefining the zygote/embryo/fetus a person, a human being with rights. The semantic game is being played by the anti-abortion movement,not by pro-choice advocates.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes or no and why arent you presenting your recommendations and reasoning? Otherwise, please state clearly what you do wish to debate?

Because I don't want to.

 

[NatMorton]

You are the one going on and on about semantics. You're not even correct. A zygote is not legally a human being in the US. Do you really need that definition again? Why do you lie? US Code 8.

And why dont you present your argument, YOUR subjective assessment to discuss? Why are you here?

I never claimed US law defined a zygote as a human being.

You really do get confused during these conversations. It's one misstatement after another from you.

 

[NatMorton]

It is not semantics. The legal definition of a human being is in US Code. The only people that refuse to recognize it as the legal definition are those trying to deny women the right to make private decisions about their personal reproductive life by forcing every pregnancy to go to term. And the only way they can take away that right is by redefining the zygote/embryo/fetus a person, a human being with rights. The semantic game is being played by the anti-abortion movement,not by pro-choice advocates.

Posts don't get much more dogmatic than that.

 

[Lursa]

Because I don't want to.

Such timidity on an anonymous forum...yet you feel free to post questions that you refuse to answer yourself...afraid to commit to your own views.

Well, at least you just admitted it.

 

[Lursa]

I never claimed US law defined a zygote as a human being.

You really do get confused during these conversations. It's one misstatement after another from you.

You posted this: while you certainly hold the belief that a zygote is not a human being, that is still only an opinion. It is not "fact. What is and what is not human in a legal context is, ultimately, a subjective assessment."

Which is a lie, since you know it is defined as legal fact. Not opinion. Codified into law.

 

[weaver2]

I am not attempting to bring any scientific defintion of life into doubt. I am asserting that the core the abortion debate is regarding a legal defintion of human life (or, if you prefer, a defintion of when a fetus acquires a basic right to life).

A legal definition of human life doesn't need to exist. It is adequately understood as tissue that contains human DNA. If there was a legal definition of human life it would not notate a specific number of days after which the fetus is a human being and acquires the legal right to live. That's a religious concept not a legal one and is defined differently by different religions. Religions have a Constitutional right to define human life, its beginning, end and moral path through out its lifetime. But what seems right and moral to one religion isn't necessarily right and moral for the next,which is why we have a 1st Amendment prohibiting religions from using government to install their particular dogma as law.

Your argument for a fetal right to life at some point in the gestation period was addressed in Roe the overthrow of which you celebrated. You are not a woman and your perspective as a conservative male that believes women need to be told what to do is completely devoid of any desire to understand the issues surrounding abortion.

 

[NatMorton]

Such timidity on an anonymous forum...yet you feel free to post questions that you refuse to answer yourself...afraid to commit to your own views.

Wrong again. I've not asked anyone what they think abortion law should be. That's a demand you're making, not me.

 

[NatMorton]

A legal definition of human life doesn't need to exist. It is adequately understood as tissue that contains human DNA.

So in your discussions on this matter you've found general agreement?

 

[AZRWinger]

Well you are welcome to forfeit yours. The rest of us born folks will soldier on protected by the Const and the federal laws and decisions based on that.

How thoughtful of you. Pro life advocactes soldiered on for more than 50 years against reducing the unborn to subhuman status.

Dobbs returned jurisdiction over abortion regulation to the states meaning there is no Constitutional right to slaughter the unborn.

Do you find the Dobbs decision acceptable?

The Dobbs decision reduced the slaughter of unborn children so yes, it is acceptable in that sense. There is still work to be done at the state level convincing state legislatures to protect unborn children and at the Federal level reminding Congress and the President it's good to be pro life.

Are you unhappy with the prospect of millions of children being born instead of slaughtered?

 

[Gordy327]

How thoughtful of you. Pro life advocactes soldiered on for more than 50 years against reducing the unborn to subhuman status.

Dobbs returned jurisdiction over abortion regulation to the states meaning there is no Constitutional right to slaughter the unborn.

And yet, women may still have an abortion in most states without due process. SOme states even expanded abortion rights.

The Dobbs decision reduced the slaughter of unborn children so yes, it is acceptable in that sense.

No, any reduction is due to people chosing to not have an abortion. Abortions declined after Roe was passed too.

There is still work to be done at the state level convincing state legislatures to protect unborn children and at the Federal level reminding Congress and the President it's good to be pro life.

Why should they unborn have any protections? If you want to convinve the government, make your case!

Are you unhappy with the prospect of millions of children being born instead of slaughtered?

Emotionalism isn't the issue or relevant.

 

[AZRWinger]

And yet, women may still have an abortion in most states without due process. SOme states even expanded abortion rights.

No, any reduction is due to people chosing to not have an abortion. Abortions declined after Roe was passed too.

There was and still is an unreasoned fear factor that Dobbs made abortion illegal. It's a great fund raiser for the pro slaughter crowd

Why should they unborn have any protections? If you want to convinve the government, make your case!

You have made it clear you don't believe in the right to life for human beings except under arbitrary conditions. It is the pro slaughter faction that still refuses to acknowledge the brutality of their position.

Emotionalism isn't the issue or relevant.