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

[Lursa]

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 didnt decide third trimester abortions were/should be illegal. It left that up to the states. Just like Dobbs.

And you obviously choose to obscure the issue by not using precise terms...once again giving yourself wiggle room to not commit.

Human life, its beginning and definitions are biological in origin, settled, and fact. It's not up for discussion and legally, the definition doesnt change.

What you want is to change the legal status of the unborn human life. THAT is a different term. Why not be honest, straightforward? In the US, born persons have rights recognized. The status that has rights recognized is BORN. Further federal definition uses the word person. Why not stick with those if you want to discuss the legal aspects of abortion?

IMO, it's because you dont want to be pinned down on a position you know you cant really justify. Why you're afraid to be honest about your view is odd...you're in the abortion sub-forum but afraid to commit to your own position.

 

[NatMorton]

Roe didnt decide third trimester abortions were/should be illegal. It left that up to the states. Just like Dobbs.

Never claimed that it did. Read what I wrote more carefully.

Human life, its beginning and definitions are biological in origin, settled, and fact. It's not up for discussion and legally, the definition doesnt change.

There we differ. It is anything but settled.

 

[Lursa]

Never claimed that it did. Read what I wrote more carefully.

Ya kinda did, so I clarified it.

There we differ. It is anything but settled.

You are wrong...human life is clearly defined even in grammar school text books. Please...tell me which part of this is inaccurate:

An individual human life with unique Homo sapiens DNA begins at fertilization/implantation.​

Your turn...which part is wrong or "not settled?"

 

[quip]

Let's stipulate that. You're only proving my point. What Roe did, ultimately, was provide a federal, legal framework for how states can legally define human life. For all intents and purposes, Roe implemented the following:

1. A prohibition on states defining life before the third trimester, and thus prohibiting any chance of creating a fetal right to life during the first two trimesters.
2. Allowed states to define human life in the third trimester and thus allowing states to infringe on the mother's privacy rights for the sake of fetal life.

This is entirely consistent with my assertion.

You've wasted time asserting absolutely nothing not already in evidence.
Again, the Roe verdict was not a women's privacy rights vs. unborn right to life dichotomy.

Rather, it was a ruling regarding the rational accomodations for both positions.

That apparently wasn't satisfying to the anti-choice extremists....so here we are reading your defense of their uncompromising propaganda.

There's nothing partisan in what I'm asserting. If you cool your jets for a moment you'll see I have not proposed a specific legal definition for human life.

Plausible deniability, perhaps. Though you're arguing in its favor. Is there a practice difference?

Yes, my views are limited to the aspects of this debate that are relevant.

They're limited in general ...for the sake of bumper-sticker convenience and/or lack of depth and substance.

 

[NatMorton]

Ya kinda did, so I clarified it.

No, you've got that wrong (again).

You are wrong...human life is clearly defined even in grammar school text books. Please...tell me which part of this is inaccurate:

An individual human life with unique Homo sapiens DNA begins at fertilization/implantation.​

Your turn...which part is wrong or "not settled?"

We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.

 

[Maidenrules29]

could not have the right to use the woman's biological body without her consent to that use.

Equating a human embryo to a parasite is a non-starter.

 

[Gordy327]

Equating a human embryo to a parasite is a non-starter.

It is an apt comparison. As is using tumor instead of parasite.

 

[Gordy327]

No, you've got that wrong (again).


We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.

Specify what the legal definition of "human life" is!

 

[Maidenrules29]

It is an apt comparison. As is using tumor instead of parasite.

Nope.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope.

Yep. The similarities are there.

 

[NatMorton]

Again, the Roe verdict was not a women's privacy rights vs. unborn right to life dichotomy.

That is exactly what it was.

 

[Gordy327]

That is exactly what it was.

No, not really.

 

[quip]

That is exactly what it was.

No, not really.

 

[Lursa]

No, you've got that wrong (again).

Feel free to requote and prove what I got wrong. I'm always open to that.

We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.

What legal definition of human life? If there isnt one, why do you feel the need to create or "nail down" one? Why not just define the legal status for the unborn? And if you want it changed, then make that case, that argument? Compare it to the legal status of born people in the US and go from there. Should the unborn have that legal status? Make that case...why invent something new?

As for the morality of it, there's usually a moral aspect to violating/protecting people's rights. Again, why do you need to introduce something specific for the unborn if you want them to have the same legal status as born people. Is that true, the blue bold? Yes or no and please explain.

Otherwise, you are just trying to control the discussion by inventing your own definition and then expecting others to argue it in that narrow window. Why invent new? Use what exists.

If you want to discuss a moral right to life for the unborn...why do you need a legal definition for human life? Just use the biological one.

 

[Gordy327]

Feel free to requote and prove what I got wrong. I'm always open to that.



What legal definition of human life? If there isnt one, why do you feel the need to create or "nail down" one? Why not just define the legal status for the unborn? And if you want it changed, then make that case, that argument? Compare it to the legal status of born people in the US and go from there. Should the unborn have that legal status? Make that case...why invent something new?

As for the morality of it, there's usually a moral aspect to violating/protecting people's rights. Again, why do you need to introduce something specific for the unborn if you want them to have the same legal status as born people. Is that true, the bold? Yes or no and please explain.

Otherwise, you are just trying to control the discussion by inventing your own definition and then expecting others to argue it in that narrow window. Why invent new? Use what exists.

If you want to discuss a moral right to life for the unborn...why do you need a legal definition for human life? Just use the biological one.

I suspect you'll get more deflections and rhetoric rather than actual explanations.

 

[Lursa]

I suspect you'll get more deflections and rhetoric rather than actual explanations.

If so, I'll continue to find it odd and rather timid to not respond directly.

 

[Gordy327]

If so, I'll continue to find it odd and rather timid to not respond directly.

It just means he has no valid or rational response. He stopped responding to me altogether. Of course I'll still address his posts and expose the flaws for all to see.

 

[Luce]

There are no christians in office.

 

[NatMorton]

Why not just define the legal status for the unborn?

It's the same question.

 

[Lursa]

It's the same question.

Then why use the terms "define human life"? That is already biological fact. You want to define the legal status of the unborn...why not say that? It's more accurate.

Are you avoiding it so you can use the emotionally manipulative value of "human life?" "Human life" has no legal status, born or unborn.

Man, society, the judiciary, define legal status. How about you just be clear and plain? And you avoided all the other questions, of course. Do you believe the unborn should have the same legal status as born people? Yes or no and explain? (It is a debate forum)

 

[Gordy327]

It's the same question.

How about answering the question: what is the legal definition of "human life?" Point out this definition in the law books!

 

[Gordy327]

Then why use the terms "define human life"? That is already biological fact. You want to define the legal status of the unborn...why not say that? It's more accurate.

Are you avoiding it so you can use the emotionally manipulative value of "human life?" "Human life" has no legal status, born or unborn.

Man, society, the judiciary, define legal status. How about you just be clear and plain?

Because he's being intentionally disingenuous and attempting to be emotionally manipulative.

 

[NatMorton]

Then why use the terms "define human life"? That is already biological fact. You want to define the legal status of the unborn...why not say that? It's more accurate.

Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.

Are you avoiding it so you can use the emotionally manipulative value of "human life?" "Human life" has no legal status, born or unborn.

Man, society, the judiciary, define legal status. How about you just be clear and plain? And you avoided all the other questions, of course. Do you believe the unborn should have the same legal status as born people? Yes or no and explain? (It is a debate forum)

I am being clear. You, on the other hand, are playing word games.

 

[Lursa]

Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.

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 being clear.

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

You, on the other hand, are playing word games.

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

 

[Gordy327]

Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.

Then provide the legal definition of it and where any state has enumerated fetal rights!

I am being clear. You, on the other hand, are playing word games.

Not even a little.