Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

[Scrabaholic]

A justification for banning abortion is that the risks involved in pregnancy don't justify deliberately killing an innocent human being.

Easy to say when you know that YOUR body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth, isn't it?

 

[MamboDervish]

OK, so if you aren't recognized by government then you aren't a person. I'll go with that.

Let me ask essentially that same question again while keeping your answer in mind. Prior to the founding of this nation slaves were not recognized as people but, rather, as personal property. Since you believe that no human is a "person" unless they are recognized by the government do you also believe that slaves weren't people or, more accurately, didn't deserve to have any rights?

Again, I'm sorry, but brighter people than you have tried to put words in my mouth, and failed no less miserably.

If you have yet to be "recognized by a government", then you aren't counted as a person. You don't make the census. That's all. If you're implying that anyone who has no ID doesn't exist, then it's a stupid assertion. Ergo your entire tangential trip into slavery is just another waste of cyberspace. Take a deep breath and try to come to terms with the fact that nothing that happened to your developing body before your birth makes any difference to your identity, or your rights in this world. Because it doesn't. Not to me - and not to anyone other than you.

Enjoy celebrating your 3rd trimester party. Remember to make a wish.

 

[Lutherf]

Again, I'm sorry, but brighter people than you have tried to put words in my mouth, and failed no less miserably.

If you have yet to be "recognized by a government", then you aren't counted as a person. You don't make the census. That's all. If you're implying that anyone who has no ID doesn't exist, then it's a stupid assertion. Ergo your entire tangential trip into slavery is just another waste of cyberspace. Take a deep breath and try to come to terms with the fact that nothing that happened to your developing body before your birth makes any difference to your identity, or your rights in this world. Because it doesn't. Not to me - and not to anyone other than you.

Enjoy celebrating your 3rd trimester party. Remember to make a wish.

So then we, as people recognized by the government, have the right to kill people that aren't recognized by the government, right?

You are arguing that it is government recognition that conveys all rights to a living being. You are further arguing that if a living being isn't recognized by a government then they have no rights and therefore no protection from the will of those who have rights bestowed upon them. That is remarkably similar to the view of slaveholders and of of the myriad dictators that killed people by the millions as a way of preserving and protecting their position in government.

 

[iguanaman]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

It's alive like your gallbladder is alive. It does not have a life of it's own.

 

[Josie]

It's alive like your gallbladder is alive. It does not have a life of it's own.

Why not?

 

[MamboDervish]

So then we, as people recognized by the government, have the right to kill people that aren't recognized by the government, right?

Yet another failure. How many is that now?
Nope ! Aborting fetuses is not killing people - no matter how desperately you want it to be.

You are arguing that it is government recognition that conveys all rights to a living being. You are further arguing that if a living being isn't recognized by a government then they have no rights and therefore no protection from the will of those who have rights bestowed upon them. That is remarkably similar to the view of slaveholders and of of the myriad dictators that killed people by the millions as a way of preserving and protecting their position in government.

YOU are arguing that a fetus is a "person" that has rights. It isn't.

 

[Lutherf]

Yet another failure. How many is that now?
Nope ! Aborting fetuses is not killing people - no matter how desperately you want it to be.

YOU are arguing that a fetus is a "person" that has rights. It isn't.

And your argument has devolved to "it's not a person because I say it's not a person". That's the epitome of hubris and falls smack in the middle of my claim that the core of the abortion advocate propaganda mission is to dehumanize prenatal human life.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'm not triggered. The reason it bothers me is because, inevitably, this type of thing rubs off on some of those that are otherwise faithful.

A baby is a child of God from the point of conception forward. It's a child of God whether one believes or not. For those that do believe, using terms that mask that truth is a step away from faith and when faith fails we put not only ourselves but our nation at risk.

Our nation is not at risk over your interpretation of a stupid book.

 

[MamboDervish]

And your argument has devolved to "it's not a person because I say it's not a person". That's the epitome of hubris and falls smack in the middle of my claim that the core of the abortion advocate propaganda mission is to dehumanize prenatal human life.

Once again, you're reach has exceeded your grasp. It isn't because I say anything. The fact that it's not a person is a matter of law. The ultimate hubris is insisting that it is a person, absent the presence of any self-directed animating force. It isn't abortion advocate's propaganda to dehumanize - it is anti-choice minion's propaganda mission to ascribe attributes to the ZEF that science confirms it simply doesn't have.

 

[Lutherf]

Once again, you're reach has exceeded your grasp. It isn't because I say anything. The fact that it's not a person is a matter of law. The ultimate hubris is insisting that it is a person, absent the presence of any self-directed animating force. It isn't abortion advocate's propaganda to dehumanize - it is anti-choice minion's propaganda mission to ascribe attributes to the ZEF that science confirms it simply doesn't have.

And there you go again. You are saying that science doesn't confirm that a fertilized egg is human and humans don't have rights unless the government conveys those rights, including personhood, to that human. My suggestion that your beliefs are the same as those of slave holders and genocidal ideologues is merely reaffirmed.

 

[Lutherf]

Our nation is not at risk over your interpretation of a stupid book.

We all make choices. Some of us choose to be beholden to our mortal masters and some choose to be beholden to a God greater than themselves.

 

[MamboDervish]

And there you go again. You are saying that science doesn't confirm that a fertilized egg is human

No - no - no - no - no - no. Stop telling me what I'm saying. I'm tired of you distorting my words and their meanings. I'm saying, and have been saying on this thread since I first entered it, that there is a difference between that which is merely a human body, and that which is a human life as we understand it - or, if you will, a "person" in the legal sense of the word. Get it? I doubt it.

and humans don't have rights

no - no - no - no - no - ..... human bodies alone do not have rights. That is clear, that is the law, and that is the reason that next of kin are legally permitted to pull the plug on the living human body of a relative who has vacated what was once their carcass. The "person" is gone! Science has understood, for generations now, that the presence of a human body alone does not qualify the carcass for individual rights, so their next of kin can take that body off the respirator. For a "person" to exist, not only must the lights be on - but someone must be home ! And that self-directed animating force - that "will" - does not exist in a fetus.

unless the government conveys those rights, including personhood, to that human.

Rights are conferred to persons by governments. I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's just too damned bad, isn't it?

My suggestion that your beliefs are the same as those of slave holders and genocidal ideologues is merely reaffirmed.

Spare me the false equivalency horseshit. Rather than distorting and making up feeble misinterpretations of what I've written, just go back, starting at post #6, and read my actual words.

I'm tempted to offer to hold your hand through that - to compile everything I've put down on this thread and dump it all in a letter to you - but I have no faith that you'll read it, and even less that if you did, it would penetrate your blindfold, so I won't go through the trouble. If you go back and read everything I've posted on this thread, you might understand the meaning of my words, and, at the very least, cease trying to distort them to serve your own agenda. But I'm not optimistic.

 

[Atreus21]

great. What did society 'lose? And again, you have not described anything 'negative' for society.


Safer for the one who is also protected under the Const.

Now you are moving the goal posts.

OK, morally, the woman suffers pain and rights violations and health damage and even loses her life. She is aware of how society has now lowered her status as a citizen to less than equal to men and the unborn. Women who would also suffer emotionally and physically as they were forced by the govt (if abortion is illegal, it has to be enforced, right?) to remain pregnant against their will.

The unborn suffers nothing. It is completely unaware and suffers no pain. (Now you should do some research if you want to claim they feel pain during abortion. And also consider the pain they DO suffer during birth.)

So abortion is the lesser of the 2 in terms of morality...for me anyway, as I would not force such suffering and pain on anyone and am against the govt having such power.

See above.

I don't know how else to answer your first question. Killing innocent people harms society. You don't agree?

Yes, protected by the constitution. Those human beings who aren't are SOL.

There are risks to anything we do in life. I am at risk by being conscripted into the military. That doesn't give me the right to kill innocents to mitigate it. I don't see how women have been relegated to lower status. If anything you're arguing for a privilege that doesn't exist in any other context. Women should be held to the same standard as men - neither they nor anyone else should be allowed to deliberately kill innocents. "Remaining pregnant against their will"? You might as well argue the merits of theft by characterizing anti-theft laws as forcing thieves to remain hungry or impoverished against their will.

If I could anaesthetize a newborn so he felt no pain, and made him wholly unconscious of it, would you object to my killing him?

 

[Atreus21]

Easy to say when you know that YOUR body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth, isn't it?

If you could stop bodily harm to yourself by killing an innocent 2 month old, would you do it? If not, why not?

 

[Lursa]

I don't know how else to answer your first question. Killing innocent people harms society. You don't agree?

How? They arent people and their 'innocence' is an empty vacuum....meaningless.

So no, I cant agree unless you specify some kind of harm or negative effects on society. What are they?

Yes, protected by the constitution. Those human beings who aren't are SOL.

No of course they arent...except they arent protected at the expense of those that ARE protected by the Const. That's the purpose of the Const You have yet to explain why women should suffer the loss of their rights in order to enable the govt to protect the unborn. Please...feel free to do so.

I've pointed out that the risks of pregnancy are so much higher...

There are risks to anything we do in life. I am at risk by being conscripted into the military. That doesn't give me the right to kill innocents to mitigate it.

Yup, that is the ONE exception in the US and it is to protect this country. (Which I disagree with) If you had a valid answer to my other question, you might have a point but there is no harm to the US from abortion. The harm is to women...free, equal citizens that would be forced to give birth and risk their lives against their will. For no purpose that serves society. We dont need more people, there are millions that would love to immigrate here. So...again I ask you for some legally-based justification to violate women's rights....to force women to remain pregnant against their will...to end elective abortion?

I don't see how women have been relegated to lower status.

They havent been, yet. You dont seem to read well.

If anything you're arguing for a privilege that doesn't exist in any other context. Women should be held to the same standard as men - neither they nor anyone else should be allowed to deliberately kill innocents.

Your use of 'innocents' is your emotional appeal. It's empty and useless, just like the brains of the unborn...so they are incapable of 'innocence.' Unless you value the 'innocence' of a flower or a couch? They are empty vacuums that cannot act or form intent too.

Women have a right to bodily autonomy. To life, to due process, to medical & reproductive privacy and to make decisions that would affect their health and lives with their Drs. The unborn have NO rights. SCOTUS has considered this...just like it considered blacks and women. They recognized no rights for the unborn.

So...tell me again what right women have that men dont? If men got pregnant, they would have protection of the Const. protecting their bodily autonomy and other rights as well.

"Remaining pregnant against their will"? You might as well argue the merits of theft by characterizing anti-theft laws as forcing thieves to remain hungry or impoverished against their will.

Nope. If elective abortion was illegal, the govt would have to enforce that, and laws to do that would require use of force.

What use of force is used against 'potential' thieves, meaning before they steal? Are they locked in their homes? Are their medical and other private records invaded? Are they tracked to ensure they dont steal anything?

If I could anaesthetize a newborn so he felt no pain, and made him wholly unconscious of it, would you object to my killing him?

Please address the moral argument that I made...then I would answer your question.

It's a matter of one or the other. One suffers great pain and disrespect and loss and may not be able to uphold their obligations to others.

The other knows and feels nothing. It's not a choice any want to make but IMO, it's clear which is morally more reprehensible...all the pain and suffering of the woman should be/can be avoided. She is already contributing to society. The unborn is not yet and may never...it may be miscarried, it may be born severely defective.

This is the argument you avoided. Please address it before asking any other questions of your own.

 

[iguanaman]

Why not?

The gallbladder is a small pouch that sits just under the liver. The gallbladder stores bile produced by the liver. You do not need a gallbladder to live and it cannot live on it's own so when it causes problems we just remove it.

 

[Josie]

The gallbladder is a small pouch that sits just under the liver. The gallbladder stores bile produced by the liver. You do not need a gallbladder to live and it cannot live on it's own so when it causes problems we just remove it.

And, you know ... the big one --- a gall bladder is part of a body. A zef IS a body.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

We all make choices. Some of us choose to be beholden to our mortal masters and some choose to be beholden to a God greater than themselves.

You can choose that all day for yourself. No one else needs your assistance, and our laws aren’t for your Bible to judge or change.

 

[Lutherf]

No - no - no - no - no - no. Stop telling me what I'm saying. I'm tired of you distorting my words and their meanings. I'm saying, and have been saying on this thread since I first entered it, that there is a difference between that which is merely a human body, and that which is a human life as we understand it - or, if you will, a "person" in the legal sense of the word. Get it? I doubt it.

no - no - no - no - no - ..... human bodies alone do not have rights. That is clear, that is the law, and that is the reason that next of kin are legally permitted to pull the plug on the living human body of a relative who has vacated what was once their carcass. The "person" is gone! Science has understood, for generations now, that the presence of a human body alone does not qualify the carcass for individual rights, so their next of kin can take that body off the respirator. For a "person" to exist, not only must the lights be on - but someone must be home ! And that self-directed animating force - that "will" - does not exist in a fetus.

Rights are conferred to persons by governments. I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's just too damned bad, isn't it?

Spare me the false equivalency horseshit. Rather than distorting and making up feeble misinterpretations of what I've written, just go back, starting at post #6, and read my actual words.

I'm tempted to offer to hold your hand through that - to compile everything I've put down on this thread and dump it all in a letter to you - but I have no faith that you'll read it, and even less that if you did, it would penetrate your blindfold, so I won't go through the trouble. If you go back and read everything I've posted on this thread, you might understand the meaning of my words, and, at the very least, cease trying to distort them to serve your own agenda. But I'm not optimistic.

So now your argument is that a fertilized egg is a human body but not a human life? If that fertilized egg not alive? As far as governments conferring rights on people, that gets back to the slavery argument. If slaves aren't recognized as people by the government then they have no rights and it's fine to treat them as property. Why would someone with such a belief then choose to advocate for slaves to be recognized as people but not a prenatal human body (that isn't alive)?

You are playing a game of semantics with all this and that, as I said before, belies a reliance on propaganda for your arguments rather than a reliance on facts.

 

[j brown's body]

Of course it's alive. That's not really relevant to the abortion debate. Many things are alive that we can morally kill, like lice, blood cells, etc.

What matters is whether or not a ZEF is a human being.

The pro-life argument is logical and straightforward:
Premise 1: The unborn are innocent human beings.
Premise 2: Abortion deliberately kills the unborn.
Conclusion: Abortion deliberately kills innocent human beings.

If you accept Premise 1, then you cannot escape the conclusion. Pro-choicers used to most-commonly deny premise 1. As the scientific literature becomes less and less hospitable to them though, their final redoubt lately is to say that deliberately killing innocent human beings is sometimes justifiable (the bodily autonomy argument).

Once they're dislodged from that position, I don't know where else they'll have to turn.

Is something that has no capacity to make choices, and existing in the absence of anything to be guilty of really be considered "innocent?" Seems like its saying flowers are "innocent."

 

[j brown's body]

So now your argument is that a fertilized egg is a human body but not a human life? If that fertilized egg not alive? As far as governments conferring rights on people, that gets back to the slavery argument. If slaves aren't recognized as people by the government then they have no rights and it's fine to treat them as property. Why would someone with such a belief then choose to advocate for slaves to be recognized as people but not a prenatal human body (that isn't alive)?

You are playing a game of semantics with all this and that, as I said before, belies a reliance on propaganda for your arguments rather than a reliance on facts.

Slaves are rational, self-aware beings. slavery is a violation of their autonomy and stated preferences.

 

[j brown's body]

Yet another anti-choice thread that utterly disregards the vital interests and rights of actually rational women.

 

[code1211]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

Obviously, yes.

 

[Lutherf]

Slaves are rational, self-aware beings. slavery is a violation of their autonomy and stated preferences.

So then self-awareness and rational thought are what make a living being human and therefore worthy of having rights? Under that plan it would be fine to kill infants. Are you suggesting we allow that?

 

[Bodi]

This is bouncing off from another thread. Is a normally developing ZEF alive?

Of course. To think otherwise sounds pretty ignorant, to be honest.