Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?[W:1064]

[thinkagain]

The law is finally caught up with the scientific fact that the unborn are humans just like infants, teenagers and adults are. With that being said, there is no point denying it anymore longer.

Now it's time to focus on the philosophical and ethical aspects of the abortion debate or do you want to stay behind debating what's already been decided decades ago??

You keep blubbering about scientific fact despite that fact that your claim has been proven false.

Your claim that the "science is settled" and that the "Genetic Perspective" has been proven true is refuted by the fact that developmental biology textbooks show that in fact there are 5 main perspectives and that the "genetic perspective" has fallen out of favor among scientists.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

The fact that you have been shown this before - forcing you to run into the corner and hide - and yet you still keep on repeating this nonsense is disingenuous trolling.


Next -----

 

[thinkagain]

Well I don't really see it as much of a compromise for me because it very much fits with "my" pro-life views. It also lines up with most of the people in the two groups I belong too. I read lots of stuff on line that is just extreme and I have encountered a couple of those people in real life but most aren't like that. At least not in my experience for whatever that is worth.


Sigh, well you'd have to be more specific and like I said its fine to disagree. But sticking to what you said don't even get me started on some of the legislation proposed or what politicians do trying to cater to extremist.It's a topic that comes up OFTEN with both of my groups and we don;t like it either. We all feel it hurts are cause and its counter productive. I've been on record here many times stating that. These bills that usually don't even pass or pass then are overturned aren't helping. In fact they are shrinking the legal grey areas for compromise to happen in and it hurts the cause because most of the bills are very transparent agenda driven rather than driven by discussion, honesty and compromise. I find it embarrassing when a bill is written on the premise of "women's heath/saftey" when everybody knows it's not. It actually makes me made because when I do what I do often times people assume that my groups want those same things or are also presenting a dishonest premise.




I don't have a problem with this bill and I like it in many ways. this bill actually has verbiage in it that doesn't allow it to be used in cases of abortion.


The last version I read of the bill which may be an older version I DO NOT support it has written


They are not the same though but for the bill that is passed I don't mind it at all. That bill basically protects pregnant women who are assaulted and or murdered and the baby dies. Its added protection, deterrent and or punishment for people who assault and or kill pregnant women. That doesn't bother me If it reached beyond that scope I would have concerns.

We disagree on the UVVA but I was borderline inspired by the rest of your post. I have said for years that the GOP is going to face a demographic time bomb if they did not "give a little" on abortion.

There is no way the current election should even be close. The Dems should be getting crushed regardless who there nominee was ... and this is triply true with Hillary.

As it sits, if it was a normal Dem Candidate Trump would be getting hammered.

I am a constitution loving fiscal conservative (old style prior to the religious right taking over the party) .. that can not stand Blue and can not support Red.

 

[LaylaWindu]

We disagree on the UVVA but I was borderline inspired by the rest of your post. I have said for years that the GOP is going to face a demographic time bomb if they did not "give a little" on abortion.

There is no way the current election should even be close. The Dems should be getting crushed regardless who there nominee was ... and this is triply true with Hillary.

As it sits, if it was a normal Dem Candidate Trump would be getting hammered.

I am a constitution loving fiscal conservative (old style prior to the religious right taking over the party) .. that can not stand Blue and can not support Red.

Curious, what don't like about the UVVA, you don't like the parts I like?
As for abortion, well, I'll never stop fighting for what I want but it will be based on science, compromise and honesty. I am fully aware america will NEVER be banning abortion. All one has to do is look at a map of abortion laws around the globe. Abortion bannings are mainly in countries without rights and freedoms or less rights and freedoms. I want more restrictions like most pro-lifers but not total bans.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

You keep blubbering about scientific fact despite that fact that your claim has been proven false.

Your claim that the "science is settled" and that the "Genetic Perspective" has been proven true is refuted by the fact that developmental biology textbooks show that in fact there are 5 main perspectives and that the "genetic perspective" has fallen out of favor among scientists.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

The fact that you have been shown this before - forcing you to run into the corner and hide - and yet you still keep on repeating this nonsense is disingenuous trolling.


Next -----

You're hiding behind that link that shows some people denying the science reality that a human begins to exist after fertilization. The only position consistent with that fact is the ''genetic view'' while the other views show people who have fallen victim to Intellectualization like you have unfortunately.

Other views like the ''neurological view'' would conclude that humans born with Anencephaly are not humans because they only have a brain stem and some of the time, not even that. Most people including scientists still recognize they're humans despite lacking brains so really brain development doesn't determine what species a entity is. Or otherwise we can have all sorts of ''scientists'' claiming newborns aren't humans because there brains are not developed enough for whatever arbitrary characteristic they want to use.


If what you're saying is true about the ''genetic perspective'' is falling out of line with scientists then soon embryology and biology textbooks would stop referring to/ hinting that the unborn are humans right?

Your sophistry is very obvious to anyone and you really have nothing to go off of really besides rhetoric that was exposed before plenty of time by various individuals who posted in the exact same matter you have. You've brought nothing new to the table that wasn't already exposed since the full 4 years I've been on this site.

To think you could fool the young generation with your sophistry. :lol:

Next ----

 

[thinkagain]

Curious, what don't like about the UVVA, you don't like the parts I like?
As for abortion, well, I'll never stop fighting for what I want but it will be based on science, compromise and honesty. I am fully aware america will NEVER be banning abortion. All one has to do is look at a map of abortion laws around the globe. Abortion bannings are mainly in countries without rights and freedoms or less rights and freedoms. I want more restrictions like most pro-lifers but not total bans.

I do not have any problem with throwing the book at someone doing violence against a pregnant woman. This person is a piece of human garbage and should be thrown in the trash.

The issue I have is that the bill claims that the zygote is a human. Law works on precedent.

Further the contradiction in law with other abortion legislation is an anathema to justice. A zygote can not be "a human" in one instance and "not a human in another.

This also violates the principle of equal justice under the law.

Our legal system is broken beyond broken. We have fallen so far down the slippery slope ( fallen away from the principles on which this nation was founded) that we can not even see the mountain top any more.

Every one of SCOTUS should be removed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret the constitution and laws as per the principles on which this nation was founded.

I kind of went into rant mode there but, we should not be making law willy nilly.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I do not have any problem with throwing the book at someone doing violence against a pregnant woman. This person is a piece of human garbage and should be thrown in the trash.

The issue I have is that the bill claims that the zygote is a human. Law works on precedent.

Further the contradiction in law with other abortion legislation is an anathema to justice. A zygote can not be "a human" in one instance and "not a human in another.

This also violates the principle of equal justice under the law.

Our legal system is broken beyond broken. We have fallen so far down the slippery slope ( fallen away from the principles on which this nation was founded) that we can not even see the mountain top any more.

Every one of SCOTUS should be removed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret the constitution and laws as per the principles on which this nation was founded.

I kind of went into rant mode there but, we should not be making law willy nilly.

Oh I see now, you are worried that it could lead to other rulings and a twisting of this act. I never thought about it since it specifically mentions abortions are not included. Seems to me you would have to have a really bad judge (legality wise) to twist this into that.

As for the laws in general I don't really disagree but the issue is people don't agree on interpretations of the constitution, even scholars so there will always be discrepancies.They never bothered me much as IMO they fit right in with killing be murder (or the varying degrees or murder) or self defense and hate crimes laws etc.

 

[thinkagain]

You're hiding behind that link that shows some people denying the science reality that a human begins to exist after fertilization. ---

What some people ? It is a developmental biology textbook ... subject matter domain science ? If you disagree that is fine. All I did was claim that experts disagree. You are the one hiding from the fact that experts disagree.

You say "denying science" but you have yet to provide any science. You are a purveyor of falsehood.

Where is this science that proves a zygote is a human. If such science exists (like proof for the speed of light) it should be simple to prove and there would be no university textbooks denying this fact.

Time to run and hide again.... go little one.

 

[thinkagain]

Oh I see now, you are worried that it could lead to other rulings and a twisting of this act. I never thought about it since it specifically mentions abortions are not included. Seems to me you would have to have a really bad judge (legality wise) to twist this into that.

As for the laws in general I don't really disagree but the issue is people don't agree on interpretations of the constitution, even scholars so there will always be discrepancies.They never bothered me much as IMO they fit right in with killing be murder (or the varying degrees or murder) or self defense and hate crimes laws etc.

I separate the moral argument from the legal argument. I can have my moral belief but there is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on another human through physical violence (law).

We are supposed to have "limited Gov't". Individual rights and freedoms are supposed to be "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Gov't is not supposed to be able to make "any" laws outside it's legitimate purview.

This purview is direct harm - one person on another (Murder, rape, theft and so on).

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

At first glance it would seem that abortion law might be within the legitimate purview of Gov't if one assumes the zygote is a human. If not then it is clearly outside of the purview of Gov't as it is then an issue of individual liberty.

Lets give the zygote the benefit of the doubt for a moment. We then have a conflict between the rights of the zygote and the rights of the woman over her own body.

We must then weigh these competing rights on the scales of Justice. The value of the rights of the woman is clearly high "above the legitimate authority of Gov't".

How do we value the rights of the zygote. The best position the "Pro-Life" side can get to is in relation to the claim (zygote is a human ) is "Experts disagree" (Science - certain domains of Biology that define what a human is, Philosophy, Bioethics).

"Experts Disagree" = "we don't know" So suggest that the value of "we don't know/we don't know otherwise" outweighs the value of the rights of the woman on the scales of justice is preposterous

For those who suggest that we are justified in forcing a woman (against her will) to pass a large object through a bodily orifice on the basis of "We don't know otherwise". I suggest we use the same logic to make a law having Big Bob the Sodomizer visit this person weekly on the basis of "we do no know that this will not do this person some good"

I suggest that this person would be greatly benefited in that they would quickly figure out how stupid and retarded "we do not know otherwise" is as a justification for law.

Obviously, as we move later into the pregnancy my argument starts to fall apart as it gets for more difficult to argue that the fetus is not a human.

 

[joG]

No



No ... where are you getting this nonsense from ?

Well then. How can you say that the zygotes are not human?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well then. How can you say that the zygotes are not human?

He did not say they are not human. Everyone knows they are human. The disagreement is if they are a human (being).

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

All I did was claim that experts disagree. You are the one hiding from the fact that experts disagree..

I already know that experts want to disagree with the science that a human begins to exist after fertilization. You forgot the other part there of course.

You say "denying science" but you have yet to provide any science. You are a purveyor of falsehood.

I already did. Quotes from embryology textbooks from decades ago up to now affirming that humans begin to exist after fertilization. Used biogenesis from the realms of biology and used logical reasoning the ''SLED'' acronym (size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency.) that shows none of those 4 differences determines what you are. More and more projections on your part. I've noticed you cut out the part where even under your logic, anencephalic humans are not humans since they don't even brains but merely a brain stem.

Where is this science that proves a zygote is a human.

Embryology and biology and common sense of course. Sounds like you haven't read any of those textbooks for the past ''30 years'' or so.

If such science exists (like proof for the speed of light) it should be simple to prove and there would be no university textbooks denying this fact.

Yeah it was simple to prove. You've tried to complicate matters with your intellectualization. And there isn't any university textbooks that deny that humans begin to exist after fertilization since high school textbooks don't deny that scientific fact.

Time to run and hide again.... go little one.

It's time to run and hide and stop posting sophistry that is really only going to fool the most extreme of pro choicers. If you have nothing else new, we're done here.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Well then. How can you say that the zygotes are not human?

He is saying that zygotes are not humans. They're playing around with the noun and adjective form of the word ''human'' to create sophistry so you sadly have to specify it a bit more when they already know what you meant.

If you use the word ''being'' clarify you're using the ''existence'' definition of that word as it can mean ''person'' also which is not what is being talked about here.

 

[D_NATURED]

The but woman's right to choose does mitigate the responsibility of the male. If the male does not choose for the woman to carry an accidental pregnancy to term, and she does, then it is her responsibility and not his. It is her responsibility based on her unilateral decision to carry a accidental pregnancy to term.

If the court can prove "intent" (such as in your example of knowingly having sex and doing nothing to prevent pregnancy) then you might have a case for responsibility but, otherwise no. Another example would be I the man knew before hand that the woman was staunchly anti abortion (meaning that if she did get pregnant she would not abort) and he still had sex with her then I think one could also make a case.

In the general case however, where two people have sex and do not discuss such things, the responsibility for the decision to carry an accidental pregnancy to term is the woman's and the woman's alone.

The decision is hers because the physical risk is ALL hers. If it were a different situation, where pregnancy was just a fiscal risk, they could settle it in court as equals under the law. As it is, the risks lean heavily toward women and, as such, women deserve to have the right to take or not take that risk without input from the sperm donor.

 

[Russell797]

A human life begins at fertilization. That seems obvious enough. However, a zygote is not a human being, it has the potential to become one. It's a human zygote. You will not find any difference between a dog zygote and a human zygote until you investigate the DNA. Only then will you find the potential for differentiation in later stages of development. Those differences are not yet expressed.

Killing a dog zygote or a human zygote is really killing the same thing unless you imbue the human zygote with some special supernatural quality, such as having a soul.

 

[thinkagain]

Well then. How can you say that the zygotes are not human?

I don't. It is a human zygote. You are confusing the difference between the descriptive adjective (human skull, human cell, human feces) and the noun ( a human, a living human).

Just because something can be described as coming from a human, does not make that thing a human.

 

[thinkagain]

I already know that experts want to disagree with the science that a human begins to exist after fertilization. You forgot the other part there of course.


I already did. Quotes from embryology textbooks from decades ago up to now affirming that humans begin to exist after fertilization. Used biogenesis from the realms of biology and used logical reasoning the ''SLED'' acronym (size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency.) that shows none of those 4 differences determines what you are. More and more projections on your part. I've noticed you cut out the part where even under your logic, anencephalic humans are not humans since they don't even brains but merely a brain stem. .

1) if experts disagree then why do you keep claiming that the science is settled? Good that you are admitting your claim is false though. That is a step in the right direction.

2) You gave a claim from one source (not a textbook) with no link that claimed the zygote was a human. It was explained to you numerous times why this claim was fallacy (because the claim is contentious and it gave no explanation for that claim)

It does not matter where the claim comes from, if there is no explanation why this claim is true (and/or the proof of that claim is not universally accepted because no one disputes the proof ) then the claim is not worth the paper it is written on.

You, nor the author you cite presents any explanation of why their claim is true.

My source on the other hand gave a lengthy explanation of 5 different mainstream scientific perspectives.


The zygote is a human because ....... fill in the blank. You have yet to give a non fallacious answer to this question.

 

[thinkagain]

The decision is hers because the physical risk is ALL hers. If it were a different situation, where pregnancy was just a fiscal risk, they could settle it in court as equals under the law. As it is, the risks lean heavily toward women and, as such, women deserve to have the right to take or not take that risk without input from the sperm donor.

I have not denied the decision is the woman's.

What I deny is that one person should be punished for the consequences of the unilateral decision/action of another.

This is a violation of two of the most basic principles of the Rule of Law. 1) that one person is not to be punished for the actions of another

2) Equal justice/ equality under the law.

If the woman has the right to avoid the financial consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term, then it is a violation of (2) for the man not to have the same right.

 

[joG]

He did not say they are not human. Everyone knows they are human. The disagreement is if they are a human (being).

So it is a question of defining groups of humans we want to allow to be killed en masse.

 

[joG]

He is saying that zygotes are not humans. They're playing around with the noun and adjective form of the word ''human'' to create sophistry so you sadly have to specify it a bit more when they already know what you meant.

If you use the word ''being'' clarify you're using the ''existence'' definition of that word as it can mean ''person'' also which is not what is being talked about here.

One find this, when people argue their own interest knowing that they would be ashamed of their position formulated in dictiinary words.

 

[joG]

I don't. It is a human zygote. You are confusing the difference between the descriptive adjective (human skull, human cell, human feces) and the noun ( a human, a living human).

Just because something can be described as coming from a human, does not make that thing a human.

I don't think you realise that you only sorting humans into groups, attaching brands to them and using the name you have chosen to justify killing them for convenience.

 

[Scrabaholic]

So it is a question of defining groups of humans we want to allow to be killed en masse.

Zefs have never been considered human beings, even when abortion was illegal. And nobody is killing them 'en masse'.

 

[year2late]

I have not denied the decision is the woman's.

What I deny is that one person should be punished for the consequences of the unilateral decision/action of another.

This is a violation of two of the most basic principles of the Rule of Law. 1) that one person is not to be punished for the actions of another

2) Equal justice/ equality under the law.

If the woman has the right to avoid the financial consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term, then it is a violation of (2) for the man not to have the same right.

The woman has the right to make her own medical decisions. If she decides to assume the medical risks of pregnancy and a baby is born, THEY ARE BOTH obligated to support the child. Both.

It is not punishment. It is what is expected in society. This is not a game of "tag, you're it". You inseminate a woman and magically you can absolve yourself of responsibility.

And realistically as a taxpayer, I want BOTH parents to support the child before my tax money goes towards supporting their child.

 

[thinkagain]

I don't think you realise that you only sorting humans into groups, attaching brands to them and using the name you have chosen to justify killing them for convenience.

If you are going to accuse someone of sorting humans in to groups to justify killing them for convenience. Then provide at least some explanation .. some proof that your claim is true.

 

[thinkagain]

The woman has the right to make her own medical decisions. If she decides to assume the medical risks of pregnancy and a baby is born, THEY ARE BOTH obligated to support the child. Both.

It is not punishment. It is what is expected in society. This is not a game of "tag, you're it". You inseminate a woman and magically you can absolve yourself of responsibility.

And realistically as a taxpayer, I want BOTH parents to support the child before my tax money goes towards supporting their child.

1) I do not care what you want. There is a difference between having a believe and forcing that belief on another human being through physical violence.

You tried to support your claim on the basis saying that being a sperm donor = responsibility for the child.

I showed how this was not the case. You completely ignored my argument in relation to the Rule of Law as to "Why" this is not the case.

All you did was repeat your premise (which is fallacy) If you do not want to have a discussion and would rather just repeat your premise over and over like broken record ... then go talk to a wall.

Most of your points are already addressed in my post For example I gave an explanation of why inseminating a woman does not make the man responsible.

 

[Removable Mind]

I don't think you realise that you only sorting humans into groups, attaching brands to them and using the name you have chosen to justify killing them for convenience.

You'll never win your argument when you think your definition of "convenience" is universally the same in all cases of women having abortions, especially the ones that you aren't personally privy to have enough information to decided whether or not the violation of convenience has been committed (which apparently would be based on your personal definition). :roll: