Sorry, i just don't get it.

[Gordy327]

Which also implies there are unborn persons. The rest of that sentence is a description of a US citizen, not a person.

Unborn person is an oxymoron and directly refuted by US Code. Nowhere is the unborn recognized as a legal person.

 

[Lursa]

Which also implies there are unborn persons. The rest of that sentence is a description of a US citizen, not a person.

No it doesnt. Feel free to source the law interpreting it that way. That's not how basoc correct sentence structure works.

 

[mac]

Correct, any laws or rights pertaining to those blue terms only apply to born Homo sapiens. It's very clear.

So what point are you trying to make besides Gordy and I am are correct?

This code is merely to define how congress uses the term. It does not deny personhood to the unborn.

 

[Lursa]

Most of those that wait a period of up to two years to get adopted where not infants when they entered the foster system, they were older children.

Source?

 

[iguanaman]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

True since being anti-abortion really just means you hate women and want them to suffer. It has nothing to do with caring about a clump of cells and never has.

 

[Gordy327]

She is not forced to gestate, her actions led her to that. What she would be "forced" to do is not commit homicide.

If a pregnant woman wants an abortion. (Not homicide) but is not legally allowed, then she's being forced to gestate.

 

[Lursa]

This code is merely to define how congress uses the term. It does not deny personhood to the unborn.

Yes, in when creating and applying laws. What purpose do you see Congress needing such definitions for? Please list some. Benefits? Only for the born. Does a law protect the unborn? Nope.

 

[mac]

Yes, in when creating and applying laws. What purpose do you see Congress needing such definitions for? Please list some. Benefits? Only for the born. Does a law protect the unborn? Nope.

here's that last section of the code: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

 

[Gordy327]

This code is merely to define how congress uses the term. It does not deny personhood to the unborn.

It does not affirm personhood to the unborn. Neither does any other legal source or text. If it is not legally stated, it does not legally exist or apply. That's why some states have tried to pass "personhood" laws on their own in the past. But such attempts have failed.

 

[Lursa]

here's that last section of the code: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

LMAO, that's a 'disclaimer.' You, like many people, apparently dont understand it. It also says it doesnt 'affirm' it.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive."

You should not be 'interpreting anything legally-oriented' without supporting links/documentation. You clearly have no facility with it at all.

 

[Gordy327]

You should not be 'interpreting anything legally-oriented' without supporting links/documentation. You clearly have no facility with it at all.

You mean the editors of Brittanica is not a supporting source?

 

[mac]

Source?

AFCARS

 

[mac]

You mean the editors of Brittanica is not a supporting source?

Homicide
Homicide
Homicide
Homicide
Homicide

 

[Lursa]

AFCARS

That's for kids in foster care. THere are ~450,000 kids in foster care and it said a total of 53,000 were adopted in that yr.

That's 1/5th. It didnt break that particular stat down by age. It also didnt say what % of all those foster kids ARE available for adoption.

Seems like the system is failing on the adoption front...so if you have another argument, perhaps we can get back to the fact that having an abortion can indeed be a responsible choice? Yes? If no, once again, why not?

 

[mac]

LMAO, that's a 'disclaimer.' You, like many people, apparently dont understand it. It also says it doesnt 'affirm' it.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive."

You should not be 'interpreting anything legally-oriented' without supporting links/documentation. You clearly have no facility with it at all.

Your inability to comprehend what you read is astounding.

 

[mac]

That's for kids in foster care. THere are ~450,000 kids in foster care and it said a total of 53,000 were adopted in that yr.

That's 1/5th. It didnt break that particular stat down by age. It also didnt say what % of all those foster kids ARE available for adoption.

Seems like the system is failing on the adoption front...so if you have another argument, perhaps we can get back to the fact that having an abortion can indeed be a responsible choice? Yes? If no, once again, why not?

Unfortunately, you'll have to look at more than the first page, and do some math.

 

[Gordy327]

Homicide
Homicide
Homicide
Homicide
Homicide

Webster is a generic dictionary, not a legal one. Neither is it a law book. Still no equivalence to abortion. And you still have not cited any legal source equating abortion to homicide. Another fail!

 

[Lursa]

Your inability to comprehend what you read is astounding.

Um no...that seems to be you. I give an explanation each time...and you come back with 'na huh.' Prove we're wrong.

Find a single federal law or court decision that recognizes rights for the unborn. We'll wait.

 

[Lursa]

Unfortunately, you'll have to look at more than the first page, and do some math.

I got my numbers for foster care to adoption from the 3rd page. Keep digging that hole.

Provide a counterargument or just admit that having an abortion can be a responsible decision. You did bring 'responsible' to the conversation but now I'm not sure you know that definition either. Or do you only recognize it when it suits your agenda?

 

[lwf]

No, it concerns intent in regards to a self defense argument.

Or we can just recognize that the right to life is fundamental to all rights, without it no other rights exist.

Not a close enough, but rather fanciful hypothetical. In your story, the occupation is not a result of the host's own choices.

But then we run into the problem of rape and incest. If the right to life is fundamental to all rights, then it doesn't make sense to make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. And what about when the health of the mother is at risk? If giving birth would kill the mother but save the baby, (perhaps in the event of the rape and impregnation of a child with health complications) how do you determine which life should be saved?

 

[The Mark]

How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,

Banning abortions without exception cannot win in the court of public opinion, at least in the USA. I think Kansas proved that.
It's an untenable political position.

Banning abortions with some exceptions is far more feasible for a politician to run on.

It doesn't matter what your beliefs and principles are, what matters is whether you can get elected on them.

 

[Lursa]

But then we run into the problem of rape and incest. If the right to life is fundamental to all rights, then it doesn't make sense to make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. And what about when the health of the mother is at risk? If giving birth would kill the mother but save the baby, (perhaps in the event of the rape and impregnation of a child with health complications) how do you determine which life should be saved?

The mother of a toddler that's the result of a rape could be just as tormented by nightmares of trauma and violence, but she would not be allowed to kill it.

 

[lwf]

The mother of a toddler that's the result of a rape could be just as tormented by nightmares of trauma and violence, but she would not be allowed to kill it.

I feel like the argument hinges on whether the right to life should be absolute and fundamental to all other rights and should be absolute without exception, or whether being inside the body of another human being is an exception to this right that subordinates all of your rights to the person whose body you are invading (whether intentionally or not.) Pregnancy is the only situation where this question would ever seem to arise, but there is nothing irrational about the idea that person A with rights being inside the body of person B with equal rights subordinates person A's rights to person B. It isn't a matter of worth, its a matter of location. In the nonsensical event that an adult woman was somehow inside the body of a lab grown fetus, the same standard would apply. The location of any human inside the body of another human subordinates the rights of the former to the latter.

This bodily invasion exception makes logical sense to me. It covers all potential possibilities, rather than simply ignoring the rape and incest problem. The former assumption that being inside another person is not an exception to the right to life creates problems without solutions.

 

[mac]

But then we run into the problem of rape and incest. If the right to life is fundamental to all rights, then it doesn't make sense to make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. And what about when the health of the mother is at risk? If giving birth would kill the mother but save the baby, (perhaps in the event of the rape and impregnation of a child with health complications) how do you determine which life should be saved?

I agree it's a problem, and it also show's that what is right can also be cruel. In the case of the mother who's pregnancy poses a risk to her life, the answer is simple. Everyone has a right to protect their defend their own life and self defense is, in most cases, considered justifiable homicide. In the case of rape and incest, a few things are true. First, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest represent a very small percentage of all pregnancies, roughly 1.5%. Second, in cases of of incest, the victim is often a very young minor who's pregnancy can almost be assumed to pose a risk to her life. Third, the rape and incest exception considers the psychological impact to the mother and the very real possibility of it causing greivous harm. Grievous harm is often used as justification for self defense.

My personal view is that the children resulting from these crimes are indeed innocent of the crime, and I would hope that they'd be born and adopted rather than aborted. However, also in my view, any abortion law that does not consider these exceptions would be overly cruel. It's a compromise that I don't like but feel is valid.

 

[mac]

I got my numbers for foster care to adoption from the 3rd page. Keep digging that hole.

Provide a counterargument or just admit that having an abortion can be a responsible decision. You did bring 'responsible' to the conversation but now I'm not sure you know that definition either. Or do you only recognize it when it suits your agenda?

There are more numbers than just the third page, or the first.