• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,910
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Protection of unborn children"

This thread was inspired by exchanges with

minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic

--DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--

whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb

opened my eyes

--a newcomer to abortion debate--

opened my eyes

to the confusion at law

and to the cultural confusion

underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.

The Law has confused them

and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.

This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Are we all paying attention?

"a member of the species homo sapiens"

or as the federal law reads in another place:

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

I say, are we paying attention?

"a human being"

Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
Abortion 101
Abortion 201
AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

Think​
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

This really isn't that hard. When something or someone is attached to and receiving from your own body, you have a right to end such. When it is in someone else's body you do not have that right. Being human or not, being already born or not, being an adult or not, none of that matters, because of bodily autonomy.

This is why the father can't abort or force it to term when it is in the mother's body. This is why the mother can't abort or force it to term when it is in a surrogate's body. And that is also why it is important for someone else to terminate the ZEF, or unborn child if you wish, while still in the mother against her wishes. It's not their body.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Had you read my moral argument in the linked threads, you would know that the point you make here in this post is wasted on me. My moral argument is a principled argument for the women's autonomy, existential freedom, right to choose, etc. In other words, you're preaching to the choir here and missing the point of this thread: the point of this thread is the muddled legal thought involved the the abortion discussion and the resultant muddleheaded arguments from Pro-Abortion advocates like our Four Horsewomen and perhaps you too. Tell us, is the fetus a human being or not?
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

A fetus is no more a human BEING than a catirpiller is a butterfly.

Human =/= human being.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
So US Law is confused?
Click to expand...

Yes. To conflate human cells with human beings, and thereby legally growing them with the rights of thinking, reasoning, self aware beings is nothing short of confused.

Thought experiment (you seem to like these)

In the future, technology will allow us to enhance yourself either genetically, or with cybernetics. Think, eye replacements that have 100× zoom, and infrared spectrum, data bank implants that will allow us photographic memory of specific things, like, legal codes, etc. Consider that we already have mechanical organs and joints. One human life span ago, that was science fiction. 3 human life spans ago, we all read by candle light, road horses, and died from catching a cold.

In such a world, a persons mind fails theme, despite their body being strong. They agreed to donate their body to science, just as people do today. And the experiment is, can we place a full artificial "brain" into a human body, and will it function? Watson, with a human body. And they succeed? Is that a human being?

Flip side, a person like Stephen hawking is born...solid mind, useless body. We remove the mind, and put it inside an artificial body. Is that still a human being?

What say you? And why?
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Oh, brother. :roll:
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

As the devils advocate ( it's ok, I know you dont accept his existence either) I have to say that you should CONTINUE in your ways of curtailing your 'responsibility' by the furtherence of abortion. Also, there is this topic of killing homosexuals and adulterers. I feel...well WE feel that this is probably the best way to handle the issue as well. You see there is no better remedy than to just eliminate your problem to make things better.
We encourage homosexuality, adultery and abortion because it is your right to be whatever you want, to do whatever you want. Just like it is the right of other people to murder to take care of these issues that they feel plague their way of life.
In fact, 'we' feel it is time to increase efforts to make more of these circumstance happen.
Life is short so get busy people. And like 'we' said before,"Ye shall surely not die, but you will become like him knowing good from evil". And isnt that true. You have discerned good from evil and chosen as you will as gods over your own lives. Outstanding work!
Get to it
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"


Please keep my name out of your querulous OPs. Thank you.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
So US Law is confused?
Click to expand...

It's not confused at all. In some cases however, unConstitutional laws do stand merely because there have been no challenges. If no one in a state objects to that state's charges for killing the unborn, then it stands. It does not change the federal recognition of the unborn as designated by SCOTUS in multiple decisions however.

1 U.S. Code: SS 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You only confirm the confusion here.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

From the OP:

"a member of the species homo sapiens"
Click to expand...

As you can see by the legal source I posted in post 10, US law doesnt recognize every Homo sapiens as a person, or any entity equal to people nor does it recognize any rights for the unborn.

The scientific categorization of Homo sapiens does not confer any value or status or rights. PEOPLE do. The law does. Society does.

So once again I ask: "who says that all human life is entitled to a right to life? More specifically...who says unborn humans are entitled to a right to life?


Our society values women's equality and quality of life over a heartbeat and a 'potential' person that may or may not even survive to become an aware and contributing member of society. It's immoral to infringe on a woman's rights to force us to remain pregnant against our will...and society and SCOTUS have recognized this over and over.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

All any rational person can see is that two sections of the US Code contradict each other.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
All any rational person can see is that two sections of the US Code contradict each other.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Lursa said:
How so?
Click to expand...
1USCode8 says that the terms "child" and "human being" apply only to those already born. whereas 18USCode1841 applies those very terms to the unborn.
That's a contradiction.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
1USCode8 says that the terms "child" and "human being" apply only to those already born. whereas 18USCode1841 applies those very terms to the unborn.
That's a contradiction.
Click to expand...

This is the exact text:


Nowhere does it refer to the unborn as a person or human being. And they very clearly qualify every instance of 'child' with 'unborn'. The distinction is clear.

Nor are any rights recognized.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Let's see if I understand the terms of your thought experiment. Given the ability to reproduce genetically identical body to the body of X, does implanting an AI in the genetically reproduced body of X reproduce X?

Is that the question? If so, the answer is No. While X is arguably his body in some sense, the mind of X is arguably X in some more essential sense.

Or is the question this:

Given the ability to reproduce mind somehow, does implanting the mind of X in an artificial body reproduce X?

If the latter is the question, then the answer is Yes. For the same reason offered in answering No to the former question.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Lursa said:
This is the exact text:



Nowhere does it refer to the unborn as a person or human being. And they very clearly qualify every instance of 'child' with 'unborn'. The distinction is clear.

Nor are any rights recognized.
Click to expand...

(C)
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

[Bolding mine]
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"


Yes, it describes sections for other crimes that it is applying here. It's treating the unborn 'like' a human being. It doesnt say anywhere that the unborn ARE human beings. I hope you are capable of making the distinction.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"


Then you and I agree, and we both disagree with the current legal definition and verbiage used to define a fetus, as an unborn child.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Lursa said:
Yes, it describes sections for other crimes that it is applying here. It's treating the unborn 'like' a human being. It doesnt say anywhere that the unborn ARE human beings. I hope you are capable of making the distinction.
Click to expand...
Where do you find the word "like" in the law?
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
Where do you find the word "like" in the law?
Click to expand...

Where did you find them categorizing the unborn as human beings?
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Angel said:
Where do you find the word "like" in the law?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Where did you find them categorizing the unborn as human beings?
Click to expand...

You continue to answer a question with a question, and with a question that has already been answered. Poor form.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"


What you will consistently hear me say is the unborn are not persons.

What you will consistently hear me ask is "how do you give personhood to a zygote, embryo, or fetus (the unborn child) without potentially diminishing the rights of the woman".

Calling a fetus an "unborn child" does nothing to change my question.
 
re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

CENSORSHIP IS A TOOL OF TYRANNY
I posted here on 3.29.2019. But when I came back to see what others had posted about this thread and my comment , I noticed that my post had been removed.
This proves that people who support abortion don't want to hear the truth about their irresponsible behavior and how that effects the innocent. They only want sympathy to improve their mood about their poor choices in life. A life they get to enjoy because they werent aborted.
Even the LAW of the land protects guilty people to ensure that no innocent lives are ever harmed in the course of DUE process.
I know that humans in the earliest stages of development DESERVE DUE PROCESS. Not to be processed like a pig in a slaughter house!
SO GO AHEAD AND SENSOR THIS RIGHT AFTER YOU READ IT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…