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

[code1211]

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

No trimester. Tri=3. No such thing as a 4th trimester.

Hmmm...

If the baby is killed after the third trimester has ended, then what do we call this act sanctioned under the abortion laws?

 

[code1211]

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

If that is indeed what he was talking about, all it will take is a father suing to overturn it. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply once separated. I'll try to check the link later.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

It's only a video of a few moments.

Can a father sue before the objectionable act is committed?

 

[minnie616]

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

So, then, killing the born baby is the solution.

That's the long and the short of it.

I disagree.

Palliative care gives the family members more quality time to spend with the terminally ill premie/newborn infant.

If the preemie/newborn is born with a life threatening/imcompatable with life condition you still think that preemie who has no chance of living more than a few minutes or hours should be rushed away and have tubes and needles stuck into its tiny body instead of giving humane palliative care ?

Many mothers/parents/health care givers feel palliative care instead ot extra ordinary care is the more humane treatment in circumstance where the preemie/ infant has a life threatening condition.

When palliative/ comfort care is given; the preemie infant is wrapped in a blanket , kept warm , free from pain , and often held by the mother/parent/ family member or a care giver, fed , and kept comfortable and loved until it expires on its own of its untreatable medial issues.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

"Legal fictions," "constructs," same thing.
Only you are talking about religion. That's twice you trued to sneak it into the discussion. Save it for B&S.
You have it backwards, don't you? You mean to say gray areas necessitate practicality.
At any rate there's no gray area in identifying human life ass human. That's political fiction.

Semantics again. :roll:

Religion is the source of your morality and the reason for these threads. You can pretend otherwise, but...

At any rate you are back to trying to posit a point at which life exists so you can claim a legal "being" exists.

 

[Angel]

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

Semantics again. :roll:

Religion is the source of your morality and the reason for these threads. You can pretend otherwise, but...

At any rate you are back to trying to posit a point at which life exists so you can claim a legal "being" exists.

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.

You're batting a thousand.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.

You're batting a thousand.

Then drop the fluffy prose and state succinctly what you are trying to claim here. More "anachronistic poppycock" is unnecessary.

 

[Angel]

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

Then drop the fluffy prose and state succinctly what you are trying to claim here. More "anachronistic poppycock" is unnecessary.

Human life begins at conception.
Abortion must remain legal.
Women have a moral right to choose to abort a pregnancy.
With certain exceptions, abortion is immoral.
Women (and all human beings) have a moral right to be immoral.
Abortion law relies on legal fictions.

Succinct enough?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

Human life begins at conception.
Abortion must remain legal.
Women have a moral right to choose to abort a pregnancy.

Yes.

Women also have the legal right to abort.

With certain exceptions, abortion is immoral.

Opinion - which I share.

Women (and all human beings) have a moral right to be immoral.

They have a legal right as well. You may consider the exercise of that right immoral.

Abortion law relies on legal fictions.

Countless laws require drawing a line somewhere, and not everyone agrees as to the location. I don't call those fictions, but you can. The line you are claiming can't be located in a normal course of events - it's actually a process (conception).

Succinct enough?

Yes. Thank you. eace

 

[minnie616]

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

Human life begins at conception.
...

When does life begin?


Does it begin at conception?
Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide?
Does it begin when it implants ?
Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?
Does it begin when a fetus becomes consious?
Does it begin at Birth?
Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Due to limited space I will post The four Four Different Perspectives of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.


Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.
Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/B...fe begin.pdf

 

[Angel]

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

...
Opinion - which I share.

I presented an argument in Abortion 101 based on the natural right to life and the biological classification of the diploid zygote.

 

[Angel]

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

When does life begin?


Does it begin at conception?
Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide?
Does it begin when it implants ?
Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?
Does it begin when a fetus becomes consious?
Does it begin at Birth?
Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Due to limited space I will post The four Four Different Perspectives of when human life begins.



http://biology.franklincollege.edu/B...fe begin.pdf

Oy! My argument is not about "when life begins."
My argument is about when life can be identified as uniquely human.

 

[minnie616]

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

Oy! My argument is not about "when life begins."
My argument is about when life can be identified as uniquely human.

Your argument failed when you tried to say an unborn had rights because it was a human being.

The unborn is not a human being and it has no rights.



from Christian Ethics today:

Since the driving forces to make abortion a public policy issue are a few Christian groups, including the Catholic bishops and followers of some Protestant Fundamentalist leaders,11 it is worth citing Biblical answers to the key question in the abortion controversy:
"When does human life begin?" The Bible's clear answer is that human life begins at birth with breathing. In Genesis 2:7, God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being" (in some translations, "a living soul.")

The Hebrew word for a human being or living soul is nephesh, the word for breathing. "Nephesh" occurs hundreds of times in the Bible as the identifying factor in human life. This is consistent with modern medical science, as a group of 167 distinguished scientists and physicians told the Supreme Court in 1988, "the most important determinant of viability is lung development," and "viability has not advanced to a point significantly earlier than 24 weeks of gestation" because critical organs, "particularly the lungs and kidneys, do not mature before that time."12

In the Christian scriptures, the Incarnation, or the "Word made Flesh"13 was celebrated at Jesus' birth, not at a speculative time of Mary's conception. The biblical tradition is followed today as we count age from the date of birth rather than from conception, a date people do not know or seek to estimate. The state issues no conception certificates, only birth certificates. It issues no death certificates for fertilized eggs that do not implant or for miscarriages.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

I presented an argument in Abortion 101 based on the natural right to life and the biological classification of the diploid zygote.

In theory, that's an arguable position. In a practical sense, it (conception) can't be seen in normal circumstances, let alone enforced.

 

[Lursa]

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

I quoted the law four or five times for you. Harass someone else.

Yes you did, but you did not quote the passage or section that designated the unborn as a person or human being. Only text that discussed treating them "like", "similar to", "as if they were" human beings.

Just like I wrote from the beginning that the laws treat the unborn "similar to" property. Does that mean the unborn *are* property? No, it means the law treats them in a manner similar to how they treat the destruction or stealing of someone's property.

I realize now that understanding this distinction is insurmountable for your...that's a shame but considering that, IMO you shouldnt be telling other posters they need a tuition refund.

 

[Lursa]

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

That's fine as a philosophical and/or religious view, but this isn't one of those forums. Practicality matters where laws are concerned. The "state of being" you refer to can't be detected when it occurs normally. The line is invisible.

Exactly. As I've written, it's not possible to treat born and unborn equally. Not legally, not ethically, not practically.

When I write that, it's a fact...it's not something I "like," it's not something biased to push my agenda...believe me, if it were possible to treat both equally, I'd be thrilled.

As difficult as it is, society must...and has...decided which it values more. It values all born people as equal. It's in the Constitution, the courts have ruled on it many times (for blacks and women as well).

 

[Lursa]

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

Yes, "practicality" fosters legal fictions.
And that information about the diploid zygote comes from biology, not philosophy or religion.
The reasoning comes from philosophy.

You have yet to show any philosophy beyond religious ones that believe the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life.

You remember, the answer to 'who says?' that I've requested.

But please do, anytime. I dont even deny that there are some that do but you havent provided the solid quotes that then, we would be able to argue. You keep complaining we wont argue it (the way you want) but you wont provide the sources for your opinion on morality to support that opinion.

 

[Lursa]

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

Anachronistic poppycock.

Dismissing the historical facts that affect the argument? @_@

Get a tuition refund, friend.

 

[Lursa]

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

Semantics again. :roll:

Religion is the source of your morality and the reason for these threads. You can pretend otherwise, but...

At any rate you are back to trying to posit a point at which life exists so you can claim a legal "being" exists.

Exactly. Many pro-lifers know that in the US, a discussion of abortion based on religious beliefs doesnt work because of our religious freedom and the fact that they cannot force their religious beliefs on others.

So then they try to find something solid and factual, black and white, on which to base their argument. Most then try science, which Angel does: even tho he knows (or should know now) that science recognizes no value or morality for anything because it's objective, or philosophy, like 'natural rights' and morality.' But Angel hasnt been able to show any of those the specifically recognize a moral right to life for the unborn either.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

Exactly. Many pro-lifers know that in the US, a discussion of abortion based on religious beliefs doesnt work because of our religious freedom and the fact that they cannot force their religious beliefs on others.

So then they try to find something solid and factual, black and white, on which to base their argument. Most then try science, which Angel does: even tho he knows (or should know now) that science recognizes no value or morality for anything because it's objective, or philosophy, like 'natural rights' and morality.' But Angel hasnt been able to show any of those the specifically recognize a moral right to life for the unborn either.

I think the root of this is in what Angel and others believe about morality - that morality is Objective (exists outside human consciousness), and further that it comes from God. I don't live in a theocracy, yet, and I don't want to live in a theocracy.

 

[Scrabaholic]

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

You have proved nothing of the kind.

Prove it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

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

Hmmm...

If the baby is killed after the third trimester has ended, then what do we call this act sanctioned under the abortion laws?

Killing a born child is murder or manslaughter. Murder is not sanctioned under abortion laws. Please do not lie about that again.

 

[Angel]

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

Your argument failed when you tried to say an unborn had rights because it was a human being.

The unborn is not a human being and it has no rights.



from Christian Ethics today:

That's the official story, I know. It's idiotic, but it's the official story. Good luck with it.

 

[Angel]

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

In theory, that's an arguable position. In a practical sense, it (conception) can't be seen in normal circumstances, let alone enforced.

What do you mean, "enforced"? Mine is a moral argument. It has nothing at all to do with enforcement of any kind.

 

[Lursa]

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

That's the official story, I know. It's idiotic, but it's the official story. Good luck with it.

You havent proven otherwise. Not even close.

Not morally, not practically, not legally.

Except for religious sources, no human rights organizations do. Apparently, the theory of "natural rights" doesnt either.

 

[Angel]

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

Prove it.

Post #72 sets forth several Canadian legal fictions aimed to ease the conscience of Canada.
QED