Abortion

[chris epic]

This seems to say that the question of legality can continue to be litigated on a case that has become moot. Not really inhibiting what I'm proposing--which is that activists make the choice to let go of the legal argument, and get to work actually preventing abortions. If done correctly, they can count on a lot of support from their former opponents.

In arbitration I thought you meant taking someone to court that wants to have an abortion

 

[jj]

"The genome has all the information necessary" I thought so.... anyway...thank you for revising your claim, now we agree on that one.

I haven't revised my claim, and the genome still does not, in one individual alone, have all the necessary power to make a human being.

 

[jj]

So on what basis did abolitionists base their belief that slaves should be free?

To what extent do you insist that their arguments are based on belief, rather than conclusion or deduction?

Did abolitionists have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

No more than anyone else.

If so, why?

The need to free slaves does not have to come from belief. So I'll head off that argument at the pass. Your question is flawed.

Is the 13th amendment based on science?

Does it matter?

 

[Abbyas]

I really don't like the abolitionist comparison.

No slave owner was forced to choose between owning a slave and going through a year long physical and emotional hardship. The loss of cheap labor does not equate.

Also, I do lean toward the idea that many (not all) pro-life advocates are "enslaving women" for this reason:

Power in societies are controlled through population. This is why the Catholic Church is anti-birth control and anti homosexuality. The more babies you have, the more powerful the people in charge become. (Yes, this is conjecture, but I think we can agree with the reasoning here.) And the catholic church is a huge force behind the pro-life movement. And while individual catholics might not be trying to increase the population with anti-abortion laws or abstinance-centered sex education, their leaders sure are.

To me, it's either "enslaving the fetus" to the medical choices of the mother or "enslaving the woman" to the medical choices of a zygote. And the woman comes first. (edited to add: at least to the point where the fetus stops being parasitic)

 

[Mark]

Is a seat belt advocate's "main agenda" controlling the behavior of drivers, or to save lives?

Irrelevant. Many of these people oppose birth control, and birth control helps prevent abortions. Or in your parlance, helps save lives.

 

[Dcdrac]

I am not female so what right do i have to order a female to hae my child for the sake of my beliefs and feelings?

 

[chris epic]

POST #91

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human

post #116

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER, to engage in proper development

and finally

I haven't revised my claim, and the genome still does not, in one individual alone, have all the necessary power to make a human being.

could you please be more consistent

 

[chris epic]

I am not female so what right do i have to order a female to hae my child for the sake of my beliefs and feelings?

What if it was your child a woman was pregnant with and you wanted to be a father to that child...........oops, better go back to Roe v Wade for Men

I think its the same if a woman were to say, I'm not a man, so what right do I have to order a man not to be a father for the sake of my feelings and beliefs (one more important one) in favor for his biological obligation to protect his child

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

We do, its called Roe v Wade 1973

The question was answered once. Why do we feel the feel the need to revisit it?
If I disagree with the Supreme Court, should the strategy be to keep re-visiting the same cause (until they see my point of view)?

Charlie (respect the court) Monoxide

 

[jj]

POST #91


post #116

and finally


could you please be more consistent

No, you need to read more on the subject, and you're engaging in constructive extraction from context, in a form that constitutes misrepresentation of my position.

Is this Christian of you?

 

[KingMerv00]

In the US, persons have rights, humans don't- essentially

Ok, I will agree with you on the definitions of "human" and "person".

Now why is a zygote, embryo, fetus a person?

 

[chris epic]

No, you need to read more on the subject, and you're engaging in constructive extraction from context, in a form that constitutes misrepresentation of my position.

Is this Christian of you?

Who the hell said anything about me being Christian? Are you serious? Because I come off as being anti-abortion, which I'm not.

 

[chris epic]

Ok, I will agree with you on the definitions of "human" and "person".

Now why is a zygote, embryo, fetus a person?

Its not a person, its a human- that's why feti aren't protected, per se, by the United States Constitution. I'm not clear on what a zygote is, but when an embryo is set into motion, the end result is human, then at birth, on US soil, it becomes a person. Just the same, when a baby is born, it's end result is an adult. Forgive me if this is a false analogy, but it makes sense to me.

 

[JamesDillon]

No, you need to read more on the subject, and you're engaging in constructive extraction from context, in a form that constitutes misrepresentation of my position.

Is this Christian of you?

Since I think I kicked off the whole genome debate, let me interject here for just a moment. The point I was making by reference to the genome was only that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup. Because a developing embryo contains identifiably human DNA, it must be classified as a member of the species homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with whether an embryo has the ability to develop into a child without assistance from the mother; of course it does not. But it does contain all of the genetic information needed to classify it as "human" from the moment of conception.

As I have said before, this does not answer the question whether a week-old fertilized egg can be considered a "person," with a legal or moral right to life. I tend to think not. But I also think it's something of a euphemism for pro-choice advocates to suggest that abortion is not the termination of a human life; I can't imagine what else it would be. Whether it is the death of a "person" is another matter entirely. I don't think that the concepts of "human" and "person" are necessarily coterminous.

 

[jj]

The point I was making by reference to the genome was only that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup.

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

And we all know people who do that, I think.

 

[chris epic]

I don't think that the concepts of "human" and "person" are necessarily coterminous.

You're right, they aren't coterminous. They are clearly defined....well, "person" is clearly defined by the US Constitution, and its definately different from a human in that one has "all the protections" and the other "limited protections"

 

[chris epic]

ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

But that's exactly the truth. Abortion doesn't kill persons, it kills humans and its not misleading, either- there's no way around the words. And this is comming from a non-Christian, person with respect toward women that want to exercise their legal right to an abortion, potential-father that just wants the rights that women have, over his potential-children.

 

[jj]

But that's exactly the truth. Abortion doesn't kill persons, it kills humans and its not misleading, either- there's no way around the words.

No, we don't agree on that. You must add the term "potential" at the very least, in the biological sense.

Dillon is not using quite the definition most people use, and that has to be clearly shown when the term is used.

N.B. What term people commonly use is in fact vague and hard to pin down, and as such "abortion kills humans" becomes a very destructive, misleading slogan that is in my opinion willfully misleading and emotionally bankrupt.

 

[chris epic]

N.B. What term people commonly use is in fact vague and hard to pin down, and as such "abortion kills humans" becomes a very destructive, misleading slogan that is in my opinion willfully misleading and emotionally bankrupt.

But tell me you can't see the flip-side of that. Feeling as I do about the fact that even "potential-humanity" is precious, I find that defining abortion as a termination of something less than human promotes apathy which I find equally destructive and misleading as the truth is "vague and hard to pin down".

 

[jj]

But tell me you can't see the flip-side of that. Feeling as I do about the fact that even "potential-humanity" is precious, I find that defining abortion as a termination of something less than human promotes apathy which I find equally destructive and misleading as the truth is "vague and hard to pin down".

I see. So I have to see it your way, or be lumped in, at least via insinuation, with the "equally destructive and misleading".

Nah.