Texas bans abortion.

[The Great Zaganza]

This is what I am getting at. Whether a foetus is human (sorry, A human being) has nothing to do with biology.

Those who declare that it is not a human being do so for fear the legal consequences otherwise. The idea that this is a biological issue is just a pretence.

it's not a pretense, but you can make the argument without it.
and, as has been mentioned, the case is made even more complicated by the existence of HeLa cells and frozen fertilized oocytes.

The point is that, historically, you are on the losing side with your argument:
a foetus just isn't treated as a human.
there has never been a case where "minor" included the unborn.

 

[psionl0]

it's not a pretense, but you can make the argument without it.

Then all you have is a legal argument.

Absent the legal technicalities there is no reason not to classify the unborn as human beings.

 

[abaddon]

Then all you have is a legal argument.

Absent the legal technicalities there is no reason not to classify the unborn as human beings.

So you are not a parent, right?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What I find interesting is that the things that will really stop abortions, namely good sexual education and easy, free access to contraception via universal healthcare are somehow as evil as abortions to religious conservatives.

 

[Stacyhs]

You do NOT have the court on your side. At no stage in Roe vs Wade did the court categorically state that the foetus is NOT a human being.

I didn't say "court"; I said 'US law" as in US Code 8 that I've already posted TWICE for you. Here's THREE times for you. Try reading for comprehension instead of bias.

Quote:
(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

( U.S. Code § 8)

At best, it equivocated on the question and even then it was addressing a much narrower issue. Namely "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" and not human beings in general.

The state of freaking TEXAS in their argument before the S. Court.

It did not answer the question on whether human life arises before birth at all.

I didn't say it did. I said US CODE § 8 determined what a 'human being, person, child, individual" is under US LAW. Jesus H. Christ!

Incidentally, it is anticipated that the SC may reverse the Roe vs Wade decision some time in the future. This is why the Texas law says that you can't rely on past (current) rulings by the courts (it sounds a little "ex post facto" to me but the SC hasn't struck down that provision yet).

The SC may or may not reverse R v W, but this Court has surprised a lot of people so far. The SC hasn't struck it down but they made it clear they had made no decision on the TX law's constitutionality, either.

If the SC in future rules that a foetus is a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving are you suddenly going to reverse your position?

So you're agreeing that the SC has not ruled on what is a human BEING. But US Code § 8 has.

No, I will not reverse my position because it's never been a finding of SCIENCE. It will remain a legal ruling based on OPINION and not SCIENCE.

 

[psionl0]

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

( U.S. Code § 8)

I hope you are not thinking of the maxim: "Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius" (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other). Otherwise, not only would the inclusion of infants (born alive) in these definitions exclude the unborn, it would exclude adults as well.

The state of freaking TEXAS in their argument before the S. Court.

Yes, that was the narrow issue I was referring to. There is no need to bold it. I think we agree here.

No, I will not reverse my position because it's never been a finding of SCIENCE. It will remain a legal ruling based on OPINION and not SCIENCE.

Saw the legal status only matters when it concurs with your opinion. Got it.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what I am getting at. Whether a foetus is human (sorry, A human being) has nothing to do with biology.

Those who declare that it is not a human being do so for fear the legal consequences otherwise. The idea that this is a biological issue is just a pretence.

Absolute rubbish. Those who insist this is 'out of fear of legal consequences' are just making up assfacts to suit their own bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then all you have is a legal argument.

Absent the legal technicalities there is no reason not to classify the unborn as human beings.

Why not classify the unborn as fairies? HINT: because they're aren't.

You want to classify them as human beings precisely because of the legal ramifications.

 

[smartcooky]

Absolute rubbish. Those who insist this is 'out of fear of legal consequences' are just making up assfacts to suit their own bias.

But that's all part of the game Stacy,... making up assfacts to continue the shtick; the continual micro-argument over the number of angels that can be stacked on the head of a pin. Some of us have seen all this before, its nothing new. There is no chance of a good faith debate here. None!

I have gone well past giving the benefit of the doubt for this bollocks... too many really interesting threads ruined with facile, pointless arguments about definitions, meanings and interpretations. Some might claim I'm attacking the arguer here and not the argument, but in all honesty, what is there left to do when the claimant's argument has been debunked, demolished, crushed, trashed, thrown into the ******* dumpster and set alight, and the claimant still wants to quibble over a word.
.
.

 

[Stacyhs]

I hope you are not thinking of the maxim: "Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius" (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other). Otherwise, not only would the inclusion of infants (born alive) in these definitions exclude the unborn, it would exclude adults as well.

News Flash: Adults were "infants (born alive)" at one time.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, I will not reverse my position because it's never been a finding of SCIENCE. It will remain a legal ruling based on OPINION and not SCIENCE.

Saw the legal status only matters when it concurs with your opinion. Got it.

Amazing. Just amazing. No, it would matter a great deal. However, if the SC reversed its earlier findings and declared that a pre-22 week, non-viable fetus' rights outweighed the rights of the woman whose body it inhabits, it would become law. But that ruling would not be based on science or empirical evidence. It would be based on personal opinion and religious bias.

 

[Boudicca90]

Why not classify the unborn as fairies? HINT: because they're aren't.

You want to classify them as human beings precisely because of the legal ramifications.

That has been the tactic of choice of many anti-choice activists over the years.

If you classify a fetus or zygote as a full person, then they also inherit the rights that a full person is granted by our legal system. It's a basis on which they can try to ban abortion.

 

[Stacyhs]

But that's all part of the game Stacy,... making up assfacts to continue the shtick; the continual micro-argument over the number of angels that can be stacked on the head of a pin. Some of us have seen all this before, its nothing new. There is no chance of a good faith debate here. None!

I have gone well past giving the benefit of the doubt for this bollocks... too many really interesting threads ruined with facile, pointless arguments about definitions, meanings and interpretations. Some might claim I'm attacking the arguer here and not the argument, but in all honesty, what is there left to do when the claimant's argument has been debunked, demolished, crushed, trashed, thrown into the ******* dumpster and set alight, and the claimant still wants to quibble over a word.
.
.

You're absolutely correct. I've had enough of it. I'm at that age where I have no patience with dishonest 'schtick', as you put it. I just hope the SC Justices, or more precisely, the conservative, religious justices, practice what they preach about personal bias. As Amy Coney Barrett said: “justices must be hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions.” Sadly, I have little doubt that at least 2-4 will do exactly that: Thomas and Alito for sure, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh most likely, while Roberts and Barrett could go either way. Barrett is still rather an unknown at this point.

 

[psionl0]

Why not classify the unborn as fairies? HINT: because they're aren't.

True.

You want to classify them as human beings precisely because of the legal ramifications.

Lol that could only follow if I was speaking against abortions.

News Flash: Adults were "infants (born alive)" at one time.

It's a pity that the U.S. Code § 8 you quoted doesn't say anything about adults (born alive) - only infants.

 

[Stacyhs]

True.


Lol that could only follow if I was speaking against abortions.


It's a pity that the U.S. Code § 8 you quoted doesn't say anything about adults (born alive) - only infants.

You've just proven Smartcooky's post with that gem. I'm taking his advice.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That has been the tactic of choice of many anti-choice activists over the years.

If you classify a fetus or zygote as a full person, then they also inherit the rights that a full person is granted by our legal system. It's a basis on which they can try to ban abortion.

They even go a step further:

" The zygote is a person, and I, not the mother, has guardianship over it."

 

[psionl0]

You've just proven Smartcooky's post with that gem.

Was that "gem" about quibbling about a word only about me?

 

[cosmicaug]

Then all you have is a legal argument.

Absent the legal technicalities there is no reason not to classify the unborn as human beings.

You are just trolling here but is there any reason not to classify individual ova and sperm as human beings?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless only 1/3 of Americans support controlling women's bodies, so this should be dead on arrival as a political argument.

But we live in the world we do where Tyranny of the Minority is a thing.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

True.


Lol that could only follow if I was speaking against abortions.


It's a pity that the U.S. Code § 8 you quoted doesn't say anything about adults (born alive) - only infants.

Er, because you're not born as an 'adult'

You're ruining the thread with a pointless, even before it was debunked, argument to attempt a gotcha probably because if you expressed your opinions in a straight-forward manner you know how bad they'd make you look.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah that's why I said pages ago it doesn't matter what you call it.

It's a complete "Lookit over there! No don't look at my argument look over there!" game.

There's a word for it but we aren't allowed to use it.