Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

On the road ATM (although stopped). I will get to that after I get home tonight. Please keep in mind that the hypothetical is not necessarily interested to be a probable situation, but one designed to test the application of a given principle to see if one will be consistent in applying said principle. So I am hoping that you will not dismiss it out of hand, as did bluesguy, simply because it is improbable, although technically possible.

 

Part of the problem with this concept, as written (you may have more in mind than is written), is that most pregnancies where the woman wants the abortion occurs despite BC being used. How do you weed out the failed BC from the "irresponsible" sex?

 

Not it can't. Not immediately. That's the point of the example. Immediately ending the use of bodily resources would be dropping you to your death. Instead I need to keep holding holding you up until I move my arm and carry you back over the solid land.

 

I don't think you can. No measure can be perfect.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Using your "logic" pregnancy causes no harm because hangnails aren't serious...

Sorry, your "argument" is too silly for words..




No, no "strawmen " , no "substitutions"....just showing you how silly, and pointless, your argument is...

Using your "logic" pregnancy causes no harm because hangnails aren't serious...

Oh, do please show your links to scientific data that shows women suffer no effects nor harm from pregnancy.

And maybe one showing that having one's immune system compromised does no harm....pregnant women's immune systems are compromised from the start of the pregnancy...

 

Everywhere I have ever lived there was a church ministry (and I got to participate in all of them) that had food pantries, necessities pantries, that in addition to food had cleaning supplies, soap, towels, brillo pads, etc. These weren't megachurches, they were congregations of 100 or less.

 

I’m not interested in your justifications for child sacrifice. You are wrong on moral grounds.

 

It really hinges to me on at what point should the unborn be considered a person. I have as much difficulty having compassion for a freshly fertilized egg cell as I have difficulty lacking compassion for a child just before birth.

 

Aaaaaannnnnndddd here comes the “slut shaming”

Why not just accept the fact that people will be people and that includes a sex drive that has resulted in 7 billion people across the planet.

I am also betting you are one of those who think condoms are effective birth control yes?

Legislation does not reduce abortion, preaching at people does not reduce abortion. The ONLY intervention proven to reduce abortion is easy and affordable access to LARCs Long Acting Reversible Contraception

if that were coupled with paid maternity leave, child support, child care etc then you would see a drastic reduction in abortions

 

Then LOOK at the statistics

You view is the one held by the majority - they are fine with abortion even up to 3 months (when the vast majority of abortions occur) but less comfortable with the thought of abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy. It may reassure you that third term abortions or rather post viability abortions are almost exclusively done for foetal abnormality incompatible with life. They are often done for compassion as these are WANTED pregnancies gone horribly tragically wrong. It may also reassure you that the incidence of post viability pregnancy is diminishing as prenatal screening becomes more effectibpve

 

Who decides what is “moral” and what is not?

 

Immediately is a relative term and usually holds some kind of context. If you would prefer, does "in the shortest time possible while observing all applicable rights" do you? Unless you have the other dangling over the cliff in some kind of complicated mechanism, it is only the work of a few seconds to pull back and set them on the ground. Most people would include such a time frame as immediately.

 

Since that is the opposite of what I said, you are indeed substituting your words for mine.

Since I did not claim that, and in fact explicitly noted that most women would suffer at least some effect if not a harm of some sort, you are once again changing my words. Show otherwise. What I have asked you to do is to show, with evidence to back it up, that ALL women will suffer harm. I am not claiming none, but you are claiming ALL.

Again since I am not making that claim, you are changing my words to say I am. Again, I am asking you to support your claim that ALL suffer from this.

 

Whose morals? The morals of the same church that thought it was justified in drowning women to see if they were witches, or stoning people who violate their morals? The same morals that says only its definition of "marriage" should be the legal one in a country that is built on religious freedom? If it were that morally wrong, you would have thought that Founding Fathers would have made it illegal at the beginning of the country instead of waiting until some people in the late 1860's decided to enact it into law.

 

Actually, just the simple legal access to abortion seems to have done it. Abortions have been steadily dropping since the 80's and are well below pre RvW levels. I am not saying that LARCs are not a factor to consider, just that it is not the only one, especially since all current LARCs have a failure rate.

 

Nope, you’re claiming pointing out irrational thought is a strawman fallacy which is incorrect.

That’s why it’s called fill in the blank.

I’ll step throughout go your logic for you. But before that, I'll point out the hypocrisy in your last statement. You bring up Zygotes in a discussion of abortions. Now, I know you may claim to be a world class abortionist with 1337 skillz capable of grabbing a zygote as it comes down a fallopian tube and killing it. Otherwise, one can't abort a zygote. No abortionist has claimed to do this. So, unless you think everyone is talking about frozen fertilized eggs in a storage room somewhere, you've started your argument with a giant strawman.

1) Your first step is to unilaterally declare that all arguments opposing your strawman to be moronic or nonexistent.

Now at this point, I have to take a break again to correct you. A zygote does not mean a pregnancy. Not every zygote means a pregnancy occurs. Many zygotes may fall out the uterus to never start a pregnancy. At first, I thought you just made a mistake, but you insisted on doubling down.

2) Of course, your insistence on pregnancy makes this portion of your argument medically non sequitur. But it allows me to have more fun.

1) The first problem is that the claim that Jesus is an equal person .. or even a person at all - is based on moronic arguments .. most often no argument at all.
2) Agree that Mary (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental pregnancy. If Jesus is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is crucify it as soon as possible.

It's like playing Mad Libs.

 

For me that point is conception.

 

God.

 

The church has never been perfect, but then it doesn’t have to be perfect to be good. It is infinitely better to have morals we can’t always live up to than to have no morals at all. Child sacrifice is never moral.

 

So anyone who kills a child in utero should be stoned maybe? Going by original Biblical standards, of course.

Also, you realize that morals is not limited to Christians, right?

 

Abstract
In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. As there is no constitutional text explicitly holding unborn children to be, or not to be, "persons," this argument will be based on the "historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and thejurisprudence of [the Supreme] Court." Specifically, it is argued that the Constitution does not confer upon the federal government a specifically enumerated power to grant or deny "personhood" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the power to recognize or deny unborn children as the holders of rights and duties has been historically exercised by the states. The Roe opinion and other Supreme Court cases implicitly recognize this function of state sovereignty. The states did exercise this power and held unborn children to be persons under the property, tort, and criminal law of the several states at the time Roe was decided. As an effect of the unanimity of the states in holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons. Furthermore, to the extent Justice Blackmun examined the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error. Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons.

 

I’m not advocating anyone be stoned. I advocate changing minds one, or a few, at a time, much like what happened on the issue of slavery.

 

Which one?

 

And how are you going to do that? Stand on a street corner with a sign? Go to night clubs and try shaming women? Yell “harlot” every time you see an unwed mother?


And I am betting NONE of those things you intend to do include ensuring access to affordable contraception


And 62% are religiously affiliated. In fact that woman with the three kids in the fourth row at your church has probably had an abortion but there is no way you know about it