Why do you believe in God ?

Why not actually read what I've posted several times about zygotes? Or is it easier just to imagine something horrible and get that charge from making crap up?

 

Why do you insist the unborn have more rights than anyone else?

 

Even if they are the unborn of a rapist? The unborn of the girl's brother or father?

""The government has every right and responsibility to protect ""...everyone....even women...

What do you mean by "no absolutist"?
The unborn ARE zygotes at one stage...and fetuses at another....but they are NEVER persons with rights.

Why do you insist the unborn have more rights than anyone else ??

 

I wish anti aborts would stop referring to the zygote as "a baby". I understand why folks want to put a smiling face and shining blue eyes on the zygote as this makes the zygote seem more like a human but, this is simply not the case.

So the zygote is one end of the spectrum and you have a living breathing baby on the other. We agree that no human exists at the zygote stage and that a human does exist at the later stage (prior to birth). The quest then is where to draw the line.


At the start you have a sperm and egg (and neither of those constitutes a human). Then you have the single human cell at conception. This cell will never be part of the human being created (no cells in the structure of the human being created yet exist) so how can a human exist when not one single cell in its body exists ? We already agreed on this but might as well cover this.

This first cell then multiplies to more than 200 cells (all are totipotent - meaning each has the ability to create a new human on its own) and these form a hollow sack known as the blastocyst.

These cells then start spitting out differentiated cells (the cells that form the structure of the human). These cells are called the embryoblast.

Now what ... we have a few human cells and these cells will be part of the structure that is under construction ... but ... is this a human ?

I could continue but will stop here. The point here is that if we want to call something "a human" then we must first define what a human is - and then compare the entity under discussion to that definition.

There are many definitions we could consider.. If we go with the strict human taxonomic definition of Homo sapiens (Kingdom, domain phylum and so on) the entity would not be Homo sapiens until birth. While I think this is to strict .. it serves as a template.

The only thing that the fetus does not have from the above definition is the ability to breath air. I think the fetus is "a living human" prior to that point. Just because I submerge myself underwater (stop breathing for a few moments) does not make me less human.

This is a long conversation so to shorten things. Most agree that significant brain function - cognition - the ability to feel pain, think and so on - is a reasonable place to start.

If we want to claim the entity is a "Living human" then it should be able to meet (be above) the coroners definition of "clinically dead". Significant brain function is the definition used (we can get into what this means later). If this does not exist they pull the plug and the dirt nap begins.

This seems the most reasonable place to put the marker IMO.

 

I agree that mentally healthy woman just don't do that and for sure a psyche evaluation should be required. I think this is a good starting place for what should happen in the case of late term. Prior to this time there should be no restrictions - after there should be some restrictions.

Just it can be legitimately claimed that a human exists in the latter stages of pregnancy does not make it a slam dunk that the rights of that entity over-ride the rights of the woman. It is just that the argument used for the zygote does not work anymore.

In the case of the zygote ... it can not be shown that this entity is a living human (experts disagree). So how do we assign a value on the scales of justice where we have the rights of the woman on one side and the rights of the zygote on the other.

When it comes the later stage it is still the same balance scales but no longer is it a slam dunk if the entity is classified as a living human thus having rights including the right to life. The question is do these rights over-ride the rights of the woman.. we still have a clash of rights.

Does the fetus at this stage have the right to occupancy in the womb ? - I would say yes as the woman has allowed the fetus to occupy that space for a significant period of time. As will a landlord - once he has agreed that the tenant can live there - it becomes more difficult to throw that tenant out - especially if doing so means the death of the tenant.

Some will make the argument that until the entity is born - it has no legal rights as far as the state is concerned because it is not a citizen. I think this is a bit of a cop-out on a technicality but... it is one argument that is made. In other words .. while it is recognized that the entity has rights (such as how a non citizen has rights) the State has little or less jurisdiction and so the rights of the woman win out.

I think we should just go with the principles on which this nation was founded. The authority of Gov't to make law is generally justified "if" it has consent of an overwhelming majority. I would then make this a States issue. If 75% of a state vote "Yes" - in a referendum - for a law restricting abortion in the latter term .. then so be it.

 

Basically we do not need a law restricting late term abortions. Sane, healthy women don't ask for it.

A person may use self defense no matter how long the abuse has been going on....and the fetus DOES abuse(harm) the woman it's in until birth (and after)..

Laws that restrict late term abortions may , if used improperly, affect women who have difficulties in late pregnancy...or discover something wrong with the fetus in late pregnancy and NOTHING should interfere with her right to terminate that pregnancy (harm to herself) and stop the harm...

No woman should die in childbirth because the fetus has been given more rights than she has....

 

Self defense is an interesting argument ... it follows on the line of the right to occupancy in the mother's womb argument but ramp's it up a notch.

This argument defeats the counter to the occupancy argument - (that a landlord can not just throw someone out - especially when there is risk of harm/death).

I can not find away around this argument - and I have tried from many angles. Good one.

 

It's a poor argument and in any instance where the child's life is threatening that of the mother, the child's life is terminated. End of self defense argument!

 

Every fetus is a threat to the life of the mother. This is why the argument is so powerful.

 

You mean "potentially" a threat...right? Seventeen women per 100,000 that die while giving birth isn't exactly a pervasive overwhelming problem.That's why abortion for cases where the mother's health is at risk is an appropriate medical response.

 

.

So true. Ricky Gervais hits the nail on the head in an interview I watched.
Paraphrasing his words....
If you live in India, you're probably Hindu
If you live in America you're probably Christian
If you live in Pakistan, you're probably Muslim...
That's a coincidence, isn't it? Always born into the right god? Isn't that lucky.
All those others are going to hell, but I was born into the right god so I'm going to heaven

He's so right on this.

 

I did not say it was overwhelming ... that does not change the fact that the risk exists. ... nor does it change the fact that you have not come up with an argument that refutes the self defense argument.

I can not force you to do some activity on the basis (you only have a 2 in 10000 chance of dying) - which is not actually that low - why should you be able to force another ?

Then you have the fact that the "risk of harm" is substantially higher than 2 in 10,000.

The risk of being harmed in some terrorist attack is extremely low ( way lower than above) - you have double the chance of being hit by a meteorite .. it is 400 times lower than the risk of harm from "walking" ... you heard me correctly.

Yet .. we have over 100 million people in this nation on their knees begging to give up their individual liberty over this tiny risk of harm. They are so fearful of this risk of harm that they have made it their "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual rights and freedoms. ... aka "The Patriot Act"

Who then are you to say that the risk of harm from childbirth - a risk of harm that is thousands of times greater than the aforementioned - is not significant.

I personally think the folks described above (which may include you so sorry if it does) are a bunch of scared ignorant sheep but, that is beside the point.

The point here to consider is that how many of the sheep described above are pro life folks who make the "insignificant" argument while they themselves put huge significance on a risk of harm that is orders of magnitude lower ... which of course makes these folks raging hypocrites.

 

The threat of death during childbirth is not "insignificant" though, as I pointed out, it's hardly pervasive either.

And it is mitigated by the fact that in a case where there is great risk to a woman's well being the fetus will be aborted.
If there were no such medical precautions you would have a case for the self defense argument. But there are and I really think
the so called self defense argument is pretty lame and lacking.

 

I do not think it is. The reason I don't think its lacking is because I can not come up with a good refutation and you certainly have not done so.

You have to keep in mind that the discussion into which you interjected was on the basis of justification of law (not personal belief) - 2 different things.

If the risk of harm and/or is not "Insignificant" as you claim .. how then do you justify making law - (which is forcing someone through threat of physical violence) that compels a person to do something which has a " not insignificant" risk of harm ?

 

Opinions are merely personal differences over matters that cannot be
reconciled. I feel your opinion of self defense in an abortion context is lacking and doesn't take into account the protections for the mother
built into the law.

At some point personal belief and the law come together but I am very confident that current abortion law
takes the welfare of the woman into account. Therefore why is "self defense" an issue and why is the self defense of the child in the womb
totally disregarded?
One of the themes that binds slavery and abortion laws together is the way they either protect or deny protection to people not considered
human in one way or another by respective laws.

Simply because, as often stated, where actual harm is perceived the woman will always be protected by the law, and not the fetus.
What more do you want?

 

If one is one of the 17 women that die it is an "overwhelming problem".


The US maternal death rate is one of the highest in the world. But NUMBERS don't matter to those mothers. Numbers are irrelevant.


ALL pregnancies harm women, cause physical damage and pain....

..so if the fetus is ever given the rights of a person then they have the SAME RESTRICTIONS as a person, they cannot use another's body to sustain their life without consent.

 

Why not document this then?

As much harm as an unprovoked death causes to an innocent child? .

Consent is given when a woman freely enters into sex.
If consent is revoked a woman has a deadline to meet. It cannot be more simple.

 

Consent to,get pregnant is not given!

 

Indeed it is not. And yet people enter into an act knowing there is an outside chance pregnancy might occur.

 

I read the first pages of the thread, hoping to read the arguments of people who believe in god (I don't), I read mostly atheist self congratulation. Quite disapointing.

 

Document what? That the 17 women who die DO think it's an overwhelming problem?


Just because dead women don't matter to some doesn't mean they don't matter to others...

.


No, but the harm that is done is enough to invoke self defense.....and there is only ONE way to stop the harm.


YOU have the right to stop someone harming you using deadly force....why don't you want women to have the same right?

OH YA, you NEVER could answer the oft asked question: Why do you want women to have less rights than you have?

Consent to one act (having sex) is NOT consent to any other act (becoming pregnant).

NO woman can "consent" to getting pregnant, she either will or won't.

And consent to any act may be withdrawn at any time.

Right now she does, before 23 weeks and most abortions are performed between 10 and 18 weeks.

......but NO one should have a time limit on stopping another from harming them.

 

...and that has nothing to do with anything.....not laws nor rights...


BTW, you never did answer why you make exceptions for abortions if the pregnancy was due to rape....

 

The only way slavery ties in with abortion is when some people want to deny women their rights as if they were slaves...



"Self defense" need not enter the debate unless the fetus is deemed a "person" with rights.

 

At the risk of encouraging you, document figures that says the US has some of the world's highest maternal death rates. I've never heard anyone else claim this.
And this: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223
says your claim is absolute bull sh*t!! Or perhaps just take your invented claims and slink away. The number is fourteen, by the way.
Not seventeen.

And just because you
want to believe that a woman who dies in childbirth doesn't matter to others doesn't make that lie true. In fact if you claim it it's almost certainly not true.

Women are not forced to bear children. Up to a certain point abortions are very legal and recommended if you don't want a child.
Why more lies?

Some women want to bear children.

Not really.

Then get a timely abortion
and stop whining.

 

Or deny the humanity of the child in the womb, just as they deny the humanity of the slave. Guess you are defined by the company you choose to keep, eh?