Rights of the unborn [Split] When the pro-life choose to have abortions

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
leave it with this....anecdotal evidence of a dozen or even a million instances of hypocrisy does not negate the fact that it is simply wrong to kill 46 million children


Wrong from YOUR perspective, certainly not wrong from those who had abortions done.
Tragic and unfortunate, perhaps. Sad and a testament to the challenge of life, perhaps.
Wrong? No, I don't think so.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wrong from YOUR perspective, certainly not wrong from those who had abortions done.

don't forget, from the kid's perspective....

[Alonzo]

don't forget, from the kid's perspective....

Na, for the most part the kid doesn't think at all. But, either way, you have to admit that the stories are funny.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
don't forget, from the kid's perspective....

The "fetus" doesn't have a perspective, and even if it did, and LIVED, it wouldn't remember its fetal perspective, nor do you, or anyone else from your own fetal times.

A fetus doesn't understand being an individual, since it breathes, eats, shits, and EXISTS at the MERCY and GOOD WILL of another, neither of which are guaranteed or a RIGHT to the fetus.

The only perspective a fetus has is darkness, warmth, and a lot of sounds and vibrations they can't make much sense of.

[PostmodernProphet]

The "fetus" doesn't have a perspective, and even if it did, and LIVED, it wouldn't remember its fetal perspective, nor do you, or anyone else from your own fetal times.



isn't it rather arbitrary to restrict perspective to a biological standard.....one can certainly speak of someone's "point of view", even if it can't "view" and there are no sharp pointy objects in sight.....

A fetus doesn't understand being an individual

similarly true of the newborn, many adults with handicaps, and some elderly.....yet you don't strip them of their rights as an individual......

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
isn't it rather arbitrary to restrict perspective to a biological standard.....one can certainly speak of someone's "point of view", even if it can't "view" and there are no sharp pointy objects in sight.....

What I find arbitrary is trying to call a fetus a "person" simply because it has POTENTIAL to become a person, though it ISN'T in any sense legally a person, nor does it meet any of the criteria to be classified as such.

No entity living within another entity can logically have rights, without the will of the host life, hence the reason a fetus only has rights by EXTENSION of the will of the mother.

[dgun]

If the fundamentalist preachers who are opposed to Roe v. Wade (I am too by the way on constitutional grounds) could stop the abortions that take place with the members of their own congregations, they would cut abortions in half.

The abortion issue has always been about political demagoguery and what amounts to emotional blackmail of a constituency. If the people who voted for Republicans solely on the basis of the abortion issue would stop and consider that the people they vote for never NEVER deliver one iota on their promise to cut back or end abortions, then maybe they would realize that these people have no intention nor desire to end abortions. All they want is the vote.

For about 5 years (until 2006), we had a government completely controlled by the Republican party (House, Senate, Presidency) and a slim conservative majority on the supreme court. What, the slaughter of unborn children is not high enough on the priority list to do something about in 5 years?

Please. The powers that be in the Republican party never had any intention to end the legality of abortion. To those who support the Republican party over this, stop letting yourselves be used.

[Osborn F. Enready]

dgun said:
Please. The powers that be in the Republican party never had any intention to end the legality of abortion. To those who support the Republican party over this, stop letting yourselves be used.

That would mean a majority of them would be able to identify, and define hypocrisy, and actually stand against it......

I don't see that happening, since most of them ARE hypocrites.

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.”
-Adolf Hitler

“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy.”
-Charles Manson, leader of a murderous cult of entirely unskeptical followers

“Americans are now certifiably insane. They are crazy. They are suffering a mass psychosis. They have lost their own ability to discern right from wrong.”
-Joseph Farah. editor of WorldNetDaily, 1999-Apr-12

[PostmodernProphet]

What I find arbitrary is trying to call a fetus a "person" simply because it has POTENTIAL to become a person, though it ISN'T in any sense legally a person, nor does it meet any of the criteria to be classified as such.

No entity living within another entity can logically have rights, without the will of the host life, hence the reason a fetus only has rights by EXTENSION of the will of the mother.


and what I find arbitrary is denying one individual human being the rights that another is granted simply because they don't meet your subjective standards.....it has met ALL the criteria you have ever suggested for granting rights to others except one....that you haven't granted it rights.....

[PostmodernProphet]

“Americans are now certifiably insane. They are crazy. They are suffering a mass psychosis. They have lost their own ability to discern right from wrong.”

I can agree with that one.....the insanity is called liberalism.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
and what I find arbitrary is denying one individual human being the rights that another is granted simply because they don't meet your subjective standards.

Logic has NOTHING to do with subjective standards, it has to do with ERADICATION of contradiction, which you entire argument is built on.

There is NO LOGICAL WAY for a fetus to exercise or posess rights while in another living being, THAT HAS RIGHTS.

PMP said:
....it has met ALL the criteria you have ever suggested for granting rights to others except one....that you haven't granted it rights.....

Again, false construct and denial of logic.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
I can agree with that one.....the insanity is called liberalism.....

And the insanity your particular post exudes and exemplifies, is called partisanism.

;)

[PostmodernProphet]

There is NO LOGICAL WAY for a fetus to exercise or posess rights while in another living being, THAT HAS RIGHTS.

of course there is.....you simply acknowledge that there is no valid reason to say that one has rights and the other doesn't.....

[Alonzo]

of course there is.....you simply acknowledge that there is no valid reason to say that one has rights and the other doesn't.....

But, either way, aren't you doing that regardless? In the one case you're arguing that one has the right to use another's body as a home, and in the other case you're arguing that one has the right to determine what is inside her own body. Either way, one has rights and one doesn't.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
of course there is.....you simply acknowledge that there is no valid reason to say that one has rights and the other doesn't.....

And again... logical fallacy.

There is no comparison between a person and a fetus, other than they are of the same species. One is an individual, the other is a parasitic life form living within a PERSON. One is a legal entity with a name, a legal title, a legal existence, the other, a POTENTIAL person with no legal entity, no legal name, no legal title, no legal existence. One has rights and an ability to exercise, comprehend, communicate and resist, while the other exists at the whim and mercy of the HOST it resides within.

Both can't have rights, since the rights of a fetus would INFRINGE the rights of a mother, if the mother sought CONTROL over her right to birth or NOT birth.

That is the OBVIOUS logical contradiction which you deny exists.

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, false construct and denial of logic.

you hide behind a mask of "logic" but you have never been able to articulate a reason for denial other than "we haven't given them rights and you can't make us"......

[PostmodernProphet]

But, either way, aren't you doing that regardless? In the one case you're arguing that one has the right to use another's body as a home, and in the other case you're arguing that one has the right to determine what is inside her own body. Either way, one has rights and one doesn't.

a legal discussion of the rights of individuals always involves a balancing of the rights of various people.....the rights of property ownership versus the right to be free from discrimination.......the right of free speech versus the right to be free from slander.....

if you consider whether the right to life of the child is of greater or lesser importance than the right of the mother to be free from bearing it, I consider the right to life of greater importance, since it is permanent......

[PostmodernProphet]

the other is a parasitic life form living within a PERSON

a conclusion you can come to only if you totally reject science....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
you hide behind a mask of "logic" but you have never been able to articulate a reason for denial other than "we haven't given them rights and you can't make us"......

I clearly JUST DID.

Both a fetus and a mother CAN'T have right, since if the mother and the fetus don't have the same OUTLOOK, their rights DIRECTLY INFRINGE THE OTHERS FREEDOM....... DUH.

Individual rights are not based on "agreement", and don't fall void in an issue of "disagreement".

If you don't see the logical contradiction in your own espoused ideas, its due to denial, not a failure of logic.

[PostmodernProphet]

Both can't have rights, since the rights of a fetus would INFRINGE the rights of a mother

interesting.....did they use that same argument in the 60s?....blacks can't have rights, since they would infringe on the rights of whites.....somehow, I don't think that approach flies.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
interesting.....did they use that same argument in the 60s?....blacks can't have rights, since they would infringe on the rights of whites.....somehow, I don't think that approach flies.....

Strawman, trying to compare apples and hand grenades.

Blacks never lived in whites fetuses, or vice versa while arguing for equal rights.

[PostmodernProphet]

Individual rights are not based on "agreement", and don't fall void in an issue of "disagreement".

rights are granted or denied, by the state.....and the only reason the unborn do not have rights is because they have not been granted those rights by the state.....

yet those rights are granted to other human individuals who are indistinguishable from the unborn in anyway other than the grant of rights.....

that is not logical, that is arbitrary.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Strawman

a/k/a "I will lose the argument if admit you are right".....

it doesn't matter if blacks live within whites....your rationale is that the rights of one infringe on the rights of another....I have news for you....EVERY right that every person holds infringes on the right of another.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
rights are granted or denied, by the state.

Incorrect. Rights are RECOGNIZED or not, by the state.

Since this nations inception, it has recognized individual rights as listed in the BOR.... it took time for blacks to free themselves from wrongful persecution based on color using the LOGIC of the BOR and the concept of individual responsibility, and used that logic to REMOVE the contradiction that existed since our founding regarding blacks.

Women later did this regarding womens suffrage.

BOTH blacks AND women, are LIVING, BREATHING INDIVIDUALS, LEGAL ENTITIES, and thereby considered PERSONS in all forms of legal recognition.

Fetuses meet NONE of those, and many others, and to GIVE fetus' rights, would ADD contradiction, not REMOVE IT.

You would see that if your emotions and faith bias didn't blind you to the facts.

PMP said:
....and the only reason the unborn do not have rights is because they have not been granted those rights by the state.....

That because the state, up until today, recognizes that doing so would ADD CONTRADICTION AND LOGICAL FALLACY to the concept of rights, weakening the concept for ALL PEOPLES RIGHTS.

Good on them.

PMP said:
yet those rights are granted to other human individuals who are indistinguishable from the unborn in anyway other than the grant of rights.....

Example?!?

PMP said:
that is not logical, that is arbitrary.....

You shouldn't use the word arbitrary, since you obviously don't understand how it should be applied.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
it doesn't matter if blacks live within whites....your rationale is that the rights of one infringe on the rights of another....I have news for you....EVERY right that every person holds infringes on the right of another.....

Only if force becomes a factor in exercising those rights.

[PostmodernProphet]

Incorrect. Rights are RECOGNIZED or not, by the state

why do I sense that is nothing but a semantical uproar over nothing.....

[PostmodernProphet]

BOTH blacks AND women, are LIVING, BREATHING INDIVIDUALS, LEGAL ENTITIES, and thereby considered PERSONS in all forms of legal recognition.

Fetuses meet NONE of those

well, you got me on the 'breathing' part.....which of course, is an arbitrary distinction so long as you don't remove the rights of people who go on life support.....beyond that the only difference is that their rights have not yet been "recognized"......

no.....logical......basis......

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
why do I sense that is nothing but a semantical uproar over nothing.....

To downplay semantics is to deny reason and definition.

"Enumerate" and "Grant" are in no way interchangeable or equal terms, regarding definitions.

That is like equating fire and water as the same, and then telling the person who corrects you they are being "semanticly childish".

[PostmodernProphet]

Example?!?

every fraudulent rationale for treating them differently since we started arguing about this months ago......name ONE rational basis for not "recognizing" the rights of the unborn that would not also apply to someone who has been born.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Only if force becomes a factor in exercising those rights.

no....in obvious untarnished terms.....

[PostmodernProphet]

To downplay semantics is to deny reason and definition.

"Enumerate" and "Grant" are in no way interchangeable or equal terms, regarding definitions.

That is like equating fire and water as the same, and then telling the person who corrects you they are being "semanticly childish".

well quite frankly, I don't give a shit whether you use "recognize" or "grant" either way, until the state acts they have no enforceable rights and the only reasons the state has not acted are arbitrary....

[PostmodernProphet]

You shouldn't use the word arbitrary, since you obviously don't understand how it should be applied.

I know quite well, thank you....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
well, you got me on the 'breathing' part.....which of course, is an arbitrary distinction so long as you don't remove the rights of people who go on life support.

People who "go on life support" attained LIFE to SUPPORT as a PERSON, not as a fetus.
PERSONS have a right to access life support, assuming they can afford, or appropriate funds for it through free-will, free choice support.

PMP said:
....beyond that the only difference is that their rights have not yet been "recognized"......

no.....logical......basis.....

Well, you still have not shown any logic being used in your argument.

Any person has been BORN, a fetus has not been born, therfore not achived "individuality" (still a parasite on a host), has not achived "citizenship" (through birth or naturalization), has not achieved any LEGAL status or recognition (through actually being a LIVING, BORN INDIVIDUAL), etc, etc, etc,......

your denial is becoming obvious, and tedious... shouldn't you quit while your ahead?

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
every fraudulent rationale for treating them differently since we started arguing about this months ago......name ONE rational basis for not "recognizing" the rights of the unborn that would not also apply to someone who has been born.....

ROFLMAO......

Persons are BORN, therfore, EXIST AT THEIR OWN WILL to the extent of their own ability, or the mercy of their loved ones or legal guardians ability.

Fetuses are DEPENDENT, and live WITHIN rights holding PERSONS, and have no ability to EXIST AT THEIR OWN WILL, without removing the rights of a NON-COMPLIANT mother.

Do you do double negatives much?

name ONE rational basis for not "recognizing" the rights of the unborn that would not also apply to someone who has been born

What did you mean to say?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Let me put this another way PMP....

RIGHTS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

A fetus is not individually responsible, is not capable of being individually responsible, CANNOT be individually responsible.

A fetus' entire existence is at the MERCY and WILLINGNESS of the mother, and HER ABILITY to provide for its life, which is TOTALLY dependent on her for food, protection from nature, protection, etc......

This should be obvious.

Now, before you say "what about those who are paraplegic..." or some other nonsense.

Living beings have LEGAL MEANS to rectify this, wheras a fetus DOES NOT, CAN NOT have a legal means to do so.

When a fetus is born, it becomes a LEGAL ENTITY, and its wellbeing is NATURALLY AND AUTOMATICLY CHARGED TO THE INDIVDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING IT OUT OF THE WOMB, and INTO THE WORLD.

[lieexposer]

If religion were to be kept out of the issue, as it should be because it is all superstitious nonsense in my view, then abortion would become a moral issue and would be much easier to deal with I think. It's going to be impossible for the Christians to think in this manner but if they don't want to then the debate can still proceed without them.

The debate would then become a question of whether or not it is morally right to kill a fetus after a certain stage of development. Of course it's always preferable to not need to have an abortion but there are certain circumstances where an abortion is preferable for the woman or even the couple involved.

[Alonzo]

split from the other thread. Didn't want to FP it but it's not really on topic either.

[lieexposer]

every fraudulent rationale for treating them differently since we started arguing about this months ago......name ONE rational basis for not "recognizing" the rights of the unborn that would not also apply to someone who has been born.....

It's easy if you leave religion out of it. But the posters on this thread aren't ready to do that yet so I'll leave it for a while. Most likely most will never want to do it. Nobody wants to ever acknowledge that we're just animals like the rest of them and abortion is equivalent to aborting a puppy or a kitty to save the mother. We can choose to be moral or immoral without religion.

Later.

[PostmodernProphet]

People who "go on life support" attained LIFE to SUPPORT as a PERSON, not as a fetus.
so again, the difference isn't that they are breathing, it's simply an issue of status.....the fetus is not recognized by you as a "person"......

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, you still have not shown any logic being used in your argument.

sure I have.....living individual human beings should be treated equally with all other living individual human beings....there is no legitimate basis upon which to treat unborn living individual human beings differently from those who have been born.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
so again, the difference isn't that they are breathing, it's simply an issue of status.....the fetus is not recognized by you as a "person"......


How many times are you going to put this circle of illogic forward?

This has nothing to do with PERSONAL VIEW. It has to do with the LOGICAL APPLICATION of individual rights. Anytime a contradiction in individual rights is found, the win is usually (always that I know of) by REMOVING contradiction.

To assert that a fetus has individual rights, puts direct logical contradiction into:
a) where rights are derived from (individual responsibility, all being equal under nature)
b) the purpose of recognizing full rights holding individuals (adults) vs limited rights holding individuals (minors, or non-majority age). Limited rights START at birth.
c) the objective of having individual rights, which is to allow individuals to live free of external force to the maximum extent possible, according to whatever moral or subjective philosophy they aspire to.
d) the point at which the public gives "conscent" to the use of force between a mother, father and child and the state.

You are in denial of all the logical arguments above, and refuse to acknowledge any with credible argument.

You certainly don't address the issue of force between the state and the mother, WERE the fetus to have individual rights, which are incommunicable.

[PostmodernProphet]

How many times are you going to put this circle of illogic forward?/shrugs....I suspect I will have to point out your errors as long as you continue to make them.....

To assert that a fetus has individual rights, puts direct logical contradiction into:
a) where rights are derived from (individual responsibility, all being equal under nature)...agreed, and the unborn are equal....
b) the purpose of recognizing full rights holding individuals (adults) vs limited rights holding individuals (minors, or non-majority age). Limited rights START at birth.....only because that is where we currently begin to recognize them.....there is no logical reason to delay recognition till then.....
c) the objective of having individual rights, which is to allow individuals to live free of external force to the maximum extent possible, according to whatever moral or subjective philosophy they aspire to.....sounds fine to me....
d) the point at which the public gives "consent" to the use of force between a mother, father and child and the state......which currently is set arbitrarily at birth.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
shrugs....I suspect I will have to point out your errors as long as you continue to make them.....

Great way to avoid the issue, and retain your denial in full tilt.....

Are you an ex-politician? You certainly know how to post a reply without actually addressing ANYTHING said.

[PostmodernProphet]

You certainly don't address the issue of force between the state and the mother, WERE the fetus to have individual rights, which are incommunicable.that would have to be balanced against the force between the state and the unborn child.....you have to acknowledge that the termination of live would be the ultimate exercise of that force.....how does that stand in a balance against being required to carry a life to term for nine months.....

You certainly know how to post a reply without actually addressing ANYTHING said.

what an odd response....what have you stated that I have not shown to be absurd.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

If you wish to keep debating this, you have to come up with some logical argument prophet.

I will not argue against "did not" or "does to", which is what you are putting forth.

You haven't shown one iota of logic in using your "application of rights" to a fetus argument, and how it deals with the force of the state between a mother and her own body.

Until then, comfort yourself in denial all you like and this will most likely end up in FP where your responses belong.

[PostmodernProphet]

If you wish to keep debating this, you have to come up with some logical argument prophet.

I will not argue against "did not" or "does to", which is what you are putting forth.

You haven't shown one iota of logic in using your "application of rights" to a fetus argument, and how it deals with the force of the state between a mother and her own body.

Until then, comfort yourself in denial all you like and this will most likely end up in FP where your responses belong.

/shrugs....when I do, you don't bother to respond to it.....buy hey, if you get a chance to actually read my posts, you might take a shot at responding to post #40 and post #44 where I did precisely what you pretend I haven't done....in the mean time we will consider your affectation of "reason" a source of amusement....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
you might take a shot at responding to post #40 and post #44 where I did precisely what you pretend I haven't done

Post #40 PMP said:
sure I have.....living individual human beings should be treated equally with all other living individual human beings....there is no legitimate basis upon which to treat unborn living individual human beings differently from those who have been born.....

RIGHTS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, which is something an unborn has NO ability to affect at any level.

A fetus is not individually responsible, is not capable of being individually responsible, CANNOT be individually responsible.

A fetus' entire existence is at the MERCY and WILLINGNESS of the mother, and HER ABILITY to provide for its life, which is TOTALLY dependent on her for food, protection from nature, protection from unjust force, quality of life, etc...... The fetus eats through her, breathes through her and shits through her...... it is in NO way capable of affecting ANY measure of individual rights, and is not an individual.

This should be obvious.

Now, before you say "what about those who are paraplegic..." or some other nonsense.

Living beings have LEGAL MEANS to rectify this, as they are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITIES and are SOMEONES charge, wheras a fetus DOES NOT, CAN NOT have a legal means to do so.

When a fetus is born, it becomes a LEGAL ENTITY, and its wellbeing is NATURALLY AND AUTOMATICLY CHARGED TO THE INDIVDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING IT OUT OF THE WOMB, and INTO THE WORLD.

Post#44 PMP said:
that would have to be balanced against the force between the state and the unborn child.....you have to acknowledge that the termination of live would be the ultimate exercise of that force.....how does that stand in a balance against being required to carry a life to term for nine months.....

Here is that balance of force....

The mother has rights over her body and what is within it. She is responsible for all choices she makes, and she is the sole charge for providing her ability for health, welfare and enviroment. The fetus has no say or no role in any of the above, as it is totally dependent, and only exists at the will and ability of the mother to provide while living parasiticly within her.

The state has no right to use force against a woman who is not pregnant, unless she violates the rights of another PERSON, another LEGAL ENTITY, or their PROPERTY.

In this case, the fetus is not a PERSON, not a LEGAL ENTITY, and is WITHIN the PROPERTY of the mother, which is her own body.

If a law were to exist that outlawed abortion, automaticly once has to ask what role would the state play in enforcing this law.

For instance.....

At what point could the state agents "act with force" to protect the life of a fetus from a mother set on not delivering? At what point could she be detained, restrained and forced to conceive? What penalties could be assigned to someone for aborting a fetus, and on what basis? (certainly not murder, or that would mean that any fetus regardless of the reason, that were aborted, would be default viewed as a murder regardless of individual impact to the mother and the irrational impact it would have on her life) If it is technically against the law to abort, then the STATE must act to save life correct? At what level would the state be allowed to ensure the safety of a fetus? (obtain medical records without warrants based on reasonable suspicion?) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

I see no basis for an argument of fetal rights, when viewing the irrational and arbitrary impact on women who seek abortion for personal reasons or health reasons, and I see no way in which the state can have access to information to verify such without unwarranted access to medical records, which is an obvious breach and abridgement of individual right to privacy.

Under what pretense does the state have to launch the use of force against a mother, without warrant or evidence that a life is in danger? How can this knowledge be gained without access to medical records or open testimony by the mother or immediate family?
How would the state know when a woman was seeking an abortion, or had had one?


Your entire "balance" argument seems flawed when viewing the impact it would have on individual womens rights.

Any other things I should address?

[PostmodernProphet]

RIGHTS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITYwhy?.....are there not people incapable of action, whether because of mental or physical incapacities who have rights?.....

A fetus' entire existence is at the MERCY and WILLINGNESS of the mother, and HER ABILITY to provide for its life, which is TOTALLY dependent on her for food, protection from nature, protection from unjust force, quality of life, etc...... The fetus eats through her, breathes through her and shits through her...... it is in NO way capable of affecting ANY measure of individual rights, and is not an individual.likewise, is a person who experiences an accident and is kept alive only by mechanical means suddenly not an individual, suddenly without rights?

Now, before you say "what about those who are paraplegic..." or some other nonsense.

Living beings have LEGAL MEANS to rectify this, as they are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITIES and are SOMEONES charge, wheras a fetus DOES NOT, CAN NOT have a legal means to do so.

and obviously those persons are incapable of triggering that rectification on their own, others must act on their behalf.....the only reason the unborn do not have that LEGAL means is that people like you have denied them those means.....by what right have you done so?.....simply because it hasn't been done yet?......arbitrary......

The fetus has no say or no role in any of the above

yes, because you have denied it that say....

If a law were to exist that outlawed abortion, automaticly once has to ask what role would the state play in enforcing this law.

as in any other situation, the administrator of justice.....

[PostmodernProphet]

certainly not murderand why not....the intentional taking of other human lives contrary to the law is classified in that way....

that would mean that any fetus regardless of the reason, that were aborted, would be default viewed as a murder regardless of individual impact to the mother and the irrational impact it would have on her lifethat, of course, would depend on how the statute is drafted....

I see no basis for an argument of fetal rights, when viewing the irrational and arbitrary impact on women who seek abortion for personal reasons or health reasonsthat is because you fail to see the irrational and arbitrary impact of abortion on the unborn fetus....

Under what pretense does the state have to launch the use of force against a mother, without warrant or evidence that a life is in danger?now THAT is a strawman.....if the state does act, it would not because of a "pretense", but because of a law passed in due course.....and why do you immediately jump from there to the state acting without warrant or evidence?

Your entire "balance" argument seems flawed when viewing the impact it would have on individual womens rights.

and yours IS flawed, since it totally discounts the impact upon the fetus....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
why?.....are there not people incapable of action, whether because of mental or physical incapacities who have rights?.....

Yes, but they are all BORN, LEGAL ENTITIES, legally recognized to have rights due to their BIRTH and MEETING THE REQUIREMENT of what is entailed for the BASIS of individual rights. People who are born with limited function, or aquire it later in life, have a legal means to aquire care through the legal systems recognition of their situation. They also can be communicated with in MOST cases, which are things NO fetus can do.

Again, this all goes back to the EMINATION of rights to BORN, living human beings.....but you know that, just deny it I assume since I clearly covered this topic with you before.

PMP said:
likewise, is a person who experiences an accident and is kept alive only by mechanical means suddenly not an individual, suddenly without rights?

No... they are BORN LEGAL ENTITIES, and those machines are LIFE SUPPORT, not GRANTING LIFE to a fetus that never attained it. They are individuals, hooked to a machine for support, not a PARASITICLY LIVING LIFE FORM IN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING THAT HAS FULL RIGHTs.

Legal entities can be assigned or adopted under the care of caregivers, usually family or friends. A fetus can't, without the WILL and CARE of the mother, until delivery by volitional choice.

PMP said:
and obviously those persons are incapable of triggering that rectification on their own, others must act on their behalf.....the only reason the unborn do not have that LEGAL means is that people like you have denied them those means.

Correct, since recognizing their rights would be illogical to the emination of rights, would directly abridge the rights of the FULL RIGHTS HOLDING MOTHER, and a fetus' position can't be known or speculated on without information that couldn't be gathered without abridging or infringing other rights of the mother.

So yes, denied on logical basis, and the FACT that the BOR can't be used to remove the rights of others, as would be the case regarding the mothers, if abortion was made illegal and punishable.

PMP said:
....by what right have you done so?

Protection of the rights of the full rights holding mother, in prefrence to a NON rights having fetus.

PMP said:
.....simply because it hasn't been done yet?......arbitrary......

Arbitrary, is ignoring the logical flaws and rights removal of the mothers in your argument.

PMP said:
yes, because you have denied it that say....

Yes, on the above listed logical grounds.....Thank reason.

PMP said:
as in any other situation.....

Yet you deny and evade ever addressing these implications and wholesale disenfranchisement of womens rights.....in favor of an entity that AT BEST could only achieve partial rights, but even I would argue that since its based on illogical grounds.

PMP said:
and why not....the intentional taking of other human lives contrary to the law is classified in that way....

As I said, due to the OBVIOUSLY DAMAGING implications it would have on ALL womens lives, before, during or after a pregnancy from a multitude of situations that COULD occur, placing her at fault by no actions of her own.

PMP said:
that, of course, would depend on how the statute is drafted....

Nice way to say something, without really saying anything.......

PMP said:
that is because you fail to see the irrational and arbitrary impact of abortion on the unborn fetus....

Correct, because that "impact" is based wholly on subjective nonsense, morals and religious belief.

PMP said:
now THAT is a strawman.....if the state does act, it would not because of a "pretense", but because of a law passed in due course.....and why do you immediately jump from there to the state acting without warrant or evidence?

Because you have shown no VALID reason not to..... in fact, you lead people to believe exactly as I alluded to, the use of unjust force against women based on some subjectively reasoned arbitrary law on the value of life, that has no respect for the basis of natural rights as written, ratified or observed for generations.

You have not taken an effort to show how force would be applied, or when it could be applied if your "christian utopic" law was passed. Care to do so?

When you don't provide, that only leaves people room to speculate...... is it any wonder?

PMP said:
and yours IS flawed, since it totally discounts the impact upon the fetus....

What is the impact on the fetus?

It is killed before obtaining memory.
It is killed before obtaining liberty. (outside the womb is when liberty starts)
It is killed before obtaining individual rights.
It is killed before communicable.

So, what is the impact on the fetus? It is being prevented from exiting the womb, a womb it was most likely not welcome in to begin with, and which many take steps to PREVENT HAPPENING..... so why should prevention stop at conception?

Rational people have created ways to carry prevention past conception.... why are these methods less sound that prior conception method, barring subjective morals, beliefs, etc......?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, but they are all BORN, LEGAL ENTITIESso, despite what you said, the difference isn't ability to take action, the difference is "born" and "legal".....the unborn have no rights because you have not chosen to extend those rights to them.....yet you cannot articulate a single basis for that refusal which does not apply equally to those who have been born.....that is why your criteria is arbitrary.....

What is the impact on the fetus?

It is killed before obtaining memory.
It is killed before obtaining liberty. (outside the womb is when liberty starts)
It is killed before obtaining individual rights.
It is killed before communicable.it is killed.......

As I said, due to the OBVIOUSLY DAMAGING implications it would have on ALL womens lives, before, during or after a pregnancy from a multitude of situations that COULD occur, placing her at fault by no actions of her own.if they aren't her actions, who's actions are they?.......you totally ignore the fact that everything you state about damage to the mother is less than the damage to the child.....and certainly the pregnancy didn't occur because of any act of the child.....

Rational people have created ways to carry prevention past conception.... why are these methods less sound that prior conception method, barring subjective morals, beliefs, etc......?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

obviously, because the methods used after conception require the death of a human being.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
so, despite what you said, the difference isn't ability to take action, the difference is "born" and "legal".....the unborn have no rights because you have not chosen to extend those rights to them.....yet you cannot articulate a single basis for that refusal which does not apply equally to those who have been born.....that is why your criteria is arbitrary.....

So your saying the difference in human ability in the womb, is no different than out of the womb, and that difference being notated is "arbitrary"?!?

You are saying the change and how it affects womens rights is "arbitrary".

You are saying even though it changes the application of force between the state and individual women, increasing it at the hands of the state..... its "arbitrary".....

LOL... Again, I can only suggest you look up what arbitrary means, and correct your posts accordingly, or leave them and be judged by current and future readers for the intellectual dredge it is.

I don't support abortion, I support a womans right to her own body, which happens to entail abortion if SHE so chooses, based on how it affects HER life, HER body, HER future, HER happiness. She only has the right to make that choice, and you have no right to use force against her, nor does a government, to come between HER fetus, and HER body.

If anything fits the definition of arbitrary, its your "claimed" reasoning.

PMP said:
it is killed.......

Indeed, it is killed. I stated that clearly, didn't I?

PMP said:
if they aren't her actions, who's actions are they?

Two peoples actions to create, only ONES right of RESPONSIBILITY regarding carrying to term. If carried to term, BOTH bear legal responsibility and financial responsibility for health and well being. Obviously if not carried to term, the father has little or no say. The woman by no means should support the brunt of the damage of abortion, but it is ONLY her body the fetus is in, so its LOGICAL to see it is OBVIOUSLY her right, in HER body.

PMP said:
.......you totally ignore the fact that everything you state about damage to the mother is less than the damage to the child.....

Because its not. That is a matter of perspective, and only a mother to be can determine the weight of that choice, hence, it is ruled their right.

PMP said:
and certainly the pregnancy didn't occur because of any act of the child.....

Correct, but its a fetus, not a child, and a fetus has no rights, is not a legal entity, an individual or a PERSON defined in law or otherwise, except by the most VAGUE interpretation of the human form.

[PostmodernProphet]

So your saying the difference in human ability in the womb, is no different than out of the womb, and that difference being notated is "arbitrary"?!?

no, I'm saying that hinging the grant of rights to a human being on the event of coming out of the womb is arbitrary, since one can come out of the womb in a variety of ways, many of which are triggered by third party action....if one can "cause" the event that creates rights, it would obviously be arbitrary.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, I can only suggest you look up what arbitrary means, and correct your posts accordingly

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

okay, finished.....didn't have to change anything, so didn't take long.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeed, it is killed. I stated that clearly, didn't I?

yes, I noticed that....I confess that left me puzzled why you didn't think there was an impact.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Two peoples actions to create, only ONES right of RESPONSIBILITY regarding carrying to term. If carried to term, BOTH bear legal responsibility and financial responsibility for health and well being. Obviously if not carried to term, the father has little or no say. The woman by no means should support the brunt of the damage of abortion, but it is ONLY her body the fetus is in, so its LOGICAL to see it is OBVIOUSLY her right, in HER body.

totally ignoring the third person involved.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Because its not.death is not a greater damage than nine months of pregnancy?......so if the woman were killed it wouldn't be greater damage than if she went through nine months of pregnancy?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Correct, but its a fetus, not a child, and a fetus has no rights, is not a legal entity, an individual or a PERSON defined in law or otherwise, except by the most VAGUE interpretation of the human form.what a circular argument......tell you what, you just keep reciting that mantra like some Buddhist prayer and I will spend my time talking to some rational people......"it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights".....

[CockySOB]

Osborn,

You seem to think that until a fetus leaves the womb it is not a legal entity entitled to protection under the law. Am I correct? Is that the basis for your argument?

And if so, and you are a resident in the USA, in which state do you reside?

TIA

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
no, I'm saying that hinging the grant of rights to a human being on the event of coming out of the womb is arbitrary, since one can come out of the womb in a variety of ways, many of which are triggered by third party action....if one can "cause" the event that creates rights, it would obviously be arbitrary.....

Not if all of those "ways" a third party can trigger such an event are BASED ON CONSCENT OF THE RIGHTS HOLDING MOTHER, which they are. Can you show me an example where the mother can have FORCE used against her by the state to REMOVE A FETUS WITHOUT HER CONSCENT? The rights of the woman housing the fetus is FAR FROM ARBITRARY.

PMP said:
yes, I noticed that....I confess that left me puzzled why you didn't think there was an impact.....

There is no impact, because the use of force by the state against the woman is outlawed, therefore, the unborn have no RIGHT TO BIRTH WITHOUT MOTHERS CONSCENT.
The act of having an abortion, is the act of removing conscent. If force is used against her to remove that fetus, she has the right to defense of HER RIGHTS, and HER BODY, both legally recognized entities, fitting the definition of a person and citizen having access to all legally enumerated rights, to defense up to and including lethal force.

PMP said:
totally ignoring the third person involved.....

Since its not a person, has no rights, is not a legal entity, and exists ONLY at the will and ability of the mother to PROVIDE FOR ITS EXISTENCE, WITHIN HER.

PMP said:
death is not a greater damage than nine months of pregnancy?

Obviously that is situationally dependent, hence the reason sometimes a mother is lost during birth, or dies during carrying the child....... isn't that obvious?
The damage to life by carrying can also play a role, as can the damage to future happiness, but in the end, ONLY THE MOTHER can accurately assess the implications or damages of EITHER abortion OR carrying to term, and she has full rights to HER body, wherein the fetus resides, parasiticly.

PMP said:
......so if the woman were killed it wouldn't be greater damage than if she went through nine months of pregnancy?.....

Her choice..... some women have CHOSEN to deliver at great risk or loss of their own life.

Only the mother can make that value-assesment and choice, and its HER body in question, and her CONSCENT to give or not.

PMP said:
what a circular argument......tell you what, you just keep reciting that mantra like some Buddhist prayer and I will spend my time talking to some rational people......"it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights.....it doesn't have any rights because it isn't a legal entity, it isn't a legal entity because we haven't given it any rights".....


Whats funny is you think anyone has the right to use force against a pregnant woman, if they make the claim they are doing it to protect the fetus........totally ignoring her rights over her body, her right to conscent, and her PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW from force, and rights to defense against it.


CockySOB said:
Osborn,

You seem to think that until a fetus leaves the womb it is not a legal entity entitled to protection under the law. Am I correct?

It is only entitled protection under the law under the EXTENSION of the rights of the woman carrying the fetus, which requires conscent of the mother.

CockySOB said:
Is that the basis for your argument?

The basis of my argument is that a fetus can not logically, or physically claim individual rights, so any rights they may have recognized must be based on conscent of the mother.
Without conscent, without rights.

CockySOB said:
And if so, and you are a resident in the USA, in which state do you reside?

I don't know what the point of that question is, but yes and Ohio.

[PostmodernProphet]

Not if all of those "ways" a third party can trigger such an event are BASED ON CONSCENT OF THE RIGHTS HOLDING MOTHER, which they are. Can you show me an example where the mother can have FORCE used against her by the state to REMOVE A FETUS WITHOUT HER CONSCENT? The rights of the woman housing the fetus is FAR FROM ARBITRARY.lol, are you kidding?.....rights hinge only upon the consent of the mother?.....and you think that isn't arbitrary.......

There is no impactsorry, but 'dead' is an impact.....

Obviously that is situationally dependentno, it isn't....'dead' is a greater impact than everything less than 'dead'......

Whats funny is you think anyone has the right to use force against a pregnant woman

and you argue that it's okay to make the fetus 'dead', because it is wrong to use any type of force against a pregnant woman?......

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
lol, are you kidding?.....rights hinge only upon the consent of the mother?.....and you think that isn't arbitrary.......

Its HER RIGHT, its HER BODY, its HER FUTURE that is impacted by the fetus, and she has as much right to abort as she does to use birth control if the delivery of that fetus detrimentally affects her rights, her future, her life.

What role does voluntary conscent play in contracts?
In two or more party violence?
In any transaction recognized as legal?

Are you saying ALL conscent is arbitrary..... LOL

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you saying ALL conscent is arbitrary..... LOLI'm not saying ANY consent is arbitrary....I am saying a choice made without a rational criteria is arbitrary......what your debate boils down to is, if the mother feels like it, the fetus will attain rights, if she doesn't feel like it, the fetus is toast.....if you won't admit that is arbitrary, then you rank right up there with December as a debater......

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
I'm not saying ANY consent is arbitrary....I am saying a choice made without a rational criteria is arbitrary......what your debate boils down to is, if the mother feels like it, the fetus will attain rights, if she doesn't feel like it, the fetus is toast.


I am contemplating throwing a party for you finally getting it, and admitting it.

Again, her RIGHTS define that without her conscent, force against her is illegal.
HER BODY, HER FUTURE, HER LIFE, HER RIGHTS, HER CONSCENT.

At no point does a fetus' enter the picture, its conscent can't be determined, its not a person, an individual, nor self-sustaining or capable of achieving logical recognition of rights while living in a rights holding person, without conscent.


PMP said:
....if you won't admit that is arbitrary, then you rank right up there with December as a debater......

I hope you know that with the opinion I hold for you, insults aimed at me have the effect of making a joke.

You discredit conscent as arbitrary, in any situation it doesn't suit your moral relative view.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am contemplating throwing a party for you finally getting it, and admitting it???...I have known that was your opinion since two threads ago....it is simply that I recognize it as absurd.....
I hope you know that with the opinion I hold for you, insults aimed at me have the effect of making a joke.

You discredit conscent as arbitrary, in any situation it doesn't suit your moral relative view.

sorry, but I recognize fucked up logic when I see it.....

[I Like Beer]

sure I have.....living individual human beings should be treated equally with all other living individual human beings....there is no legitimate basis upon which to treat unborn living individual human beings differently from those who have been born.....

So, if fetuses are to be called the 'unborn' does that mean once you ARE born, you become the 'predead'?

Thank you, George Carlin.

[I Like Beer]

So Prophet, let me ask somethin'.

You would extend rights to the preborn. At what moment would those rights exist? At conception - when the sperm pierces the egg? At viability - when the fetus could survive on its own? When the heart first beats? When our tails disappear? Why that moment? Wouldn't any choice be arbitrary?

Who acts as the agent for the preborn, to act on its behalf? It can't really look out for itself. I assume you would choose the parents. Or, just the mother? I assume it would be the same person who would step in if we were talking about the post born infant. Is that correct?

If the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy, kill the preborn, wouldn't the state find the parents unfit? The state would find the next closest relative to look after the preborn's rights, yes? Grandparents and other family members. If they side with the original parents, they would also be replaced until someone could be found to stand for the preborn. In other words, contradict the wishes of the mother (who may happen to be their daughter/sister/etc).

If no one is found, the state assumes control, and then what? Do they jail the woman until the baby is born? Or, is she just threatened with a murder conviction is she goes through with it?

In the cases of rape, incest, genetic defects, severe mental retardation and other maladies, I assume you would remain steadfast, yes? The preborn is a person and entitled to all protection under the law. Therefore, no pregnancy could be terminated, even in the case where the mother will die if the preborn is carried to term. If both have equal protection under the law and both have the same chance of survival obviously the preborn cannot be sacrificed to save the life of the mother. In fact, it wouldn't matter if they have the same chance. Doctors could not make that decision or they would face a murder conviction.

Are you okay with all of this so far?

What would then happen if the baby was lost due to accident or natural causes? An police investigation would have to be immediately launched. In fact, in every single case of spontaneous abortion (even if naturally caused) would have to involve the police (like every case of SIDS).

Now, what about if the mother smokes? Or, what if she drinks a little? Now, let's assume the baby is born with some deficit. Is that not child abuse? Shouldn't she be investigated to exactly determine the role her behaviour played in the babies development? What if he's just a little slow? Does the post born qualify for some compensation?

Think of all the lawyers who will make tons of money representing kids suing their parents because mom smoked and the kid just can't cut it in school. LOL

What if the mother went horseback riding and lost the baby. Is she not open to a wrongful death civil suit brought by the grandparents or other agents on behalf of the preborn?

And I could go on....

[PostmodernProphet]

So, if fetuses are to be called the 'unborn' does that mean once you ARE born, you become the 'predead'?

Thank you, George Carlin.

was that because "undead" had already been used?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

So Prophet, let me ask somethin'.

You would extend rights to the preborn. At what moment would those rights exist? At conception - when the sperm pierces the egg? At viability - when the fetus could survive on its own? When the heart first beats? When our tails disappear? Why that moment? Wouldn't any choice be arbitrary?

Who acts as the agent for the preborn, to act on its behalf? It can't really look out for itself. I assume you would choose the parents. Or, just the mother? I assume it would be the same person who would step in if we were talking about the post born infant. Is that correct?

If the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy, kill the preborn, wouldn't the state find the parents unfit? The state would find the next closest relative to look after the preborn's rights, yes? Grandparents and other family members. If they side with the original parents, they would also be replaced until someone could be found to stand for the preborn. In other words, contradict the wishes of the mother (who may happen to be their daughter/sister/etc).

If no one is found, the state assumes control, and then what? Do they jail the woman until the baby is born? Or, is she just threatened with a murder conviction is she goes through with it?

In the cases of rape, incest, genetic defects, severe mental retardation and other maladies, I assume you would remain steadfast, yes? The preborn is a person and entitled to all protection under the law. Therefore, no pregnancy could be terminated, even in the case where the mother will die if the preborn is carried to term. If both have equal protection under the law and both have the same chance of survival obviously the preborn cannot be sacrificed to save the life of the mother. In fact, it wouldn't matter if they have the same chance. Doctors could not make that decision or they would face a murder conviction.

Are you okay with all of this so far?

What would then happen if the baby was lost due to accident or natural causes? An police investigation would have to be immediately launched. In fact, in every single case of spontaneous abortion (even if naturally caused) would have to involve the police (like every case of SIDS).

Now, what about if the mother smokes? Or, what if she drinks a little? Now, let's assume the baby is born with some deficit. Is that not child abuse? Shouldn't she be investigated to exactly determine the role her behaviour played in the babies development? What if he's just a little slow? Does the post born qualify for some compensation?

Think of all the lawyers who will make tons of money representing kids suing their parents because mom smoked and the kid just can't cut it in school. LOL

What if the mother went horseback riding and lost the baby. Is she not open to a wrongful death civil suit brought by the grandparents or other agents on behalf of the preborn?

And I could go on....

there is a logical scientific basis to consider the unborn a living human being from the moment of conception.....at that point, the DNA of the organism can identify that life as an individual human being, different from any other.....what other biological event in the life of a human ranks with that as the event which determines identity?.....

up until Roe v Wade there was no issue who acted as the agent for the unborn....the state made abortion illegal and prohibited the mother or any physician from taking action which would terminate the life of the child....Roe v Wade restricted the power of the state to act as that agent, but did not eliminate it.....removing those restrictions does not require the existence of a new agent......

as far as rape and incest are concerned, I am prepared to be a hypocrite....I am willing to concede the life of the child in those cases if you will concede in the other 99.9% of abortions......

in the case of the life of the mother, the solution is clearly established in legal precedent....when you balance the rights of one person against the rights of another and you come up with a perfect balance, such as the life of one versus the life of another, it follows that you choose in favor of the life of the mother.....

I thought this one was cute...

Now, let's assume the baby is born with some deficit. Is that not child abuse?

so, your solution to this "child abuse" is to kill the child?......would you extend that solution to other instances of child abuse?.....I can see it now....the judge is about to sentence a father convicted of beating his child daily for five years....and part of the sentence is that the child will be killed.....brilliant!

And I could go on....

you had best, so far you have nothing.....

[I Like Beer]

there is a logical scientific basis to consider the unborn a living human being from the moment of conception.....at that point, the DNA of the organism can identify that life as an individual human being, different from any other.....what other biological event in the life of a human ranks with that as the event which determines identity?.....

So, does DNA solely determines identity? Are identical twins are the same person under the law? For identical twins, there is no single moment of conception unless you consider both the same person under the law. So, that's my first problem with the 'moment of conception' argument.

Also, if we choose that moment, that is the time the developing fetus gains full protection under the law, correct?

up until Roe v Wade there was no issue who acted as the agent for the unborn....the state made abortion illegal and prohibited the mother or any physician from taking action which would terminate the life of the child....Roe v Wade restricted the power of the state to act as that agent, but did not eliminate it.....removing those restrictions does not require the existence of a new agent......

So, the state becomes the de facto agent for the preborn?

as far as rape and incest are concerned, I am prepared to be a hypocrite....I am willing to concede the life of the child in those cases if you will concede in the other 99.9% of abortions......

Well, how noble of you. You will remove the rights from a legal entity based solely on the circumstances of their conception? Can you point to any other group who's rights you would be so willing to cast aside for convenience?

If the baby was born and then it was determined that the baby was a product of rape/incest would you be willing to kill that baby? If not, why the difference? If the pre/post born are the same legal entities under the law, you can't say it's fine to kill one but not the other.

If you can, please explain it to me.

in the case of the life of the mother, the solution is clearly established in legal precedent....when you balance the rights of one person against the rights of another and you come up with a perfect balance, such as the life of one versus the life of another, it follows that you choose in favor of the life of the mother.....

But that is because the preborn hasn't any rights. If they are a legal entity entitled to full protection under the law, that changes everything. Agents can then act on the preborn's behalf and get court orders to stop anything that would endanger it's life. Any legal entity is entitled to its day in court. They can demand second opinions and tie things up until it becomes too late - or until the risk is greater.

I thought this one was cute...

so, your solution to this "child abuse" is to kill the child?......would you extend that solution to other instances of child abuse?.....I can see it now....the judge is about to sentence a father convicted of beating his child daily for five years....and part of the sentence is that the child will be killed.....brilliant!/quote]

You completely missed the point. The point is, if the preborn has rights, then it - or its agent - has the right to sue the mother for activities that may have caused it harm during it's development.

For example, alcohol has noticeable effects on fetal development (FAS). But, there are several other environmental factors that effect development. To go back to alcohol, it is a known teratogen even at low levels. You've just created a possible criminal every time a pregnant woman has a drink of wine with dinner.

Now, should you think this ludicrous, there is a case in Minnesota where a 3 year old (through the agent of his grandmother) is suing his parents for injuries he sustained in an auto accident. The parents didn't use a car seat. Their goal is to force the insurance company to pay.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2007/01/08/75668.htm


[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;178854]you had best, so far you have nothing.....

Well, I hardly agree. However, you ignored much of what I wrote, misinterpreted other stuff, and had to become an admitted hypocrite.

Yeah, I guess forcing you to become an admitted hypocrite really is nothing. :)

Some questions you missed....

Do we lock up mothers intent on abortions? Or, do we charge them with murder? They would have to be charged with murder, it's a premeditated act intent on taking the life of a person under the law.

What about severe mental and physical malformations? Are you willing to pay for the care of that individual throughout its life? Or, does your role end as soon as it's born? Or, is it like preborn conceived through rape/incest and they are lesser people under the law and we're justified in ending their existence?

Wouldn't any case of spontaneous abortion need to be fully investigated by the police? To make sure the mother, in some way, didn't contribute to the loss of the preborn? Similar to investigations of SIDS in the postborn?

This is a procedural thing... but how is the preborn designated? Wouldn't it have to have some kind of designation so it could be discussed in a court of law? Would it be a number? A name? A social security number? Just curious.

Oh, and by the way, my post had nothing in it about defending abortions. I am talking solely about recognizing a fetus as a person under the law and extending it rights.

[I Like Beer]

was that because "undead" had already been used?.....

Registered Trade Mark by George A. Ramero.

[PostmodernProphet]

So, does DNA solely determines identity? Are identical twins are the same person under the law? For identical twins, there is no single moment of conception unless you consider both the same person under the law. So, that's my first problem with the 'moment of conception' argument.

I hardly think we need to ignore the reality of individuality simply because of the rare situation of twins.....


Also, if we choose that moment, that is the time the developing fetus gains full protection under the law, correct? that I believe, is a logical conclusion....


So, the state becomes the de facto agent for the preborn?that has always been the situation in the past....


Well, how noble of you. You will remove the rights from a legal entity based solely on the circumstances of their conception? Can you point to any other group who's rights you would be so willing to cast aside for convenience?liberals?.....

If the baby was born and then it was determined that the baby was a product of rape/incest would you be willing to kill that baby? my, your bloodlust is simply insatiable.....no, I would not be willing to kill that baby....but if you insist, I am prepared to let YOU kill that baby in exchange for the lives of the other 46 million......personally, I would recommend adoption instead......

If not, why the difference? not a difference....I wouldn't be killing the unborn result of rape either, I would simply be trading you the right to do it in exchange for your inability to do it the other 99.9% of the time....

But that is because the preborn hasn't any rights. If they are a legal entity entitled to full protection under the law, that changes everything. Agents can then act on the preborn's behalf and get court orders to stop anything that would endanger it's life. Any legal entity is entitled to its day in court. obviously....the goal is to recognize the rights of the unborn.......


You completely missed the point. The point is, if the preborn has rights, then it - or its agent - has the right to sue the mother for activities that may have caused it harm during it's development.

For example, alcohol has noticeable effects on fetal development (FAS). But, there are several other environmental factors that effect development. To go back to alcohol, it is a known teratogen even at low levels. You've just created a possible criminal every time a pregnant woman has a drink of wine with dinner.perhaps....though the goal is to keep people from murdering them....there may be additional sacrifices for you down the line.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Some questions you missed....????....how did I "miss" them when you just asked them?.....

once the world stops telling young women that abortions are good, I expect the need to keep people from getting them will drop dramatically.....I think the proper solution can be found in life sentences for doctors killing children....

What about severe mental and physical malformations? Are you willing to pay for the care of that individual throughout its life? Or, does your role end as soon as it's born?I would not support abortion for that purpose.....the state already provides such assistance....

Or, is it like preborn conceived through rape/incest and they are lesser people under the law and we're justified in ending their existence?oh dear, where did you come to that conclusion....I don't think you are justified in ending their existence....I am merely willing to let you satisfy your bloodlust on them in exchange for the other 46 million lives.....callous of me, I realize....but it is you, not me that seeks to end their existence....I haven't taken a hundred thousand lives, I have saved 46 million from you......

[PostmodernProphet]

Wouldn't any case of spontaneous abortion need to be fully investigated by the police? To make sure the mother, in some way, didn't contribute to the loss of the preborn? Similar to investigations of SIDS in the postborn?

/shrugs...you may investigate whatever you desire...though considering your disregard for life, I doubt you will.....

This is a procedural thing... but how is the preborn designated? Wouldn't it have to have some kind of designation so it could be discussed in a court of law? Would it be a number? A name? A social security number? Just curious.

the courts solved that problem hundreds of years ago.....

[Sublimating]

The unborn have rights. Currently they begin at the point at which the unborn human becomes viable. Therefore a woman does not retain rights with regard to her body under all circumstances. A woman does not have a right to abortion at every stage in her pregnancy,therefore her right to abort is contingent upon the unborn's inability to survive with out her. Essentially, a womans rights, as currently defined, are whether or not she chooses to sustain the unborn child, as once the child is viable it has a right to life. Currently, although the unborn child is alive, the law has determined that it has no right to be alive. This a contradiction of logic and is completely arbitrary. The right to be alive should began with the fact of being alive. The states and or mother of the unborn are not granting the child a right to be alive when they do not abort or advocate abortion, they are taking from the child (namely life) that which the unborn child already possesses. To call the unborn human a parasite has the effect of dehumanizing it, but is otherwise pointless. The fact is that it is a developing human possessing life. The law oversteps its boundaries and over-empowers women when they grant them the legal right to take the life of developing children.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Sublimating said:
To call the unborn human a parasite has the effect of dehumanizing it, but is otherwise pointless.

Who did that? Surely not me. I said a fetus lives parasiticly, and is not an individual, legal entity, or person capable of having rights.