"Abortion is murder!"...how to destroy it in 3-4 quick questions

No it's not a semantic one...it is a scientific one...when is a fetus a human life? Science still can't determine that with certainty, so we are left with trying to come up with a compromise unscientific position that all parties can at least accept, if not agree with. That's obviously impossible when neither side of the debate will give any ground. I've stated my OPINIONS...if you don't like them, tough crap...show me factual evidence that might help change than opinion, not the total horsepucky I've seen so far in this thread.

I think both zealot sides of this issue deserve each other...perhaps we should just let you kill yourselves off and allow those unborn kids to live...they might turn into better adults than what I've been seeing here.

 

The problem comes in the belief that you believe all human life has the right to life. That is simply untrue. A brain dead patient is a human that is alive but has lost the right to life. That right is now transferred to the next of kin. A non viable fetus is essentially brain dead up until around 24 weeks. The next of kin has the right to terminate at will.

As I said earlier you are not suggesting that a embryo or non viable fetus should have all the rights of a born child.....are you?

 

1. No, you still try avoid stating plainly what you support....which is "Yes, executions if applicable in that State for women who self-induce an abortion". You've gone 90% of the way....just go the other 10%.

2. Again...what question do you want me to answer?

- - - Updated - - -

Vegas, you will find when tough or embarrassing questions are asked....most "pro-lifers" will try to change the subject on abortion to an argument they feel more comfortable making...

like the "life" or "human life" or whatever labelling argument.....but NOT the topic for which they have either no answers....or embarrassing but honest and consistent answers.

 

"innocent children who are not yet adults""( or they'd be adults ) are restricted from harming anyone whether they intend to or not. If a 4 year old picks up a gun and shoots at you you have the right to stop it anyway you can. You are NOT required to die to save it's life , ARE YOU?

The child , or any other attacker, does not have to CHOOSE to shoot you....the fact that they are harming you has nothing to do with their intent...you are still harmed.



Now you admitted you know nothing but your opinion on abortion and I can see you know nothing about pregnancy.

It can kill women, EVERY pregnancy carries that risk and it is FACT, indisputable fact, that pregnancy does temporary and permanent damage to women's bodies and you will NEVER prove it doesn't.

 

Sigh .. another person who doesn't comprehend their own laws. Pregnancy is already deemed a serious injury in some cases, at least two states list pregnancy as such in law, Nebraska and Michigan - Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.

Your appeal to history fallacy is noted.

In others words you can't refute a single point I have made, and I do nothing but debate honestly, if you knew anything about debating, simply sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la is not a debating method. You claim my points are "horsepucky", so show how they are including your legal and biological evidence to support it. I have all mine as I have actually done the necessary research in order to propose my assertion.

 

Now who is spouting horse crap, the foetus is neither innocent or guilty because both of those require the ability to comprehend them, hence why children under a certain age cannot be prosecuted for crimes they commit, the assumption is they do not have the ability to understand right and wrong ... however innocence has no relevance on another person's right to defend themselves. If you were being injuried by a mentally incompetent person you have the right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force despite the fact that the mentally incompetent person is seen as innocent, furthermore there is no requirement for the use of deadly force in relation to a born child there are other actions that can be taken which will cease further non-consented injuries e.g..retreat, non-lethal force or restraint .. a pregnant woman could not use any other method than deadly force in order to stop injuries occurring immediately, she cannot retreat, she cannot use non-lethal methods, and she can't restrain the foetus.

Choosing to hurt is irrelevant, the law recognises that an unintentional action can, and does, cause injury and as such the lack of intent is moot and in no way changes the right of self-defence.

 

Before Roe Vs Wade, that didnt happen

 

What about if abortion was only legal in the early stages of pregnancy before the heartbeat?

 

Abortion is not a hot issue for discussion. One either believes abortion is ok, whether it is during specific periods or even to birth (LTAs). The rest consider to abort a child murder. Any time innocent human life is arbitrarily is terminated, it is murder. Only in the case of absolute self defense can a woman make a righteous decision to kill her baby.

 

Why not? It wasn't "murder"?

- - - Updated - - -

When is a heartbeat detectable by ultrasound typically?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you favor the death penalty or life-in-prison for those convicted of murder?

 

I disagree. The state of being "innocent" or "guilty" requires the entity in question to possess either consciousness, a soul, or intellect. Even dogs can be considered to be "guilty"; they know they are not supposed to do something but they do it anyway.

So it is okay to have sex with them because they do not have the ability to understand right and wrong? I think your logic is very flawed here.

I mostly agree on this point, but it does have some degree of relevance. Causing injury to an obviously guilty person may be appropriate in some situations where it would not be appropriate if it were an innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

What do you mean?

why does it matter?

 

You said women weren't prosecuted for "murder" for having an abortion before Roe.....okay....

does that mean it wasn't "murder"????

 

They werent prosecuted but it wasnt easily accesible like it is now.

 

Wouldn't it also be wrong to kill a fetus even if it did not understand what was happening?

 

Logical fallacy. You make the false premise that one necessarily needs to know that the other person is going to harm them before it can be considered self defense.

 

True, but then before Roe vs Wade abortion was not a capital offence ie it was not murder, certainly not before 'quickening', it was prosecuted under common law as a "serious misdemeanor", the main reasons for abortion becoming illegal had nothing to do with the fetus, the first restrictions were based on the poison laws as the concoctions used were often extremely bad for the woman, the next wave of restrictions were put into place because doctors wanted to corner the market on abortions .. it was a lucrative money maker.

- - - Updated - - -

So you place a higher requirement on women than you would on any other person .. that is a violation of the equal protection clause

 

How silly. Why would it be wrong to kill a fetus...it's NOT a person.....and even


IF it was

you have every right to protect yourself from harm by any person whether they know what they're doing or not.

Would you just stand there and receive injuries maybe even death from someone because they didn't know what they were doing ?? That would be bizarre...

- - - Updated - - -

No, I didn't.

 

Wrong, the requirement for guilt or innocences requires a level of mens rea in order to be a criminal offence . .however the lack of mens rea has no effect on self-defence, a person can defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, against a person who is mentally incompetent and as such cannot be prosecuted for anything they do.

A dog has no ability to understand right from wrong, it is humans that place the designation of guilt or innocence onto a dog.

You have that about face, the reason it is not ok to have sex with children is that they do not have the ability to consent because they do not know right from wrong - well that is the assumption.

Not really, if a mentally incompetent person attacks you your right to defend yourself does not change because of the assumption that they do not really understand or comprehend what they are doing.

If you are interested there are two threads that cover a whole lot of points concerning this and other issues.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html

 

You say it's not a person. I say it is. Or at least it's sort of a person, very early into the pregnancy

fetuses cannot consent either
Just like sexual intercourse, abortion is an act which involves two.

 

What YOU say has no relevance to the law and what a fetus is.

 

Right.....but why weren't women prosecuted for murder before Roe???

 

What if the law gets changed, what then?
What if public opinion changes and fetuses become regarded as persons, or semi-people ?

 

What exactly is a "sort of person" versus an actual person???