yguy

Hey, no sweat. RvW arbitrarily drew the line at three months. A woman's reproductive rights being paramount, it devolves upon abortion opponents to prove that a fetus is human five minutes before it's born. Since society gets to define what a human being is, we can define humans as those who have been born...

...or, we can define humans as being older than one year, since that is no more arbitrary than drawing the line at birth.

See how easy that was?

There is something we need to understand before we start drawing any lines: if we draw it here when it should be there, we are countenancing the murder of innocent life, not even granting it the presumption of innocence that known criminals enjoy.

What would be so uncomfortable about a decision like that? Physical discomfort?

Dr Rick

So murder isn't murder at this time unless the murderer honestly believes it WAS murder?

Soyin Milka

Okay, I had enough.

Soyin

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by yguy
Hey, no sweat. RvW arbitrarily drew the line at three months.

The trimester framework is finito. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And it wasn't "arbitrary." The man spent months researching historical attitudes towards and definitions of abortion. It wasn't an enviable position to be in. It seems he wound up pleasing almost no one.

Originally posted by yguy
A woman's reproductive rights being paramount, it devolves upon abortion opponents to prove that a fetus is human five minutes before it's born.

It's human at conception, as far as I'm concerned. When is it a "person," is the question.

Originally posted by yguy
Since society gets to define what a human being is ...

That would be biology, or nature, if you will. We just name them human beings.

Originally posted by yguy
... we can define humans as those who have been born...

Persons yguy, persons.

Originally posted by yguy
...or, we can define humans as being older than one year, since that is no more arbitrary than drawing the line at birth.

Hey we can define human beings as those over 70. Or dead. Or shetland ponies.

Originally posted by yguy
See how easy that was?

Yes. Did I see the point? No.

Originally posted by yguy
There is something we need to understand before we start drawing any lines: if we draw it here when it should be there, we are countenancing the murder of innocent life, not even granting it the presumption of innocence that known criminals enjoy.

Nice riff. So where are we going to draw the line? I'm all ears.

Originally posted by yguy
What would be so uncomfortable about a decision like that? Physical discomfort?

How could you not know what would be uncomfortable about a woman contemplating and/or undergoing an abortion? You seem to be undergoing a bit of agonizing over the issue yourself. Try multiplying that to the power of 50 or so.

The point is, as it stands, women have a right to privacy and a right to consult with a physician with respect to the physical and emotional hardships associated with proceeding with or deciding to terminate their pregnancies.

Now will you please give us one or two compelling reasons, that preserve these rights, why the government should coerce women into carrying their pregnancies to term.

m00ner

Three pages in about 8 hours...

Kudos

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by m00ner
Three pages in about 8 hours...

And both the law and womens' reproductive rights remain fully intact.
Huzzah.

Blixy Sticks

Abortion is a sad indictment of Humanity. We are an incredibly destructive species and abortion is just one of many examples that attest to that fact.

It's sad, because we have such potential, yet we continually undermine any true efforts at progress.

How pathetic is it that abortion needs to be used as a bargaining chip by a gender that has for some absurd reason been granted lesser rights?

Monkeybot

Originally posted by m00ner

Three pages in about 8 hours...

And still no answer to my question.

yguy

Bet it won't.

No, it's not murder if the killer doesn't KNOW it's murder. Many women have had abortions thinking it nothing more than the removal of a lump of cells, having been suckered by pro-abortion propagandists.

Of course, you could say that psychopaths don't know murder is wrong, but they don't WANT to know it. This is likely true of many women who abort as well, but divining their intent in a courtroom setting would be a nightmare.

yguy

Had he been Solomon, he'd have cut the baby in half, and given a half to each of the women who claimed to be its mother.

Biology has never defined anything. That activity is, as far as we know, the exclusive province of human beings. That being the case, what is the substantive difference between defining and naming in the context of the discussion?

Persons, human beings, whatever.

Human beings are those living entities which can be murdered by other human beings, so forget the animals.

Legalizing the killing of embryos in the first trimester effectively defines them as non-humans or non-persons. If we can draw that line at three months, we can draw it anywhere else we please.

Don't see much, do you?

I'm not the one who advocates killing them, so it's not my responsibility. You figure it out, and justify it - and you better get it right.

You've got to be kidding. Every pro-abortion woman I've ever discussed this with has told me I can't possibly empathize with the woman's position on this, and you have the chutzpah to tell me I SHOULD know?

If it's not the invasiveness of the procedure, or any physical aftereffects, then what is it?

Not really.

50 times 0 is still 0. Now are you going to answer the question?

I won't even try, because you presume women have the right to get pregnant and then kill the unborn child. The recriminalization of abortion wouldn't be government coercion, it would be the cessation of governmental condonation of murder.