hezekiah jones

Originally posted by 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.

Whatever; goofy comparison anyway. Blackmun was one of nine Supreme Court Justices and he had to persuade at least four others to strike down the Texas statutes. He persuaded six. King of America is a good record, but there's no such thing, least of all one that refers to womens' breasts as antelopes or something.

Originally posted by yguy
Biology has never defined anything. That activity is, as far as we know, the exclusive province of human beings.

Things exist in nature, and they are what they are regardless of what you decide to call them. A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, yet in Paris they call it aqua.

Originally posted by yguy
That being the case, what is the substantive difference between defining and naming in the context of the discussion?

I have no idea. You brought it up. And once again, "society" does not define what a human being is, nature does. If you don't believe me, go ask "society" to correctly identify the human blastocyst among a range of mammalian, or even amphibian, blastocysts. "Society" wouldn't have a clue. They'd need a biologist. Fascinating though this Wittgensteinian sidebar is, it's completely beside the point.

Originally posted by yguy
Persons, human beings, whatever.

Persons has a legal definition, which is the subject under consideration here. If you want to call a human blastocyst or a human fetus a human being, no problem. But a person? Subject to debate.

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

Can be murdered is the operative phrase there. Is abortion murder? No, from a legal perspective, which is where I am coming from. Are you making a moral argument? Because I find the moral argument tedious, and my own view is that womens' privacy and freedom to control their reproductive destiny is none of my damn business, in a nutshell. Just so you know.

Originally posted by yguy
Legalizing the killing of embryos in the first trimester effectively defines them as non-humans or non-persons.

I already told you the trimester framework has gone by the wayside. See Casey. But you're correct. It is legal to kill embryos during the first trimester. And yes, they are defined as non-persons; however, they are not defined as non-humans. Well, maybe by some people, but not by me. Nor the Court, as far as I'm aware.

Originally posted by yguy
If we can draw that line at three months, we can draw it anywhere else we please.

The "line" isn't drawn at three months. The "line," if you can call it that, is drawn at viability. And as I said, the state's interest in the protection of the fetus in relation to the protection of the mother's health grows as the fetus advances beyond viability. And viability itself varies under individual circumstances.

Originally posted by yguy
Don't see much, do you?

No comment.

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not the one who advocates killing them ...

You know, you're becoming an absolute fucking master at putting words into peoples' mouths. Show me where I "advocated killing them" and I'll kiss your ass on City Hall steps. That's the main problem with this debate: the poisonous rhetoric. But hey at least you've stopped short of "abortion holocaust" and "Planned Parenthood clinics are the Büchenwalds of America" and the rest of that nonsense.

Originally posted by yguy
... so it's not my responsibility.

You haven't even demonstrated that it's any of your business, let alone responsibility.

Originally posted by yguy
You figure it out, and justify it - and you better get it right.

I'm trying to. "Don't see much do you?"

Originally posted by yguy
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?

Well, I guess not. Maybe you shouldn't, or refuse to, or weren't meant to know, I have no idea. I think I can empathize with the womens' position. But I can only imagine what sort of rhetorical tactics you're using with these women.

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

Um ... the decision? The decision to "murder a baby," as the rhetoricians would say. Difficult decision, I'm sure you would agree. And in my opinion one that should be made privately, safely, and in consultation with medical and/or psychological professionals. Which happens to be the status quo generally, which I support.

Originally posted by yguy
... you presume women have the right to get pregnant ...

I know they do.

Originally posted by yguy
... and then kill the unborn child.

Yes, they do. In this country at this time.

Originally posted by yguy
The recriminalization of abortion wouldn't be government coercion, it would be the cessation of governmental condonation of murder.

In fact it would be government coercion of women into carrying unplanned and unwanted pregnancies to term. And again, it isn't murder. As far as I know, the government does not condone murder.

theyeti

So is masturbation. Those little sperm were alive and wiggling about happily before you shot them onto the pages of your favorite dirty mag. Please think of the sperm.

That's guaranteed to turn them into responsible parents overnight. Especially if they have to drop out of school. Perhaps we can make everyone more responsible by foising unwanted pregnancies on them.

I had a sperm that was indeed the next Einstein. But I wasted him on a blow-job.

theyeti

Eikonoklast

So, to spite these people you want them to have a baby? Fuck those people, what about the kid after it ACTUALLY becomes a real live child running around and shitting its pants? Who do you think has the most abortions, rich people? The last thing we need are more unfit poor couples trying to raise a kid on Ramen noodles. Not only is this bad for the child, it's bound to cause overpopulation and increase the size of the lower class dependent on government handouts. A child doesn't deserve to be raised in that way to spite the parents.

Murder of what? Certainly not a person. I'm sorry, but a zygote is nothing more than a non-viable, non-sentient, piece of flesh that doesn't even remotely resemble a fully formed human being having achieved personhood. It's a cancer feeding off of it's host, with the potential to develop into a human being. I think it's best to deal with what is rather than potential. And what it is is not a person.
It could have been the next Einstein, but it could have also been the next Hitler. Who knows?

Do you think making abortion illegal will make it stop? Instead of using sanitary and safe methods, women will resort to the wire coat hanger or the ol' throw-yourself-down-the-stairs method. Will this accomplish what you are hoping for?

And tell me, what do you propose we do with those that still commit abortion? Will we have the Vagina Police ready to inspect any suspected illegal activity? How will you know if it is an abortion or a miscarriage? How about those that have enough money to leave the country and have an abortion performed?

long winded fool

How about: The act of destroying a human being who is not directly threatening the life of another human being violates said human being's right to life, if all human beings whose existence is not directly threatening the lives of others have the right to life without discrimination. I'm not saying that it is illegal, only that it is a violation of inalienable rights.

johngalt

Abortion is not murder becausing you are killing a mass of protoplasm. Something is not alive until it is actually born. Technically, abortion isn't killing anything, it is stopping apotentiallife. Then there are people that say you are killing an unborn child, but then you would have to classify living human beings as undead corpses.

yguy

Baloney, since you just said "person" has a legal definition. That makes it a matter of law, not debate. Therefore, by legally defining any human being as a non-person, you may legally take away that human being's protection under the law. We have decided that unviable fetuses don't merit protection under the law, making them non-persons from a legal perspective. Now kindly explain to me what prevents us from deciding that infant children are non-persons.

Fine. The law has allowed the killing of "unviable fetuses", effectively defining them as non-human beings.

I wonder if black slaves would have found the moral argument for abolition "tedious" had they known about it.

Why is it any of your damn business if your neighbor kills her infant son? Do you have to nurse him and change his diapers?

A purely semantic illusion, as I demonstrated above.

Now that that is out of the way, kindly explain to me why we can't draw the line one year after birth rather than three months after conception.

Lest we get bogged down in particulars, why draw the line at "viability"? Why not draw it at birth, or after?

You are in favor of a woman's right to kill her unborn child, are you not? Is there really any difference between advocating killing them and advocating the right of others to kill them?

Not just no - Hell no.

Gimme time.

You said it, sport - I didn't.

m00ner

Those sperm were only partially alive, and not quite able to think independently, and not living for more than 10 minutes anyway.

Oh, and most of the sperm contained in ejaculant are dead.

yguy

Guess killing you wouldn't be murder then, huh?

Embryos aren't alive? That means they're dead, right?

But ACTUALLY, it is.

Which has a beating heart in the first trimester.

You wouldn't have to. You could though, if you wanted to be idiotic.

theyeti

Are fetuses able to think independently? I'd be interested in seeing their exam scores and psychological profiles.

I guess that makes me an even bigger murderer than I thought.

Or another way of looking at it: The high frequency miscarriages or other prenatal deaths justifies abortion. Doesn't it?

theyeti

everlastingtongue

A fetus requires a uterus to survive. The uterus doesn’t belong to the fetus – it belongs to the mother, who permits its use until the fetus no longer requires it. Banning abortion is forcing the mother to lend the use of her uterus against her will.

Suppose that I require a kidney transplant to survive. My mother is a suitable donor. Donating the kidney won’t kill her, furthermore as soon as another donor is found her kidney will be put back. My mother decides, for whatever reason, not to donate. Should the government force her to make the donation against her will?

Logically, anyone who supports banning abortion would also support the forced kidney donation in the example above. If not, then how is a kidney different from a uterus, morally or legally?