Not a human being. - Page 13

fxashun · 12-12-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

MOST INTELLIGENT people recognize the difference between abortion and murder and don't call one the other.

You are stuck on "murder". And I guess that's important to your argument. But MOST INTELLIGENT people don't trick themselves into thinking that abortion isn't the killing of a otherwise viable developing baby.

It's true there are some backward states in the US, it would be an inconvenience and unnecessary expense for women to be forced to travel.

So what is your criteria for "backward"? Considering 16 states never removed their abortion laws from the books waiting for RVW to be overturned. And nearly every state had abortion laws in the days before it. It seems you are can't stop obfuscating or blatantly lying.

There are some backward states that would try it, I expect they would find themselves defending that action before the Supreme Court.

And they would I'm sure. But since abortion would be an illegal procedure, I don't see why any "privacy" would be inforceable. Criminals don't have privacy.

The whole point of this argument about definitions is that YOU don't get to write the definitions, you must use a regular dictionary like everyone else.

Not in this case. And you don't get to limit the discussion to fit your needs. I don't call identifying an aborting woman an "invasion of privacy".

I think the stigma surrounding abortion is pretty much gone these days, so most women probably wouldn't mind, but women do still have a constitutional right to privacy.

Not if they are criminals. Felons have no rights.

Even if the public were foolish enough to vote for such a bill, the SC would quickly rule against it, you see, the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy. That's an individual right which cannot be "voted away" by any legislature.

Felons lose many rights in many states. To bear arms, vote, privacy etc. It wouldn't be too hard to get a law like that passed.

OKgrannie · 12-13-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I think this debate really is the ad hominem of the ongoing scientific and philosophical debate on what it means to be 'human'. Murder is the killing of another human predicated upon premeditation. Obviously, someone who consents to perform an abortion is fulfilling the latter, it is just the former that has generated debate.

Abortion does not fit the definition of murder:
murder
• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another

Quote:

So what is a human being? A human being is, as dictionary.com states, "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens." A fetus is indeed dependent upon the mother for development, granted. But are not full-grown human beings dependent upon their environment to live also? I think the whole argument coming from symbiosis is irrelevant. And anyway, to state a symbiotic relationship is to assume two entities, not one. Therefore the fetus could be considered an individual.

A fetus does not fit the definition of an individual:

individual definition - Dictionary - MSN Encartain·di·vid·u·al [ ìndə víjjoo əl ]
noun (plural in·di·vid·u·als)Definition: 3. separate thing: a separate entity or thing
4. biology separate organism: an independent organism separate from a group

Quote:

Age is inconsequent to species status. A baby late in its development belongs as much as any full-grown adult to the homosapiens, why should early-development children be excluded from this basic rule? Age, as with race, height, etc. are vagaries of perception inconsequential to determining species. A fetus is therefore apart of the species homo sapiens. But in order for it to be murder, there would need to be an alive party to kill. A fetus is alive, because it contains its own genetic code and is already in a self-replicating process. Therefore a premature baby/fetus is alive. Therefore abortion could be construed as murder.

In order to define abortion as murder, the fetus would have to be a "person."
(See above)

Quote:

There's nothing unintelligent about this rationalization. If there is science that points to the contrary I should be interested in seeing it.

You finally used a word correctly:
rationalization definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

ra·tion·al·i·za·tion [ ràshən'li záysh'n, ràshnəli záysh'n ] (plural ra·tion·al·i·za·tions)
noun Definition: 2. defense mechanism: in psychoanalytic theory, a defense mechanism whereby people attempt to hide their true motivations and emotions by providing reasonable or self-justifying explanations for irrational or unacceptable behavior

OKgrannie · 12-13-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

You are stuck on "murder". And I guess that's important to your argument. But MOST INTELLIGENT people don't trick themselves into thinking that abortion isn't the killing of a otherwise viable developing baby.

It's true there are some backward states in the US, it would be an inconvenience and unnecessary expense for women to be forced to travel.

So what is your criteria for "backward"? Considering 16 states never removed their abortion laws from the books waiting for RVW to be overturned. And nearly every state had abortion laws in the days before it. It seems you are can't stop obfuscating or blatantly lying.

There are some backward states that would try it, I expect they would find themselves defending that action before the Supreme Court.

And they would I'm sure. But since abortion would be an illegal procedure, I don't see why any "privacy" would be inforceable. Criminals don't have privacy.

The whole point of this argument about definitions is that YOU don't get to write the definitions, you must use a regular dictionary like everyone else.

Not in this case. And you don't get to limit the discussion to fit your needs. I don't call identifying an aborting woman an "invasion of privacy".

I think the stigma surrounding abortion is pretty much gone these days, so most women probably wouldn't mind, but women do still have a constitutional right to privacy.

Not if they are criminals. Felons have no rights.

Even if the public were foolish enough to vote for such a bill, the SC would quickly rule against it, you see, the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy. That's an individual right which cannot be "voted away" by any legislature.

Felons lose many rights in many states. To bear arms, vote, privacy etc. It wouldn't be too hard to get a law like that passed.

Abortion is not the killing of an "otherwise viable" baby. Abortion is not allowed after viability in most states except for saving the health or life of the pregnant woman. Abortion is already regulated. You have already admitted with your extreme desire to see aborting women punished by society with public humiliation that further regulation or even complete banning will not end abortion. Is your primary goal to 1. end abortion, or 2. to see the women suffer?

fxashun · 12-14-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Abortion is not the killing of an "otherwise viable" baby. Abortion is not allowed after viability in most states except for saving the health or life of the pregnant woman.

It's very viable in the environment that is it ripped away from. It may not survive outside the womb, but in the womb, it can thrive. Semantics. Abortion is killing.

Abortion is already regulated. You have already admitted with your extreme desire to see aborting women punished by society with public humiliation that further regulation or even complete banning will not end abortion. Is your primary goal to 1. end abortion, or 2. to see the women suffer?

And you have said that..
1. Abortion will never end..
2. People won't care about a public abortion registry.

So if we do it, we both will be happy right? I get my registry and the whores, sluts, careless, and unlucky women will get to freely kill all the ZEF's they please. Sounds like a win-win situation to me...For every one except the "mass of cells" sucked out of the womb.

OKgrannie · 12-14-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

And you have said that..
1. Abortion will never end..
2. People won't care about a public abortion registry.

So if we do it, we both will be happy right? I get my registry and the whores, sluts, careless, and unlucky women will get to freely kill all the ZEF's they please. Sounds like a win-win situation to me...For every one except the "mass of cells" sucked out of the womb.

1. Abortion will never end....whether it is legal or illegal, it will continue.
2. Some people would care about a public abortion registry, some wouldn't. Some women would object to being publicly listed, some wouldn't. Some people would enjoy the vindictiveness of attempting to publicly humiliate women, some wouldn't. Something tells me though, that a public registry wouldn't make you happy, nor would it make the other anti-choice nuts happy, it simply wouldn't be ENOUGH punishment for women to suit you.

fxashun · 12-15-2007, 12:09 AM

I suggested it. Why wouldn't it be enough? It'd be hypocritical for me to not be satisfied. You seem to be the one that needs the free and clear ability to kill a "ZEF" by choice.

DanteBoston · 12-15-2007, 06:29 AM

Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies often produce living children who nobody wants. Also, many...(dare I say lots?) of parents desert their children. Still more parents abuse their children emotionally and physically. There are millions of living children in need. Many of them are thrown away by their parents.

Where are all the anti-abortionists on this? Their concerns appear to be mainly for the....ahem...un-born

fxashun · 12-15-2007, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies often produce living children who nobody wants. Also, many...(dare I say lots?) of parents desert their children. Still more parents abuse their children emotionally and physically. There are millions of living children in need. Many of them are thrown away by their parents.

Where are all the anti-abortionists on this? Their concerns appear to be mainly for the....ahem...un-born

In case you hadn't noticed, THIS thread is about whether or not the "ZEF" is human or not. You want to get into the specifics of the life of a child after birth, that a whole different thread.

Do you justify killing the innocent to make life easier for the careless/ignorant/lazy/stupid? I don't think so. But thats just me.

DanteBoston · 12-15-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

In case you hadn't noticed, THIS thread is about whether or not the "ZEF" is human or not. You want to get into the specifics of the life of a child after birth, that a whole different thread.

Do you justify killing the innocent to make life easier for the careless/ignorant/lazy/stupid? I don't think so. But thats just me.

Mom? Okay, I've been scolded.

---

My only concern is for the children. What about the innocent children? Should they suffer because their parents are "careless/ignorant/lazy/stupid?"

OKgrannie · 12-15-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

In case you hadn't noticed, THIS thread is about whether or not the "ZEF" is human or not. You want to get into the specifics of the life of a child after birth, that a whole different thread.

Do you justify killing the innocent to make life easier for the careless/ignorant/lazy/stupid? I don't think so. But thats just me.

Umm, excuse me.....you forgot the UNLUCKY! BTW, it doesn't matter if the zef is human or not. It's a woman's choice whether she continues gestation or not. Of course, the zef is "human" (adjective), but it is not "A human being person"(noun), since that requires a brain.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode