Sanctity of Human Life Act

[Noir]

Pretty unlikely to ever get though as its pretty extreme, but one of the bills 46 co-sponsers is...Paul Ryan. Being anti-abortion is one thing, but to grant a state the power to make all abortions illegal, regardless of cases like rape, risk to the mother etc is about as extreme as you can get, and surly not the path we should be going down.

And ofcourse now that Ryans name is in focus, it gives some insight into his stance on the issue. Between Obamas links to 'third trimester' abortions, and this guys support of this bill, you could get much more opposed ideas to chose between, which isn't too helpful when the extremes aren't meaningful answers.

Details of the bill - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

[jimnyc]

Pretty unlikely to ever get though as its pretty extreme, but one of the bills 46 co-sponsers is...Paul Ryan. Being anti-abortion is one thing, but to grant a state the power to make all abortions illegal, regardless of cases like rape, risk to the mother etc is about as extreme as you can get, and surly not the path we should be going down.

And ofcourse now that Ryans name is in focus, it gives some insight into his stance on the issue. Between Obamas links to 'third trimester' abortions, and this guys support of this bill, you could get much more opposed ideas to chose between, which isn't too helpful when the extremes aren't meaningful answers.

Details of the bill - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

So I don't have to dig for it, and you know where it's at - can you point to where Ryan, or the bill, wants to make it illegal for abortions even in cases of rape, or where the Mom's life is in danger? I'm not doubting you, just too lazy tor research! Because I "think" this is the full text of the bill, linked to from that page you linked, and I don't see it in there:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212/text

[aboutime]

Has anyone noticed how Democrats always seem to remain quiet when the subject of FAILED Abortions come up?

Could it be. They are all the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive-Marxist-Socialist Products of Failed Abortions, which is why they need ROE V. WADE to stay in force?

[jimnyc]

And to address the Obama portion - he has voted AGAINST a bill preventing a partial birth abortion. And apparently in 2004, Michelle Obama sent out a fundraising letter, and in it she said the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional.

[jimnyc]

I don't care how anyone would like to twist these bills and words. I'll choose the side of someone who wants to protect life.

So if someone tried to abort late term, and miraculously the child survived, what would Obama have happen? Toss the baby in the garbage? Inject chemicals like they do with the death penalty? Just deny any care at all until the baby naturally dies?


Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

[Noir]

So I don't have to dig for it, and you know where it's at - can you point to where Ryan, or the bill, wants to make it illegal for abortions even in cases of rape, or where the Mom's life is in danger? I'm not doubting you, just too lazy tor research! Because I "think" this is the full text of the bill, linked to from that page you linked, and I don't see it in there:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212/text

The summary is all you need -

"Sanctity of Human Life Act - Declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives."

The bill gives states the power to make all abortions illegal.

[aboutime]

See for yourself....3864Click to enlarge, and read.

[jimnyc]

The summary is all you need -

"Sanctity of Human Life Act - Declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives."

The bill gives states the power to make all abortions illegal.

And you stretched it to somehow mean that Ryan supports a woman being forced to give birth to a child from rape, or force a woman to give birth even if it might kill her. It's simply not in there. I assure you, if that were the case, it would be clearly written. Kind of like how it was clearly written in 2001 that a baby had a right to life it survived a late term abortion, and Obama voted against it.

The summary shows me nothing I haven't seen before, one side trying to protect babies from a certain point, whether that be conception or actual birth. Nowhere in there does it cover rape or the mothers life being in danger. Nowhere. Unless one wants to read what they want to read and twist it to extremes. Roe vs. Wade isn't simply going to be overturned by a tiny bill like this.

But what is your thoughts on Obama wanting actual living and breathing children to die?

[jimnyc]

See for yourself....3864Click to enlarge, and read.

And if this is late term, and the baby somehow miraculously survives, Obama would like to finish the job.

[gabosaurus]

Life begins a birth. Or, at the very least, in the second trimester.
Life should be defined as sustainable outside the womb. Zygotes are not human life.

[jimnyc]

Life begins a birth. Or, at the very least, in the second trimester.
Life should be defined as sustainable outside the womb. Zygotes are not human life.

Then if you were in congress, you would vote against this bill, based on the definition of when life begins. But I still don't see anything in the bill that would force anyone to do anything.

[aboutime]

Life begins a birth. Or, at the very least, in the second trimester.
Life should be defined as sustainable outside the womb. Zygotes are not human life.


Thanks for letting us know gabby. So. When do you expect to BEGIN?

[gabosaurus]

I have always been against abortion after the first trimester.

[logroller]

And you stretched it to somehow mean that Ryan supports a woman being forced to give birth to a child from rape, or force a woman to give birth even if it might kill her. It's simply not in there. I assure you, if that were the case, it would be clearly written. Kind of like how it was clearly written in 2001 that a baby had a right to life it survived a late term abortion, and Obama voted against it.

The summary shows me nothing I haven't seen before, one side trying to protect babies from a certain point, whether that be conception or actual birth. Nowhere in there does it cover rape or the mothers life being in danger. Nowhere. Unless one wants to read what they want to read and twist it to extremes. Roe vs. Wade isn't simply going to be overturned by a tiny bill like this.

But what is your thoughts on Obama wanting actual living and breathing children to die?

Does it specify "ALL abortions"; would that notwithstand any and all of the aforementioned conditions?

[Noir]

And you stretched it to somehow mean that Ryan supports a woman being forced to give birth to a child from rape, or force a woman to give birth even if it might kill her. It's simply not in there. I assure you, if that were the case, it would be clearly written. Kind of like how it was clearly written in 2001 that a baby had a right to life it survived a late term abortion, and Obama voted against it.

The summary shows me nothing I haven't seen before, one side trying to protect babies from a certain point, whether that be conception or actual birth. Nowhere in there does it cover rape or the mothers life being in danger. Nowhere. Unless one wants to read what they want to read and twist it to extremes. Roe vs. Wade isn't simply going to be overturned by a tiny bill like this.

But what is your thoughts on Obama wanting actual living and breathing children to die?

The bill gives a state the power to make all abortions illegal.

Ryan supports the bill.

Which is what I said in the OP.

This is in contrast to Obamma who (IIRC) supported a bill that would give a state the a-okay for 'third trimester' abortions.

[logroller]

The bill clearly proclaims life to begin at fertilization and is entitled to protection by the state; thus, any abortion after fertilization would be considered murder, regardless of circumstance. To say otherwise is a stretch.

[logroller]

I have always been against abortion after the first trimester.
I'm against abortion at any point; but I respect one's right to choose, even poorly.

[jimnyc]

I remember Ron Paul introducing this act a few years back. This "bill" has been coming in and out of congress for like 20 years or so. Only political extremists are trying to accuse others of forcing rape victims and such to give birth. This page I found sums it up, and makes it clear that it is an affirmation of when life begins - and bans absolutely nothing. It leaves it up to the states to draw up enforcements, if any.

Funny though, now that a prominent and recognized conservative is running for a major office, now the rape talk and other crap comes out. I don't recall the same verbiage being used to condemn Paul, or the many others that have sponsored such bills for the past few decades. Do people only stand for/against these things when a prominent person happens to support it AND is running for office?


Mary Katharine Ham catches several media distortions about Paul Ryan yesterday, including the misleading claim that Ryan voted to ban abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. In fact, Ryan was one of more than 60 co-sponsors of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which doesn’t technically ban anything. As Ramesh Ponnuru explains, the act simply affirms the right of state legislatures to protect unborn life. The question of how to act on that right is up to the individual legislatures:

The first item: “He supports the Sanctity of Human Life Act” (emphasis in original). Odell wrote that the bill “seeks to ban all abortions, including in instances of rape and incest.” Ryan may, for all I know, believe that abortion should be illegal with exceptions only to save a mother’s life. But has he really co-sponsored a bill to effect this policy? No. The bill declares that fertilization marks the beginning of a human life and then “affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.” In other words, it doesn’t ban anything: It merely affirms that legislatures have the authority to protect unborn life. If Odell wishes to argue that a legislature moved by the convictions of the bill must, to be consistent, ban abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest, she can do so. It’s not in the bill.

...

The act is an affirmation of when life begins, but it leaves the enforcement and specifics up to the state legislatures (or, up to subsequent acts by Congress).

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/14/what-the-media-got-wrong-yesterday/

[Noir]

The bill clearly proclaims life to begin at fertilization and is entitled to protection by the state; thus, any abortion after fertilization would be considered murder, regardless of circumstance. To say otherwise is a stretch.

Exactly.
'Total rights at conception' is the point (and IMO glaring problem) in this bill.

[logroller]

I remember Ron Paul introducing this act a few years back. This "bill" has been coming in and out of congress for like 20 years or so. Only political extremists are trying to accuse others of forcing rape victims and such to give birth. This page I found sums it up, and makes it clear that it is an affirmation of when life begins - and bans absolutely nothing. It leaves it up to the states to draw up enforcements, if any.



Riddle me this. If this laws passes, and rights are afforded to fertilized eggs, is the pill (which prevents implantation into the uterus, subject to laws regarding murder? As federal law is superior and states already have laws regarding murder, the states need not even pass a law regarding abortion, it would be automatically included, wouldnt it? Look at emancipation, as soon as that happened, states didnt need to amend their respective murder laws to include the killing of former slaves, did they?

[logroller]

Let's say this bill passes. A woman is raped and conceives a child; that child is entitled to rightful protection. The woman does not want the child, nor to carry it. Does she have the right to terminate the pregnancy-- wouldn't that be a violation of the child's right to life?

One can violate another's right to life, but only through due process.
This would be my argument (in the form of question) for the unborn child. Would you consider a child guilty of a capital crime for an act committed by its biological father?

[Noir]

Double post

[Noir]

Let's say this bill passes. A woman is raped and conceives a child; that child is entitled to rightful protection. The woman does not want the child, nor to carry it. Does she have the right to terminate the pregnancy-- wouldn't that be a violation of the child's right to life?

One can violate another's right to life, but only through due process.
This would be my argument (in the form of question) for the unborn child. Would you consider a child guilty of a capital crime for an act committed by its biological father?

And for a bonus dimension - what if the father contests the termination, citing federal law...

[logroller]

I looked up Cali's murder law, the 187, and was surprised...well, not really surprised, more like amazed to see the extent of the code regarding fetal exceptions. Doesnt change my opinion on the sanctity of human life bill, but I thought I'd share.

(a)Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.(b)This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1)The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
(3)The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
(c)Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

[fj1200]

I looked up Cali's murder law, the 187, and was surprised...well, not really surprised, more like amazed to see the extent of the code regarding fetal exceptions. Doesnt change my opinion on the sanctity of human life bill, but I thought I'd share.

Was that changed because of Lacey Peterson and child?

[KarlMarx]

Being anti-abortion is one thing, but to grant a state the power to make all abortions illegal, regardless of cases like rape, risk to the mother etc is about as extreme as you can get, and surly not the path we should be going down.


Being that you're from the UK, you wouldn't be expected to know this. Any rights not enumerated in our Constitution are supposed to be left to the individual states to decide, so it's not "extreme".

Also, the Constitution of the US states that no person shall be of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Abortion, violates that clause of the Constitution since it ends a human life without due process.

[Noir]

Being that you're from the UK, you wouldn't be expected to know this. Any rights not enumerated in our Constitution are supposed to be left to the individual states to decide, so it's not "extreme".

Also, the Constitution of the US states that no person shall be of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Abortion, violates that clause of the Constitution since it ends a human life without due process.

...erm, that's been exactly my point. The whole point of this bill is to put in statute when human life begins, at conception, meaning that all foetus' (no matter how they came to be) would have constitutional rights.

I think the whole 'states can chose what to enact' bit is thrown in to deliberately cause confusion and change the focus of the debate, it also means people can say the bill doesn't 'ban' abortions...when it clearly makes them unconstitutional.

[Abbey Marie]

The crux of the issue lies in this quote from Mary Katherine Ham above:


...In other words, it doesn’t ban anything: It merely affirms that legislatures have the authority to protect unborn life.

If the elected officials in your state decide to pass a law banning abortions in every circumstance, including rape and life of the mother (yeah, good luck with that, will never happen), and you don't like it, vote them out. Isn't that what we are told every day? And if you are a woman in this predicament, go to your neighboring state and get your abortion.

The pro- abortion crowd claims that most people in this country favor abortion rights. If that is true, then why run scared over a law such as this? Surely the legislature in your state will reflect the will of the people, right?

[logroller]

The crux of the issues lies in this quote from Mary Katherine Ham above:



If the elected officials in your state decide to pass a law banning abortions in every circumstance, including rape and life of the mother (yeah, good luck with that, will never happen), and you don't like it, vote them out. Isn't that what we are told every day? And if you are a woman in this predicament, go to your neighboring state and get your abortion.

It does far more than reaffirm. It defines when life begins. If it was merely about states' protecting unborn life, then they'd just leave it to the laws already on the books, Like CA's 187 which I quote above; which, as far as I know, conforms to federal law and therefore enjoys protection of the tenth amendment..... Unless, the crux of the issue is when life/personhood begins and is therefor entitled to full constitutional protection notwithstanding state law due to federal supremacy. Its not a state issue any more than separate but equal was. It's plain as day to see this bill flies in the face of roe v wade-- which ruled life didn't begin at conception/fertilization for purposes of constitutional protection. Of course plessy v was overturned, and if this bill's supporters were honest, they'd admit the effect of this bill is to undermine the Roe decision with the intent of getting it overturned.

While I don't think this bill prescribes to the edict, rape victims must have the child; pragmatically, its the functional equivalent and more. It's the same as when pro-choice is described as pro-abortion-- That by authorizing a behavior, be it abortion or its proscription, it opens the door for government intervention into areas which were not in line with the spirited intent.

[Missileman]

Being that you're from the UK, you wouldn't be expected to know this. Any rights not enumerated in our Constitution are supposed to be left to the individual states to decide, so it's not "extreme".

Also, the Constitution of the US states that no person shall be of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Abortion, violates that clause of the Constitution since it ends a human life without due process.

You are, of course, assuming that a fertilized egg is a person.

[Noir]

Being that you're from the UK, you wouldn't be expected to know this. Any rights not enumerated in our Constitution are supposed to be left to the individual states to decide, so it's not "extreme".

Also as an aside, while I may be from the UK, we study the American constitution in History and Politics classes, at -what you would term- high school.

[Noir]

The crux of the issues lies in this quote from Mary Katherine Ham above:

No, the crux is that at the moment if conception, cells would be considered a person, and be protected under the constitution.

[revelarts]

Exactly.
'Total rights at conception' is the point (and IMO glaring problem) in this bill.

Is it true that it's a Human being at conception? Yes. What's the problem?
Why SHOULDN'T it have the same protections as everyone else?



Riddle me this. If this laws passes, and rights are afforded to fertilized eggs, is the pill (which prevents implantation into the uterus, subject to laws regarding murder? As federal law is superior and states already have laws regarding murder, the states need not even pass a law regarding abortion, it would be automatically included, wouldnt it? Look at emancipation, as soon as that happened, states didnt need to amend their respective murder laws to include the killing of former slaves, did they?
Well well SOME pills may be murder and should off the market. agian what's the problem if it's killing a human being it's killing. Why are we concerned about pharma profits? or arewe concerned that we won't have ENOUGH birth control methods? So killing babies is better?

log i don't see the point in the light of the medical facts.



Let's say this bill passes. A woman is raped and conceives a child; that child is entitled to rightful protection. The woman does not want the child, nor to carry it. Does she have the right to terminate the pregnancy-- wouldn't that be a violation of the child's right to life? that would be a problem, so maybe an exception should be made for rape and the LIFE (not health, wealth, plans) of the mother. seems an easy solution that 99.9% of all pro life people allow for. does that satifiy your questions or is it still a problem?


One can violate another's right to life, but only through due process.
This would be my argument (in the form of question) for the unborn child. Would you consider a child guilty of a capital crime for an act committed by its biological father?The answer is No, But the trama of A rape is a special case. and note that many women have born the children of rapist. I personal know a young lady who has done it. the boy is being raised by Her and her parents. It's not an impossible task. as you say the child is not the criminal.


And for a bonus dimension - what if the father contests the termination, citing federal law...
the father should go the freaking Jail, his "rights" are forfeited by the crime.



There's no problem with the Law, the rape and life of the mother can be considered. However what we have now is that millions of babies are killed NOT because of Rape or the Life of the mother but people want to argue over the small number of imagined legal issues that might arise if we save millions, but but but the inconvenience is to much to bear because a child that lives may be a legal problem.

what's wrong with this picture?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is it true that it's a Human being at conception? Yes. What's the problem?
Why SHOULDN'T it have the same protections as everyone else?



Well well SOME pills may be murder and should off the market. agian what's the problem if it's killing a human being it's killing. Why are we concerned about pharma profits? or arewe concerned that we won't have ENOUGH birth control methods? So killing babies is better?

log i don't see the point in the light of the medical facts.


that would be a problem, so maybe an exception should be made for rape and the LIFE (not health, wealth, plans) of the mother. seems an easy solution that 99.9% of all pro life people allow for. does that satifiy your questions or is it still a problem?
The answer is No, But the trama of A rape is a special case. and note that many women have born the children of rapist. I personal know a young lady who has done it. the boy is being raised by Her and her parents. It's not an impossible task. as you say the child is not the criminal.


the father should go the freaking Jail, his "rights" are forfeited by the crime.



There's no problem with the Law, the rape and life of the mother can be considered. However what we have now is that millions of babies are killed NOT because of Rape or the Life of the mother but people want to argue over the small number of imagined legal issues that might arise if we save millions, but but but the inconvenience is to much to bear because a child that lives may be a legal problem.what's wrong with this picture?

Great post. Here is what is wrong with this picture. People want to justify murder by denying that an unborn child is a human being ! Myself, I'd say even if not earlier at least when there is a heartbeat then we have an unborn child (a human being) not a mass of non-functioning cells.. Convenience is being placed far ahead of morality and murder is still murder be it state sanctioned or not.
All these other considerations tossed out in defense of allowing abortions do not negate that IMHO.-Tyr

[Noir]

Is it true that it's a Human being at conception? Yes. What's the problem?
Why SHOULDN'T it have the same protections as everyone else?


Becuase that means the birth control pill is murder. Do you consider the birth control pill to be murder?

[Noir]

The father should go the freaking Jail, his "rights" are forfeited by the crime.

The Father would have to be convicted first, the build up to the trial itself takes several months in most cases, and depending on its complexities can take a few weeks in court too.


There's no problem with the Law, the rape and life of the mother can be considered. However what we have now is that millions of babies are killed NOT because of Rape or the Life of the mother but people want to argue over the small number of imagined legal issues that might arise if we save millions, but but but the inconvenience is to much to bear because a child that lives may be a legal problem.

what's wrong with this picture?

Whats wrong is that this law this far too extreme, and would render anyone using the pill as a murderer =/

[PostmodernProphet]

So I don't have to dig for it, and you know where it's at - can you point to where Ryan, or the bill, wants to make it illegal for abortions even in cases of rape, or where the Mom's life is in danger? I'm not doubting you, just too lazy tor research! Because I "think" this is the full text of the bill, linked to from that page you linked, and I don't see it in there:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212/text

I wasn't too lazy to do the research......it doesn't......

[revelarts]

Becuase that means the birth control pill is murder. Do you consider the birth control pill to be murder?
Many birth control pills are really abortion pills. It's another case of euphemisms clouding the reality of what we are doing as a culture.

The fertilized egg is a human, any human action that ends the natural course of it life, would be murder then.
it's a simply logical conclusion yes.
If you prevent a 1 year old from sleeping with pills it eventual dies. that would be murder. if a child in the womb is prevented from its natural life process and dies it would be murder.

Would it be an easy sell to get people to understand that a after years of not seeing "birth control" pills as murder? uh no. but it wasn't an easy sell for many to see blacks in America and the UK as men and women and not subhuman slaves but law forced the issue even though the treatment of black changed slowly and STILL some don't see blacks or other minorities as human or equals really. however does that change the fact? No. Should our better angels prevail here too? i hope so.

We act like taking the pills off the market is an impossible burden but we've only been doing legally and medically for the past 30-40 years, the day after pills even less.
Grandma and Grandpa didn't have any pills, we can live without them to. Spermicidal pills would be fine though.

Will there be a black market, absolutely. but i'd rather legalize marijuana which doesn't kill people than have birth control pills that do.

It's murder. even if everyone does it.
We've become so accustom to or oblivious to our modern forms of human sacrifice to the point where we become a bit outraged at even the idea of stopping the practice.

[Noir]

I wasn't too lazy to do the research......it doesn't......

So it's legal for a state to terminate the life of a 'person' that has rights guaranteed under the constitution, without due process of the law?

[jimnyc]

Becuase that means the birth control pill is murder. Do you consider the birth control pill to be murder?

If you can call killing of animals for humans to eat murder, then I don't find it much of a stretch to call the killing of unborn children murder. Personally, I just call it "ending the life of an unborn child", which may seem the same to some. But I find it odd that someone would be so protective of animals, to the point of calling it murder, but not give the same protection to a human being.

[Noir]

Many birth control pills are really abortion pills. It's another case of euphemisms clouding the reality of what we are doing as a culture.

The fertilized egg is a human, any human action that ends the natural course of it life, would be murder then.
it's a simply logical conclusion yes.
If you prevent a 1 year old from sleeping with pills it eventual dies. that would be murder. if a child in the womb is prevented from its natural life process and dies it would be murder.

Would it be an easy sell to get people to understand that a after years of not seeing "birth control" pills as murder? uh no. but it wasn't an easy sell for many to see blacks in America and the UK as men and women and not subhuman slaves but law forced the issue even though the treatment of black changed slowly and STILL some don't see blacks or other minorities as human or equals really. however does that change the fact? No. Should our better angels prevail here too? i hope so.

We act like taking the pills off the market is an impossible burden but we've only been doing legally and medically for the past 30-40 years, the day after pills even less.
Grandma and Grandpa didn't have any pills, we can live without them to. Spermicidal pills would be fine though.

Will there be a black market, absolutely. but i'd rather legalize marijuana which doesn't kill people than have birth control pills that do.

It's murder. even if everyone does it.
We've become so accustom to or oblivious to our modern forms of human sacrifice to the point where we become a bit outraged at even the idea of stopping the practice.

And what about the vast number of women that use 'the pill' (or 'the injection' or 'the implant') to control heavy periods, murderers too?

[Noir]

If you can call killing of animals for humans to eat murder, then I don't find it much of a stretch to call the killing of unborn children murder. Personally, I just call it "ending the life of an unborn child", which may seem the same to some. But I find it odd that someone would be so protective of animals, to the point of calling it murder, but not give the same protection to a human being.

Find it odd if you will, as ive posted before im against abortion in most cases, but to legislate that rights are guaranteed at conception is madness, and I think it unbelievable that people believe that the pill should be considered murder.

[jimnyc]

Find it odd if you will, as ive posted before im against abortion in most cases, but to legislate that rights are guaranteed at conception is madness, and I think it unbelievable that people believe that the pill should be considered murder.

And I'm confident that many who eat meat, or who are employed at places where they kill and/or prepare meat, would find it unbelievable that you consider them to be murderers or complicit in murder or eating something that was considered to be murdered. But that's animals, and we're talking about food - not a human being.

If you think it's madness to grant them rights at conception - at what point would you no longer consider it madness?

You say you're against abortion but get into a tizzy about anyone who seems to want to protect the life of unborn children. If your issue is the "murder" part, then how about just offering other protections for these children? Weren't you even against women being shown the children on sonograms as well? And/or being lectured about their decision to abort? How about making it illegal but not considered murder? If you're for against abortion in most cases, how about overturning Roe Vs. Wade and make abortion illegal in all cases except for rape or the mothers life in severe danger if she carries to term?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you can call killing of animals for humans to eat murder, then I don't find it much of a stretch to call the killing of unborn children murder. Personally, I just call it "ending the life of an unborn child", which may seem the same to some. But I find it odd that someone would be so protective of animals, to the point of calling it murder, but not give the same protection to a human being.

Liberals are ffed up in the head , thats why they are liberals.-:laugh2: Were they logical and sane they'd be conservatives.;) Living in fantasy land they actually pose a great danger to us and our families . Yet we tolerate their idiotcy because we value our freedoms which ALSO insures their right to be dumb as hell IMHO.-Tyr

[Noir]

And I'm confident that many who eat meat, or who are employed at places where they kill and/or prepare meat, would find it unbelievable that you consider them to be murderers or complicit in murder or eating something that was considered to be murdered. But that's animals, and we're talking about food - not a human being.

If you think it's madness to grant them rights at conception - at what point would you no longer consider it madness?

You say you're against abortion but get into a tizzy about anyone who seems to want to protect the life of unborn children. If your issue is the "murder" part, then how about just offering other protections for these children? Weren't you even against women being shown the children on sonograms as well? And/or being lectured about their decision to abort? How about making it illegal but not considered murder? If you're for against abortion in most cases, how about overturning Roe Vs. Wade and make abortion illegal in all cases except for rape or the mothers life in severe danger if she carries to term?

When they become 'protectable' is the whole debate, and its a question i don't have an answer for. But 'at the moment of conception' is an extreme and clearly wrong. In the same sense that someone saying 'even at 8 months, if the potential child is still in the mothers body, then it has no rights and she can abort it if she wishes' is an extreme and wrong.

I am against forced sonograms that require vaginal penetration, assuming thats what you were referring too.

As for the legal aspect (roe v wade et al) ...i am against abortion in as much as i see it as wrong. But that doesn't mean i want the government to force my opinion on others. In the same sense that i am personally against meat eating, but i don't think the State should make eating meat illegal. It is possible to hold an opinion, a very strong opinion, and not want it to be implemented by government force.

[jimnyc]

When they become 'protectable' is the whole debate, and its a question i don't have an answer for. But 'at the moment of conception' is an extreme and clearly wrong. In the same sense that someone saying 'even at 8 months, if the potential child is still in the mothers body, then it has no rights and she can abort it if she wishes' is an extreme and wrong.

So immediately after conception is not enough to protect, but 8 months is. So we've narrowed it down at least. So according to your opinion, a human life is created and deserving of rights, somewhere prior to 8 months. Now we know we have a living human being, somewhere between those timelines.


I am against forced sonograms that require vaginal penetration, assuming thats what you were referring too.

More so about the images and lectures. But I suppose this depends on the dates from above as well. When a women can see a graphic of an actual human being, then I think it's safe to assume that it is in fact a human being. When my wife had just an ultrasound done, at I believe it was around 3 months, you saw a clear human being in the image. A head, torso, legs, arms... It's not like it was some alien waiting to become a human - it WAS a human being.


As for the legal aspect (roe v wade et al) ...i am against abortion in as much as i see it as wrong. But that doesn't mean i want the government to force my opinion on others. In the same sense that i am personally against meat eating, but i don't think the State should make eating meat illegal. It is possible to hold an opinion, a very strong opinion, and not want it to be implemented by government force.

But you do admit that a human being is alive and well, somewhere between conception and birth. So somewhere within that timeline, why would it be wrong of the government to intervene and ensure the rights of the child? What about government stating, for example, that as of 8 months, the child has the same rights extended to them as every other person?

[Missileman]

Grandma and Grandpa didn't have any pills, we can live without them to.

Grandma and grandpa used abortion occasionally. If we're going to base today's actions on yesterday, at least be consistent.

[Missileman]

So immediately after conception is not enough to protect, but 8 months is. So we've narrowed it down at least. So according to your opinion, a human life is created and deserving of rights, somewhere prior to 8 months. Now we know we have a living human being, somewhere between those timelines.



More so about the images and lectures. But I suppose this depends on the dates from above as well. When a women can see a graphic of an actual human being, then I think it's safe to assume that it is in fact a human being. When my wife had just an ultrasound done, at I believe it was around 3 months, you saw a clear human being in the image. A head, torso, legs, arms... It's not like it was some alien waiting to become a human - it WAS a human being.


I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.


3893

Head, torso, arms and legs...this is NOT a human being.




But you do admit that a human being is alive and well, somewhere between conception and birth. So somewhere within that timeline, why would it be wrong of the government to intervene and ensure the rights of the child? What about government stating, for example, that as of 8 months, the child has the same rights extended to them as every other person?

One of the tenets of US law is that you can't take away someone's rights in order to bestow a right to someone else. Until the baby is born, its right to life is secondary to the life of the mother and therefore violates the tenet.

[jimnyc]

I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.


3893

Head, torso, arms and legs...this is NOT a human being.

So a baby that has had enough time to develop to the point of having arms, and legs, and a head - is still only comparable to a doll to you at that point? If a baby has those things, it's also flesh and blood, and most assuredly has the, at the very least, development of the beginning of a brain, heart lungs...


One of the tenets of US law is that you can't take away someone's rights in order to bestow a right to someone else. Until the baby is born, its right to life is secondary to the life of the mother and therefore violates the tenet.

That's just it, one should not have a "right" to terminate another persons life beyond a certain point. You're stating that a baby in a mothers womb, at 8 1/2 months, can be killed by that woman if she so chooses. If that's your belief, so be it, but don't condemn others for believing those in the latest terms of pregnancy are actually children and shouldn't be killed at that point.

[Noir]

I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.


3893

Head, torso, arms and legs...this is NOT a human being.

Thats a very weak argument, unless you're willing to say that those with significant mental retardation are not human beings.

[Noir]

So immediately after conception is not enough to protect, but 8 months is. So we've narrowed it down at least. So according to your opinion, a human life is created and deserving of rights, somewhere prior to 8 months. Now we know we have a living human being, somewhere between those timelines.

Indeed it is, IMO. And its like anything with regards to defining by age/time, very grey and subject to debate.


More so about the images and lectures. But I suppose this depends on the dates from above as well. When a women can see a graphic of an actual human being, then I think it's safe to assume that it is in fact a human being. When my wife had just an ultrasound done, at I believe it was around 3 months, you saw a clear human being in the image. A head, torso, legs, arms... It's not like it was some alien waiting to become a human - it WAS a human being.


Something around 2/3 months seems reasonable as a guess.


But you do admit that a human being is alive and well, somewhere between conception and birth. So somewhere within that timeline, why would it be wrong of the government to intervene and ensure the rights of the child? What about government stating, for example, that as of 8 months, the child has the same rights extended to them as every other person?

The state will step in at some point, i just don't know what that point is, nor (if i did know) would i want to force my POV on others with statute.

[Missileman]

So a baby that has had enough time to develop to the point of having arms, and legs, and a head - is still only comparable to a doll to you at that point? If a baby has those things, it's also flesh and blood, and most assuredly has the, at the very least, development of the beginning of a brain, heart lungs...



That's just it, one should not have a "right" to terminate another persons life beyond a certain point. You're stating that a baby in a mothers womb, at 8 1/2 months, can be killed by that woman if she so chooses. If that's your belief, so be it, but don't condemn others for believing those in the latest terms of pregnancy are actually children and shouldn't be killed at that point.

I didn't say anything about late term abortions, which I am against, btw. This is about trying to assign rights to a fetus when you clearly can't legally because you can't usurp the right to life of the mother. Once the point of viability is reached, then restrictions should be placed on abortions, but that in no way means nor should it include giving the fetus rights.

[Missileman]

Thats a very weak argument, unless you're willing to say that those with significant mental retardation are not human beings.

Didn't say that, though I would argue that a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) is not a human being.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say anything about late term abortions, which I am against, btw. This is about trying to assign rights to a fetus when you clearly can't legally because you can't usurp the right to life of the mother. Once the point of viability is reached, then restrictions should be placed on abortions, but that in no way means nor should it include giving the fetus rights.

I'm confused, you say that you are against late term abortions, but that a baby has no rights until it is born, meaning that the woman still has a right to abort at a very late stage. But then you say that once the point of viability is reached, then there should be restrictions on abortions. But restricting the mother from doing anything to a viable fetus is not giving it rights? I guess I'm just confused.

[Missileman]

I'm confused, you say that you are against late term abortions, but that a baby has no rights until it is born, meaning that the woman still has a right to abort at a very late stage. But then you say that once the point of viability is reached, then there should be restrictions on abortions. But restricting the mother from doing anything to a viable fetus is not giving it rights? I guess I'm just confused.

That's right, restricting abortion is NOT giving the baby rights anymore than making it illegal to abuse animals is bestowing rights on them. And no, I'm not comparing fetuses to animals.

[jimnyc]

That's right, restricting abortion is NOT giving the baby rights anymore than making it illegal to abuse animals is bestowing rights on them. And no, I'm not comparing fetuses to animals.

We restrict murder as well, and it's not like I have a "right" not to be murdered, at least not written specifically. It's just that we know it's wrong and we'll penalize someone for taking the life of another. So I see what you're saying here, that there are no written specific rights for an unborn child, but it would/should be illegal to take their life after a certain point.

[SassyLady]

Didn't say that, though I would argue that a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) is not a human being.

If it's not a human, what is it?

[DragonStryk72]

The bill gives a state the power to make all abortions illegal.

Ryan supports the bill.

Which is what I said in the OP.

This is in contrast to Obamma who (IIRC) supported a bill that would give a state the a-okay for 'third trimester' abortions.

While I don't agree with opposing ALL abortion, specifically those in the cases of rape, incest, or that put the mother's life at risk, I am very much so against the third term abortions as well. At the third term, in the US, that kid is viable outside the womb, so at that point, there is absolutely no need to abort it, and you're killing a kid.

[Missileman]

If it's not a human, what is it?

I didn't say it isn't human, I said it isn't a human being.

[SassyLady]

I didn't say it isn't human, I said it isn't a human being.

It is a life form and it is breathing.

Where does the belief that if it doesn't have a brain, it is not a human being? I truly am wondering.

[Missileman]

It is a life form and it is breathing.

Where does the belief that if it doesn't have a brain, it is not a human being? I truly am wondering.

It's my opinion that our brain that sets us apart from the rest of the lifeforms on this planet. Our bodies are life support and interface system for our brains. Without a brain, a body is just a lump of flesh and not a human being... our being resides within the brain. The functions that make us human; communication, reason, abstract thought, even love aren't possible without the brain.

[revelarts]

The Father would have to be convicted first, the build up to the trial itself takes several months in most cases, and depending on its complexities can take a few weeks in court too. If the fther ADMITS he's the father then he is admitting guilt. He would not have to go to court for his rights to be forfieted because the rights in questions are parental rights which civil courts precide over and they don't have to have a conviction before they decide if a father is fit or due any regard over the influence of a child. See divorce court proceedings to bear that out.




Whats wrong is that this law this far too extreme, and would render anyone using the pill as a murderer =/ it's only extreme if you want to emotionally dismiss the biological evidence and make up a line that is personal rather than based on the clear biological distinction that is the beginning of a human life.


And what about the vast number of women that use 'the pill' (or 'the injection' or 'the implant') to control heavy periods, murderers too? That is a problem, alternatives should be found. But we generally don't allow products that kill people just because they have OTHER benefits. And obviously many of the women do find some alternatives because what do they use when they are trying to have children? They obviously stop using the pills to during those times. And -a bit thinner response is- we're assuming they all are sexually active while using the pills, many woman may not be therefore there would be no problem for them using it for that purpose.


When they become 'protectable' is the whole debate, and its a question i don't have an answer for. But 'at the moment of conception' is an extreme and clearly wrong. In the same sense that someone saying 'even at 8 months, if the potential child is still in the mothers body, then it has no rights and she can abort it if she wishes' is an extreme and wrong......
As for the legal aspect (roe v wade et al) ...i am against abortion in as much as i see it as wrong. But that doesn't mean i want the government to force my opinion on others. In the same sense that i am personally against meat eating, but i don't think the State should make eating meat illegal. It is possible to hold an opinion, a very strong opinion, and not want it to be implemented by government force.


Indeed it is, IMO. And its like anything with regards to defining by age/time, very grey and subject to debate.

Something around 2/3 months seems reasonable as a guess.

The state will step in at some point, i just don't know what that point is, nor (if i did know) would i want to force my POV on others with statute.


Didn't say that, though I would argue that a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) is not a human being.

You both say that a baby in the womb is a person at some point in time and development . you both are very vague on where and what that is. Noir you say that the point in time is debatable and gray.

BUT the BIOLOGICAL FACT is that at conception a child begins it's life. That's the fact. Why not put the legal peg down at the agreed apon medical fact. If the area is grey in your minds still why not give the child the BENEFIT of the doubt rather than kill it in the grey area?
Why take the position to POSSIBLY DO HARM rather than than to protect a young innocent biologically growing human being?
Is inconvenience a sufficient reason?

Concerning the brain issue missile that's a bit of a grey area as well isn't it? The brain/mind/body thing is still very mysterious. But what makes you believe that it's a morally clear choice to destroy a HEALTHY DEVELOPING BRAIN? We know it's a growing human brain, but it's somehow OK to crush it before it can feel it it or know it?
I don't see how how we justify that.

[revelarts]

I've posted this before but, Pro abortion positions based on the "humanity" or "personhood" of the child leads logically to the fact that ANYONE can but put outside of the line of "Human" and those in power get to decide what that that line is.

a medical ethics magazine printed .
my red and italics



the telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. "

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.

….
CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for
the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an
abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of
the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has
any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the
killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of
a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment
at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and
we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be
necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In
cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical
reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on
the neurological development of newborns, which is something
neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good
alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best
option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if
a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something
went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or
psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the
offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then
people should be given the chance of not being forced to do
something they cannot afford.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

[Missileman]

You both say that a baby in the womb is a person at some point in time and development . you both are very vague on where and what that is. Noir you say that the point in time is debatable and gray.

BUT the BIOLOGICAL FACT is that at conception a child begins it's life. That's the fact. Why not put the legal peg down at the agreed apon medical fact. If the area is grey in your minds still why not give the child the BENEFIT of the doubt rather than kill it in the grey area?
Why take the position to POSSIBLY DO HARM rather than than to protect a young innocent biologically growing human being?
Is inconvenience a sufficient reason?

All these trips into the future you send this poor fetus on may be hazardous to its health, we still don't know all the side effects of time travel. :rolleyes:




Concerning the brain issue missile that's a bit of a grey area as well isn't it? The brain/mind/body thing is still very mysterious. But what makes you believe that it's a morally clear choice to destroy a HEALTHY DEVELOPING BRAIN? We know it's a growing human brain, but it's somehow OK to crush it before it can feel it it or know it?
I don't see how how we justify that.

Healthy is an assumption on your part. 15% of all pregnancies are miscarried, not all fertilized eggs are destined to become a human being.

[Missileman]

I've posted this before but, Pro abortion positions based on the "humanity" or "personhood" of the child leads logically to the fact that ANYONE can but put outside of the line of "Human" and those in power get to decide what that that line is.

a medical ethics magazine printed .
my red and italics

What a crock of horse piss...it hinges on the false assertion that a newborn isn't a person. What fucking idiot(besides the poster child who wrote this article) EVER made that argument? I'll admit I stopped reading right there, I'm not wasting my time on it.

[PostmodernProphet]

So it's legal for a state to terminate the life of a 'person' that has rights guaranteed under the constitution, without due process of the law?

abortion was illegal in the US from 1776 until 1972, yet everyone was aware that abortion was available to save the life of the mother and no one had any problem with it........why do you assume we wouldn't be smart enough to figure that out now?.......

it isn't a new concept....consider the shooting in New York this week......was it wrong for the police officer to terminate the life of a person without due process of law simply because he was firing a weapon randomly into a crowd?......threatening life is threatening life.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Becuase that means the birth control pill is murder.

???....no it doesn't......birth control prevents conception, it doesn't terminate it......

[PostmodernProphet]

I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.

however, the scientific reality is that it is the DNA that determines a human being.....

[DragonStryk72]

I remember Ron Paul introducing this act a few years back. This "bill" has been coming in and out of congress for like 20 years or so. Only political extremists are trying to accuse others of forcing rape victims and such to give birth. This page I found sums it up, and makes it clear that it is an affirmation of when life begins - and bans absolutely nothing. It leaves it up to the states to draw up enforcements, if any.

Funny though, now that a prominent and recognized conservative is running for a major office, now the rape talk and other crap comes out. I don't recall the same verbiage being used to condemn Paul, or the many others that have sponsored such bills for the past few decades. Do people only stand for/against these things when a prominent person happens to support it AND is running for office?



http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/14/what-the-media-got-wrong-yesterday/

By the wording of the bill, though, since a fetus is to be considered a human life from point of fertilization, it would have to be counted as murder, the unwillingly taking of another human life. And come on, Jim, this our government here, they're gonna take a mile off of that inch, and you know it. These things don't just get laid down full out, cause no one would vote for them. They build up a layer at a time, like with the progressive tax system, Welfare, and gun control. it's a bit at a time.

[revelarts]

What a crock of horse piss...it hinges on the false assertion that a newborn isn't a person. What fucking idiot(besides the poster child who wrote this article) EVER made that argument? I'll admit I stopped reading right there, I'm not wasting my time on it.

MissleM, these medical ethicist assertion is logical, the new born is no more a thinking self aware "person" in the womb as out of the womb. Why not POST BIRTH ABORT? (formerly know as INFANTICIDE. -you can't get these things going legally without a good euphemism:rolleyes:-). You say you think the brain and thinking etc blah blah is what REALLY makes a person human. Which you say is More -double plus gooder- than just a plain dna based Human Being that is just growing.

Their assertions is actually more clearly put than yours is. But you both arbitrarily place "personhood" after the known and clear Biological line of a conceived human being.

[Missileman]

blah blah More -double plus gooder-

Just goes to show that you can't have a reasonable debate with someone whose position is unreasoned.

[revelarts]

...blah blah More -double plus gooder-...

Just goes to show that you can't have a reasonable debate with someone whose position is unreasoned.

sorry, -Blah Blah =
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574883#post574883) Didn't say that, though I would argue that a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) is not a human being.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574848#post574848) I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.


and -More -Double Plus Gooder- =
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) I didn't say it isn't human, I said it isn't a human being.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) You are, of course, assuming that a fertilized egg is a person.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) Head, torso, arms and legs...this is NOT a human being....
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) ...Until the baby is born, its right to life is secondary to the life of the mother...

[Missileman]

sorry, -Blah Blah =
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574883#post574883) Didn't say that, though I would argue that a baby born without a brain (anencephaly) is not a human being.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574848#post574848) I contend that it's what's between the ears that determines a human being.

Oh goody...a full recap. Now, present a reasoned argument as to why an anencephalic fetus/infant should be considered a human being. Explain the traits this fetus/infant sans brain will exhibit which will establish its humanity.




and -More -Double Plus Gooder- =
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) I didn't say it isn't human, I said it isn't a human being.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) You are, of course, assuming that a fertilized egg is a person.
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) Head, torso, arms and legs...this is NOT a human being....
Missileman http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=574925#post574925) ...Until the baby is born, its right to life is secondary to the life of the mother...

I guess you'll have to explain your issue with any of the last 3 statements or at least the last 2, if you want to lump the first AND second with the two at the top.

[fj1200]

Healthy is an assumption on your part. 15% of all pregnancies are miscarried, not all fertilized eggs are destined to become a human being.

So that natural occurrence provides the moral justification to increase the percentage?

[Missileman]

So that natural occurrence provides the moral justification to increase the percentage?

It certainly does if you are doing it for the same reasons as nature.

[fj1200]

It certainly does if you are doing it for the same reasons as nature.

What are those reasons?

[revelarts]

Oh goody...a full recap. Now, present a reasoned argument as to why an anencephalic fetus/infant should be considered a human being. Explain the traits this fetus/infant sans brain will exhibit which will establish its humanity.


the easist way is to say what it's not
Is it a dog? NO. Is it a cat? No. Is it a piece of coal? NO. A robot? No.
the simple answer is it is a severely disabled human being. but no less of a human being MissileM.
you arbitrary attempt at distinctions make little sense, EXCEPT to attempt to justify abortion.




I guess you'll have to explain your issue with any of the last 3 statements or at least the last 2, if you want to lump the first AND second with the two at the top.

Your the one that's making distinctions as to why some human beings are more human than others
or REAL humans
or why some Some human beings are MORE Equal than others MM.
It's your arbitrary assertions that need explanations MM.

Sorry to make light here MM but Linda Ronstadt at least had a moral reason to say,
You're no good
You're no good
You're no good
Baby you're no good

I'm gonna say it again
You're no good
You're no good
You're no good
Baby you're no good"


But she didn't think it was right kill the guy because of it.
I'm not sure why you think we have a right to kill someone because they don't live up to your standard of a physically good enough human.

[Missileman]

the easist way is to say what it's not
Is it a dog? NO. Is it a cat? No. Is it a piece of coal? NO. A robot? No.

A cancer tumor meets your criteria, but then so does a carrot, a pillow, a bottle, and trillions of other things that aren't a dog or cat or piece of coal or robot. I asked you for an affirmative argument of what makes a human being. You copped out rather than make a reasoned argument.

[Missileman]

What are those reasons?

Severe defect

[fj1200]

Severe defect

So you're OK with limiting abortion to those cases of severe defect?

[Missileman]

So you're OK with limiting abortion to those cases of severe defect?

I'm okay with limiting abortion to first trimester...anything past that would need to be for health of the mother or severe defect. I understand other folks would draw the line elsewhere.

[jimnyc]

I'm okay with limiting abortion to first trimester...anything past that would need to be for health of the mother or severe defect. I understand other folks would draw the line elsewhere.

I would be willing to see that be the norm going forward, but I doubt the hardliners from either side of the debate would go for it. It would be nice, and it would be an improvement for sure.