Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"That defines abortion.
I am asking, why do you believe that a zygote/embryo is not a human being, but a fetus is?
I believe that finances are less important than killing a human being, not just taking care of them in general.
No, because the solution for one death should not be another death. It should be an actual punishment.So, we should imprison the culprits for life.
Literal abortion doctors have told their clients not to worry, because it is just a clump of cells, and not a baby.
What many lawyers are overlooking is codified “personal Liberty” civil and federal laws.
Again, you’re fucking not reading anything I write in reply to you.
Like the kid, Lxam, you cherry pick parts of my comments you “think” you can rebut, but you fail each and every time just like Lxam.
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>How does it not?Enlighten me.
The same way human beings can conceive skin cells, hair cells, or sperm cells. You can have human chromosomes while not being a human being. But if I believed a zygote was a human being, I would want it to be illegal to kill them.
->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>What many lawyers are overlooking is codified “personal Liberty” civil and federal laws.The Constitution doesn’t cover abortion under personal liberty; otherwise it would have legalized abortion up until the moment of birth. If the founders wanted to cover abortion, they would have done so in an explicit manner just like guns, free speech, cruel and unusual punishment, and the other amendments. Unless there is a constitutional right to an abortion (with an amendment) that talks explicitly about abortion,
there is no constitutional case legalizing abortion in the country, which is why Roe got overturned.
Again, you’re fucking not reading anything I write in reply to you.I try to; your just very prolific.
Like the kid, Lxam, you cherry pick parts of my comments you “think” you can rebut, but you fail each and every time just like Lxam.You may think that with your bias (I think you don’t refute my claims effectively), but objectively it’s neither.
Except skin, hair, or sperm cells don't have their own distinct DNA;
A zygote/embryo/fetus by definition is a human being;
the only difference is that they are subject to a different phase of development than an infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc.
Because it’s what the scientists believe. If this was not the case, IVF wouldn’t exist because of all the embryos you have to kill to get it to happen.
What’s the difference between killing a human being and not taking care of them, leading to their death? Killing vs letting die. It’s possible, but just possible that killing is worse than letting die.
If killing is worse than letting die, then it would mean that with the trolley problem (look it up if you don’t know what it means), if there are 100 people on one track, 101 people on the other one, the train is heading towards the track with 101 people, you pulling the switch and killing 100 people to save 101 would be immoral (and should be illegal) because in this situation, killing and letting die are equivalent.
Because of this, I’m not sure if killing is worse than letting die.
But consider the following scanareao: If there was a button that if you pressed it, you would get $1 billion and a child dies because you press that button, would you press it? If the answer is no, then you have $1 billion less. If the answer is yes, you can take that $1 billion, fly to Africa with it, adopt the 10 poorest orphans you find and saving them from starvation, and still have hundreds of millions of dollars left over. If you still think killing 1 kid by pressing that button for the money that you can use to save 10 different kids is bad, I don’t understand that rationale. I just don’t.
I don’t approve of incarceration for crimes because tax dollars are going to take care of bad people. We treat our murderers better than our homeless people because the murderers get their living expenses paid for by the state.
The abortionists and the female don’t care about if it’s a baby. They want the baby killed because of the maternal pain that it caused the female. That’s why pro choicers claim men can’t have an opinion on abortion (which I think is an anti free speech claim).
Most pro choicers (not myself, but most pro choicers) care more about maternal pain than the fetus’s life. I just don’t believe a zygote or an embryo is a human being.
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Ok, well then, you're at a loss for an argument.
It's not my fault that I beat you, and you can't argue back.
I think that it is safe to say that if someone knows about condoms, sex, etc., then they know about the consequences.But let's say some don't know. IInstead of abortion, how about we continue to teach the dangers of sex, in schools when kids become of age.That way people won't have an excuse.
What I am saying is that having sex, when you deliberately don't want children, or don't desire children at that time, because you can't afford them, is a stupid decision.
It dies because the woman makes the decision to kill it.Thats how it works.
No, it doesn't. The mother doesn't want the child; therefore, she kills it.That is the whole point of abortion.
Yes, it is here womb, but she is the one who consented to the possibility that a baby will be in her womb.
So, yea it is her body, but the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a part of her body and is another living human.
Therefore, it would be morally wrong to kill it.
Is it wrong to kill other humans?Sometimes it isn't.
In the case of abortion, the mother took a chance. She got pregnant. Then, she decided to pay a doctor to kill the baby inside of her, that she consented to create, even though the child in her body did nothing to hurt her, and nothing to anyone else.
You might as well say that we should all stop reproducing with this argument.
The baby isn't claiming the mother's womb. It is using the mother's womb to survive for only 9 months. It did not claim the mother's womb. In order for the baby to claim the mother's womb, it would have to choose to be born then take claim. The baby was put, created in the mother's womb, (not by their own choice). That baby did nothing wrong. It was actually the mother's decision to place that baby in her own womb, so the action that the mother took created a life as well as the father. So, the mother has no right to kill the baby in her belly in the same way that a mother does not have a right to kill her born children.You're claiming that the baby took claim of the mother's body, and that is completely false. The mother gave up her womb in order to grow a child, through biological processes.Even if what you're saying was true, and the baby did claim the mother's body, you would still be contradicting yourself, because just by the action of claiming something, that child is a living human being with moral value, therefore it would be morally wrong to kill it.But it didn't even claim the body, so your argument proves no purpose.
There doesn't have to be a beneficiairy.
If a homeless man is murdered on the street with no family or friends, is that ok?
Should the murderer just be let free?
LOL!!!! Yeah, they do. They possess the same DNA as every other cell within the same human organism does. FFS girl, what are you smoking!?!
Uh, no it is not.
False equivalency fallacy.Gestational development is mutually exclusive from physiological maturation (i.e., growth).
Our discussion HAS BEEN OVER for some time. I will not state it, again.Enjoy your night, sir.
Why would they have an excuse? To whom are they beholden that exercising a choice even at their own convenience is characterized as an "excuse"?
Why would it be a stupid decision?
If the female party gets pregnant, and decides not to carry her pregnancy to term, she is not obligated.
If the point you're implying is that it's a stupid decision because she should always keep in mind that having sex can result in pregnancy, thereby subjecting her to an alleged duty to her unborn child while dismissing her own interest... well that's the point we're disputing.
You would have to justify the reason she owes a zygote/embryo/fetus anything.
No. The woman makes the decision to expel it from her womb. It dies because its physiological underdevelopment makes it inviable outside of its mother's womb. Is the mother culpable for the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's incapacity to survive outside her womb before her pregnancy reaches its term?
No. She can give it up for adoption, or abandon it with impunity.
For whatever reason she decides to get an abortion, she's exercising her right to behave her body as she sees fit, which includes denying a zygote/embryo/fetus the use of her womb.
The possibility of pregnancy does not depend on consent, so consent is irrelevant. You're implying that she's entered an implicit contract with nature.
She's not "killing" it; she's only refusing to help it; its physiological underdevelopment kills it.
It is wrong to initiate and carry out aggression. I can kill to defend against aggression; I can kill myself without having "wronged" anyone.
Again, to whom is she consenting? Nature cannot consent. Probabilities cannot consent. So why is "consent" relevant?
The claim of which I speak is a proprietary claim; because, ultimately it reduces to a dispute over whose interests are prioritized as it concerns the mother's womb. Your argument is that the zygote/embryo/fetus has no responsibility in its own conception and occupancy of its mother's womb; that it's an innocent human life and that its survival should be protected even against its mother's interests.
My argument however is that the mother's womb belongs to her, and in all situations her interests take priority because it is her womb. She's not obligated to submit its use to anyone even if denying her womb results in a zygote/embryo/fetus being subject to the prospect of its viability outside of its mother's womb..
Let's say you, YouFound_Lxam have been braving a harsh blizzard, and you're on your last ropes. You spot a lit house with its front door unlocked. You enter the house to find out that it's my house. To make this analogy more interesting, let's say that I have, thus far, let you stay in my home for half an hour. But for whatever reason, I decide that I no longer want anyone in my home. I tell you to get out of my home, even while knowing that your chances of surviving outside in that blizzard are slim to none. I expel you from my home. You succumb to the blizzard and die. Did I "KILL" you? Did leaving my front door unlocked during a harsh blizzard mean that I expected the consequence that is drifters seeking shelter in my home? Were you too not an innocent life who did nothing to hurt me?
My point is this: my home is my home. It doesn't matter if my reasons are deemed illegitimate by you particularly in your seeking use of my property for your survival. I'm not obligated to submit my property to help you, even if it means my denying you the use of my property will exhaust all opportunities you have to survive.
I'm not responsible for that blizzard. You're not responsible for that blizzard.
The same reasoning applies for abortion. You're essentially proposing that pregnant women who terminate their pregnancy should be criminally punished for not being a good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with "murder" or even "killing."
No. But in this case, the beneficiary is the State in the advent that it pursue to press charges.
That’s EXACTLY what an intellectual coward would say.And I don’t give a flying rat’s ass what you think, feel or believe. The discussions of abortion ARE NEVER over.
YOU LITERALLY.....................you know what.............................never mind I will just let you look stupid.
Sorry it was so long I had to put it into two posts lol.
Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from this point on is to affirm why you believe that.Not my position whatsoever.My position is that abortion is wrong, and as the people we should vote on the government enforcing that law.
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"That defines abortion. It doesn't have to involve malice, only a premeditated killing.
What does it mean to have personhood?
A fetus is a living human by definition.
When creating laws, it's we the people, not we the women.
This is why I promote that you should not have children out of wedlock so that men will be forced to suffer the consequences as well.
I am not defending the manipulative men for doing these things at all, I am simply saying that women need to be more aware of these things because the consequences of sex hurt women way more then it hurts men.
This is literally what it means to say the government gets to decide.
Is capitol punishment murder? Yes or No?
It's a collection of a number of qualities that separate us from plants. The ability to think, feel emotions, create and hold memories, form relationships, develop habits/routines, have desires, create goals for oneself, etc.
If you want to claim a fetus should be regarded as a fully formed human being with all of the same rights you need to provide an argument. You don't get to define your position as the correct one.
Yes, we the people getting to decide what happens inside the women's uterus.Somehow I suspect you would feel differently if you were a women watching two men argue over what they get to do with their own body.
So you do not promote having children out of wedlock and you do not support having sex without the intent to conceive.
The consequences you are imposing on them.
Your argument here is entirely circular. The consequences of women engaging in sex is justifiably dire because women should know better, women should know better because the consequences are dire.
Except skin, hair, or sperm cells don't have their own distinct DNA
Your propose virtual rape of pregnant woman. Your sick-n-head.
Keep your frickin nose out of a pregnant womans bodily business you pervert.
Fetus/baby is not a viable, independent, individual human until it is born out, taken its first in-spirit-ed breath, and has the umbilical cord severed.
This dude appears to me, to be likened to religious medival days past and various countrys, that did and still do all kinds of other sick-n-heads things to women that should be considered criminal.
These types morality is sick-head baseless religious morality that considers only the non-breathing, attached inside the woman, for months. Adult humans move into an out of apartments in shorter times than that.
The Constitution doesn't cover a lot of things, but they are implied.
Example: right to travel, it is not expressly written thereof in the US Constitution, but it is implied AND has been ruled a right of personal liberty, one's freedom of movement. Kent v Dulles (1958)
Example: Right to marry other races (interracial marriage) isn't expressly written in the US Constitution either, but via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (EPC), it was inferred/implied via personal liberty rights that people had the right to marry outside of their own race. Loving v Virginia (1967)
Not all scientists believe this.
What is the reason that you believe that a fetus is a human, and zygote/embryos aren't? What is different between them, that makes ones a human, and the other not?
It's pretty stupid to assume that everyone I don't save, I am letting die. Not factually accurate at all.
I would argue in this case that since I have no obligation to save those people, and I didn't put them in that situation, then it would be morally acceptable to not pull the lever, because changing the outcome would make me involved in the situation.
So, you would kill one kid for money? That is what you are arguing.I would not press the button, because again, that would be murder.
I would argue to make living expenses in prisons reduced, to make life not likable in prison, that way less people will want to go to prison.
But what you’re suggesting is to kill all prisoners, so we don't have to pay for them, which holds no moral respectability.
Ok, but the females put themselves into this situation.
I believe in basing my opinions on facts and evidence, not just what the scientists and government says is good.
