Against abortion and against person-hood?

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, the injustice that comes when complicated and detailed laws are not applied according to the intent of the writers of those laws.


We are talking about laws, specifically your desire to have a complicated and detailed law that will be misused in a courtroom.


Equivocation is a logical fallacy.


You seem to have missed the fact that I have been proving that the misapplication of the law happens more often when complicated and detailed laws are written.

It happens all the time, complicated or fairly simple. If the DA decides to make an example of somebody, they misapply a simple law and the injustice begins. I sat on a trial where this is exactly what happened. It was ridiculous.

My point is that if pass a law that say a zygote is a human due all the rights of any other human you have created a mess as a zygote is not like any other human. Nor is an embryo. Nor is a fetus. But you have just endowed them with all the rights due to other human and seem to think that that wont lead to any legal complications. Or you don't care. Which is it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

It happens all the time, complicated or fairly simple. If the DA decides to make an example of somebody, they misapply a simple law and the injustice begins. I sat on a trial where this is exactly what happened. It was ridiculous.

That is why Jury Nullification is necessary, to keep the idiots in the courtroom from making a mockery of justice.

My point is that if pass a law that say a zygote is a human due all the rights of any other human you have created a mess as a zygote is not like any other human. Nor is an embryo. Nor is a fetus. But you have just endowed them with all the rights due to other human and seem to think that that wont lead to any legal complications. Or you don't care. Which is it?

See, you are once again trying to complicate things by adding too many words.

Just state that a human is a person from the moment of conception and avoid all the extra words that you already know will be twisted by corrupt lawyers.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is why Jury Nullification is necessary, to keep the idiots in the courtroom from making a mockery of justice.


See, you are once again trying to complicate things by adding too many words.

Just state that a human is a person from the moment of conception and avoid all the extra words that you already know will be twisted by corrupt lawyers.

I cannot say that as I do not believe it to be true. Unless and until that zygote implants in a uterus, it is only a potential human life. And even implanting into a uterus does not guarantee that it will become a baby.

 

[Ktoyou]

Human life shall not be an impasse to itself.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Unless and until that zygote implants in a uterus, it is only a potential human life.

What species is it at conception, and why does it have to implant in a uterus before it becomes a human?

 

[CabinetMaker]

What species is it at conception, and why does it have to implant in a uterus before it becomes a human?

If it never implants in a uterus to receive the nutrition it needs to grow, what will it become?

If we grant it the full rights of a human in the zygote stage, who do we punish under the law when that little human is flushed out of a body?

 

[Crucible]

I'm pro-life, and consider abortion mortally sinful.

But
It is also intellectually dishonest to make the unborn commensurate in value to those born. To call abortion 'murder' is to make frivolous the lives of those born.

In other words, if you had to choose between a five month fetus and a two year old child, you would choose the two year old child- because you know at heart that a born life is more invaluable.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If it never implants in a uterus to receive the nutrition it needs to grow, what will it become?

If we grant it the full rights of a human in the zygote stage, who do we punish under the law when that little human is flushed out of a body?

You seem to have missed the significance of the question.

What species is it at conception, and why does it have to implant in a uterus before it becomes a human?

 

[gcthomas]

Recognizing that the baby has the right not to be murdered could never do anything to criminalize miscarriage. This is a ridiculous claim.

How about 'procurement of a miscarriage' to abort a pregnancy? I'm sure you want that to be criminal. If a pregnant woman jaywalks with a buggy, she would be criminally negligent if the child is killed - why wouldn't the woman who is hit and suffers a miscarriage by her own negligence be guilty of an offence?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You seem to have missed the significance of the question.

What species is it at conception, and why does it have to implant in a uterus before it becomes a human?

No, you can see that in my first sentence of the second paragraph is stated that it was a human zygote. I didn't say "human zygote'", I used slightly different wording, but you should be able to see that the concept is there.

I went on to note that if the zygote fails to implant it really doesn't matter that it was human. I also asked who should be punished for allowing that little human to die. It does have person-hood now so who gets punished for allowing that person to die?

The logical answer is no one. The legal answer could be very different. And that is the not so hidden agenda behind person-hood. It makes IUD's and BC Pills illegal. What happens to people that need BC pills to regulate hormones in their body for any of several reasons? Is it illegal for them to have sex now because an egg might get fertilized but be prevented from implanting? What should happen to them?

 

[genuineoriginal]

it really doesn't matter that it was human.

:think:

Everyone I know that supports personhood believes it matters that the unborn child is a human child at conception.

 

[PureX]

To me, this issue is all about 'personhood'. As abortion pits the autonomous personhood of the mother against the presumed autonomous personhood of a developing fetus … "presumed" because the developing fetus is NOT an autonomous being, yet, even if it is a "person" from it's conception. The abortion issue remains unresolved because it is a battle over individual autonomy (personhood): the fetus', the mother's, and the individual citizen's vs. collective society.

The abortion debate is ALL ABOUT personhood, and who's autonomy is going to usurps who's.

 

[genuineoriginal]

To me, this issue is all about 'personhood'. As abortion pits the autonomous personhood of the mother against the presumed autonomous personhood of a developing fetus … "presumed" because the developing fetus is NOT an autonomous being, yet, even if it is a "person" from it's conception. The abortion issue remains unresolved because it is a battle over individual autonomy (personhood): the fetus', the mother's, and the individual citizen's.

The abortion debate is ALL ABOUT personhood, and who's autonomy is going to usurps who's.

Yes.

Even if personhood is acknowledged as being from the moment of conception, I can predict that the personhood of the unborn child will not save the child from the institutionalized murder known as abortion if the mother is given permission from a court of law, since that would satisfy the "due process" requirement.

 

[Rusha]

The abortion debate is ALL ABOUT personhood, and who's autonomy is going to usurps who's.

WHY does one person's autonomy need to *unsurp* the other's? This argument implies that only one (the child or mother) can and will survive the pregnancy instead of acknowledging that the mother sees the unborn child as an inconvenience.

 

[Ktoyou]

How about 'procurement of a miscarriage' to abort a pregnancy? I'm sure you want that to be criminal. If a pregnant woman jaywalks with a buggy, she would be criminally negligent if the child is killed - why wouldn't the woman who is hit and suffers a miscarriage by her own negligence be guilty of an offence?

It is a matter of intent

 

[Rusha]

How about 'procurement of a miscarriage' to abort a pregnancy? I'm sure you want that to be criminal. If a pregnant woman jaywalks with a buggy, she would be criminally negligent if the child is killed - why wouldn't the woman who is hit and suffers a miscarriage by her own negligence be guilty of an offence?

The *intent* is to get to the other side of the street. What do you suppose the intent towards the unborn baby is when the mother aborts him/her?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The *intent* is to get to the other side of the street. What do you suppose the intent towards the unborn baby is when the mother aborts him/her?

The premeditated intent to end a human life would be murder, of course.

 

[gcthomas]

It is a matter of intent

Intent makes it murder, then, but negligence makes it manslaughter. Still a criminal offence and an unintended consequence.

 

[Ktoyou]

Intent makes it murder, then, but negligence makes it manslaughter. Still a criminal offence and an unintended consequence.

I think you are a dumbbell.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:think:

Everyone I know that supports personhood believes it matters that the unborn child is a human child at conception.

I find it interesting that you continually ignore the points I raise with you. Why?