"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[mighty_duck]

We obviously have a different definition of justice.

I honestly don't think that is the case. We just differ on what is the most just outcome in this instance. We will probably agree in 95% of other cases.

Therein lies the rub. Somewhere along the line we have this ambiguously chosen "magic moment" wherein the fetus is worth legal protection.

A 24-week-old fetus can be killed legally but a 25-week-old fetus cannot. That's justice? :AMR:

There is no "magic moment". There is a gradual process wherein the fetus gains more and more of the things we value in a person, while the mother becomes more and more vested in her consent to carry the child.
It is obvious that at 9 months justice is served by favoring the fetus. It is likewise obvious (to me at least) that at conception, the mother's rights over her own body take precedence over a single cell.*

Just because we can't pinpoint that exact moment where the scales of justice swing is no reason to swing them wildly in one direction. That only ensures you will get more injustice.


* If you disagree (as most pro-lifers do), then this point is not "the rub" - it is a red herring.

Criminalize abortion and encourage adoption. It's the most ideal scenario for all involved.

Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will in order to protect the right of a cell (in the extreme case) is not ideal. It is downright scary.

 

[WizardofOz]

I honestly don't think that is the case. We just differ on what is the most just outcome in this instance. We will probably agree in 95% of other cases.

You're probably right. How have you been, anyway? Seems likes its been quite a while. :cheers:

There is no "magic moment". There is a gradual process wherein the fetus gains more and more of the things we value in a person, while the mother becomes more and more vested in her consent to carry the child.

It is obvious that at 9 months justice is served by favoring the fetus. It is likewise obvious (to me at least) that at conception, the mother's rights over her own body take precedence over a single cell.*

But it is either legal or illegal to abort any given fetus. There is a magic moment of sorts when that fetus is given legal protection on par with all other humans.

Just because we can't pinpoint that exact moment where the scales of justice swing is no reason to swing them wildly in one direction. That only ensures you will get more injustice.

Back to that word. How is an abortion ever justice?

Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will in order to protect the right of a cell (in the extreme case) is not ideal. It is downright scary.

No one is aborting a cell. Lets talk about the stage of development when women can first get a positive pregnancy test.

 

[Yorzhik]

Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will in order to protect the right of a cell (in the extreme case) is not ideal. It is downright scary.

Why is it scary?

 

[mighty_duck]

You're probably right. How have you been, anyway? Seems likes its been quite a while. :cheers:

Yes it has... New job, lots of family issues. Interesting times

But it is either legal or illegal to abort any given fetus. There is a magic moment of sorts when that fetus is given legal protection on par with all other humans.

Just like any other arbitrary moment in law. Do teenagers magically become capable of driving on their 16th birthday, or capable of holding their liqueur on their 18th birthday etc...?
Of course, not, it is a gradual process. But we set cutoffs anyway, trying to balance the rights of all those involved in a reasonable way (IE the teen's right to get around vs my right not to get run over by a reckless 13 year old)

Back to that word. How is an abortion ever justice?

Denying a recent rape victim the choice whether to carry her rapist's child to term is a greater injustice than aborting a clump of cells.

And as wonderful as a wanted pregnancy is, or even the joy of an "unwanted" child, forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her will is also not a pleasant outcome. We are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils.

For some reason, I've noticed this makes most pro-lifers uncomfortable...

No one is aborting a cell. Lets talk about the stage of development when women can first get a positive pregnancy test.

Virtually all pro-lifers talk about the moment of conception as the "magic moment" - after which abortion should be illegal.
They fight the morning-after pill under this pretense (and also stem-cell research, but that is for another thread).

If you disagree, let me know. Otherwise, you have set yourself up to defend a single cell's "rights".

 

[mighty_duck]

Why is it scary?

Try to imagine it from an unwilling woman's perspective.

I imagine you would find the idea that the government intervening on your sovereignty to decide who can and can't access your own body unappealing.

If that thought doesn't trigger any empathy, try imagining the government intervening on your ability to decide whether you can keep your gun. Scary, huh?

 

[Stripe]

I'm certainly not blanket "pro-choice"

That's right. There is a limit to how many unborn babies you would like to see murdered. Unfortunately that limit is greater than zero.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yes it has... New job, lots of family issues. Interesting times

I wish you the best.

Just like any other arbitrary moment in law. Do teenagers magically become capable of driving on their 16th birthday, or capable of holding their liqueur on their 18th birthday etc...?
Of course, not, it is a gradual process. But we set cutoffs anyway, trying to balance the rights of all those involved in a reasonable way (IE the teen's right to get around vs my right not to get run over by a reckless 13 year old)

I understand the desire to make the comparison but in no other case are we talking about the right of a human not to be killed without guilt or consent.

Finish my IE - the fetuses right to live versus the mothers right to....

Denying a recent rape victim the choice whether to carry her rapist's child to term is a greater injustice than aborting a clump of cells.

Would you support pro-life legislation that was willing to concede that one point?

At what stage of development do you consider the embryo to be more than a clump of cells? It's hard to determine where exactly the clump of cells stage falls on the human development timeline.

And as wonderful as a wanted pregnancy is, or even the joy of an "unwanted" child, forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her will is also not a pleasant outcome. We are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Well, is the consensual nature of the insemination what sets the standard for you or is it duration of pregnancy? For example, if a rape victim doesn't realize she is pregnant until the 25th week of pregnancy would you then be willing to blur the line a bit and be likely to rationalize in favor of the right to choose?

What about an extreme case where the woman doesn't even realize until much later in the pregnancy? Then would you be willing to force her to be pregnant against her will?

Virtually all pro-lifers talk about the moment of conception as the "magic moment" - after which abortion should be illegal.
They fight the morning-after pill under this pretense (and also stem-cell research, but that is for another thread).

I suppose we all agree there is a magic moment.

 

[rocketman]

That's right. There is a limit to how many unborn babies you would like to see murdered. Unfortunately that limit is greater than zero.

What really seems strange to me is how people can be so outraged (rightfully so) by 20 children being murdered at Sandy Hook yet be so indifferent to the staggering amount of legal murders committed in this country in the name of convenience, even up to the nine month. The numbers should make all pause though I guess it is not as sensational as 20 kids getting gunned down it seems. Indifference and hypocrisy indeed!

Abortions in the United States Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+ 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control) Abortions per year: 1.2 million Abortions per day: 3,288 Abortions per hour: 137 9 abortions every 4 minutes 1 abortion every 26 seconds

http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/NjA3OQ/

 

[mighty_duck]

I wish you the best.

Thanks

I understand the desire to make the comparison but in no other case are we talking about the right of a human not to be killed without guilt or consent.

I agree they are not the same. What is comparable is the law choosing an arbitrary moment to start enforcing itself, even when it deals with grey areas not subject to magic moments.

Finish my IE

The fetuses right to live versus the mothers right to decide who can or can't use her body's most private parts.

Would you support pro-life legislation that was willing to concede that one point?

Of course not. My bar is much higher (or lower, depending on your perspective), and you are well within your right to attack me at my weakest link (IE a woman who actively wanted to get pregnant, and then changes her mind because of convenience at the the 24th week).
Just like I will attack your position at its weakest link (ie a rape victim with a preexisting life-threatening medical condition, that wants to take the morning-after pill).

At what stage of development do you consider the embryo to be more than a clump of cells? It's hard to determine where exactly the clump of cells stage falls on the human development timeline.

Very early on. 2nd or 3rd week I believe?
"Clump of cells" is a literary device, even if it is accurate to describe the embryo during the first few days or weeks.

Well, is the consensual nature of the insemination what sets the standard for you or is it duration of pregnancy? For example, if a rape victim doesn't realize she is pregnant until the 25th week of pregnancy would you then be willing to blur the line a bit and be likely to rationalize in favor of the right to choose?

What about an extreme case where the woman doesn't even realize until much later in the pregnancy? Then would you be willing to force her to be pregnant against her will?

It would be a much tougher call. Suppose a woman is raped and goes in to a comma, only to finally wake 6 months later, horrified.

I would hope she could be peacefully convinced to carry her baby to term.

I suppose we all agree there is a magic moment.

I never said that. Pro-lifers are very proud of their clear cut magic moment.

The law has a clear cut "magic moment" by necessity.

Reality has no such moment, or at least not one we can easily point to. Like most everything, it is a large gray area.

:cheers:
-MD

 

[Stripe]

What really seems strange to me is how people can be so outraged (rightfully so) by 20 children being murdered at Sandy Hook yet be so indifferent to the staggering amount of legal murders committed in this country in the name of convenience, even up to the nine month. The numbers should make all pause though I guess it is not as sensational as 20 kids getting gunned down it seems. Indifference and hypocrisy indeed!

Abortions in the United StatesTotal number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)Abortions per year: 1.2 millionAbortions per day: 3,288Abortions per hour: 1379 abortions every 4 minutes1 abortion every 26 seconds

http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/NjA3OQ/

Indeed! :madmad:

 

[Lighthouse]

Nor you for yours. So why must you be right and me wrong?

DNA is evidence, just ask the police.

But seriously, how is the existence of brand new, unique from the parents, DNA not evidence a new being has come into existence?

No, not even close. Your predilection for the fetus blinds you from an objective perspective on the issue.

Predilection for the fetus? You really don't know me, do you?

I have absolutely zero emotional investment in the infants murdered through abortion. Now, I have had emotional investments in preborn infants, such as my nephews, but as far as I know none of them have been aborted, or was it even considered.

My only investment is in the right to life, which is paramount to all other rights; because without it none of our other rights matter.

I'm ignoring nothing. Dismissive of the manipulative rhetoric perhaps, but ignoring is not an option. The anti-abortion mind set is too prevalent in this country.

Liar.

And speaking of being dismissive; your rhetoric is nothing but dismissive.

But keep pretending my words are nothing more than an emotional rant.

The unborn have no capacity for guilt nor innocence, you're simply projecting such upon the unborn due the emotional impact it holds.

Someone doesn't know the meaning of "innocent."

in·no·cent

[in-uh-suh

nt]
adjective 1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.

2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.

3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.

4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.

5. devoid (usually followed by of ): a law innocent of merit.

Your bombastic use of terms such as 'innocent' and 'murder' and as gcthomas pointed out.....

Bombastic?

How is my use of either of those terms high-sounding, high-flown, inflated or pretentious?

Case...point!

How so?

Those periods of my life when I've been abstinent?

It's worked.

No pregnancies.

:rotfl:

While you are correct that the fetus is distinct, and is not part of the woman's body, how about the umbilical cord, the placenta, or the womb?

Since when are women born with umbilical cords and placentas within their wombs?:AMR:

The fetus is dependent on the mother, technically speaking. But the argument for abortion is one of trespass (for lack of better term) not dependence.

For trespass to occur there must be intent, thus cognizance of said trespass; I thought you were arguing the unborn were incapable of cognizance of any sort.

And in cases of rape the one guilty of trespass is the rapist, so why aren't you arguing for the termination of his life?

Consistency is nice, but the variables of the situation are different between conception, 9 weeks and 9 months, and attempting to treat them all in the same way results in injustice.

At nine months - the baby is viable. At 9 weeks, it isn't.
At nine months - the baby has a working cerbral cortex - at 9 weeks it doesn't.
At nine months - the mother has had months to learn about the pregnancy, deliberate, and by allowing it to continue has very strongly consented to growing a child inside her. At nine weeks - none of that holds true.*
At nine months - an abortion and a delivery are (physically) almost identical for the mother. At nine weeks, they are vastly different.

*Many pro-lifers would claim that sex is also an implicit agreement to carry a child to term. While I strongly disagree, it is a somewhat tenable argument. However, it ignores cases of rape, incest, and to a lesser degree contraception malfunction.

You, sir, are devoid of sense, reason and heart.

First off, in the sense you're using it incest is rape; not a separate issue. For if it is not rape then what argument do you have for abortion?

And as far as contraception malfunction goes, that's a risk of which all are aware before engaging, unless they're just complete idiots.

So, apart from rape engaging in sex always risks a pregnancy thus all are willingly taking that risk. If you aren't willing to suffer the consequences then why were you willing to risk them? Was the sex really worth it? Did you really want it that badly?

I recently heard a comedian make a joke, but I think it is a truth most are simply too willfully ignorant to accept: if you aren't willing to suffer the consequences of sex then you didn't really want it that badly.

I paraphrased.

Now, let's go back and look at rape: a rapist commits willful trespass upon a woman and knowingly violates her and uses her private parts for his own purposes, with full cognizance. So, what should be done to the rapist?

Also, if a pregnancy occurs, what has the child done to deserve the treatment that results in what can be seen in the images I posted?

 

[mighty_duck]

I don't know why I bother, since exchanges with LH always end the same way - with LH running out of arguments. and instead spewing expletives or ad homs.

Since when are women born with umbilical cords and placentas?:AMR:

So do they belong to the baby's body?
Either way, it would still mean the detachment of the placenta from the uterus wall is an act wholly in the mother's body domain.

You, sir, are devoid of sense, reason and heart.

That didn't take very long. On the bright side, I haven't been called a moron (yet).

First off, in the sense you're using it incest is rape; not a separate issue. For if it is not rape then what argument do you have for abortion?

That a woman's right to decide who can use her body takes precedence over a cell's right to life.

But you aren't willing to allow abortion even for rape victims, and you have the gall to call me heartless?

And as far as contraception malfunction goes, that's a risk of which all are aware before engaging, unless they're just complete idiots.

Again, I agreed it was a tenable case, just not a convincing one as far as I'm concerned.

Consent to sex does not mean an implicit consent to take a pregnancy to term.

Now, let's go back and look at rape: a rapist commits willful trespass upon a woman and knowingly violates her and uses her private parts for his own purposes, with full cognizance. So, what should be done to the rapist?

Throw him in jail, after castration. And don't spend any taxpayer dollar on anesthetics or painkillers for that castration. To save even more money, use blunt instruments.

Also, if a pregnancy occurs, what has the child done to deserve the treatment that results in what can be seen in the images I posted?

You are assuming the child is being punished for a willful crime. As quip explained, this is not the case.

And yet, as far as the woman is concerned, there is a trespass against her body, and she has the right to decide who or what can use her body against her will.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know why I bother, since exchanges with LH always end the same way - with LH running out of arguments. and instead spewing expletives or ad homs.

Go ahead and point to the last time I did that in the last month of time...

So do they belong to the baby's body?

They're not body parts.

Either way, it would still mean the detachment of the placenta from the uterus wall is an act wholly in the mother's body domain.

So the mother does this willfully?

That didn't take very long. On the bright side, I haven't been called a moron (yet).

That a woman's right to decide who can use her body takes precedence over a cell's right to life.

We're not discussing a simple cell; we're discussing another person.

But you aren't willing to allow abortion even for rape victims, and you have the gall to call me heartless?

Murder the innocent child who had not part in what happened, and no choice in their existence? Why should I allow for that?

Again, I agreed it was a tenable case, just not a convincing one as far as I'm concerned.

And we should all be concerned with your concern.

Consent to sex does not mean an implicit consent to take a pregnancy to term.

It means an implicit consent to risk pregnancy.

Throw him in jail, after castration. And don't spend any taxpayer dollar on anesthetics or painkillers for that castration. To save even more money, use blunt instruments.

But don't kill him?

You are assuming the child is being punished for a willful crime. As quip explained, this is not the case.

Then why is the child being punished?

And I'm not assuming anything, I'm using quip's own words against him.

And yet, as far as the woman is concerned, there is a trespass against her body, and she has the right to decide who or what can use her body against her will.

How is it a trespass?

 

[quip]

Predilection for the fetus? You really don't know me, do you?

I have absolutely zero emotional investment in the infants murdered through abortion. Now, I have had emotional investments in preborn infants, such as my nephews, but as far as I know none of them have been aborted, or was it even considered.

My only investment is in the right to life, which is paramount to all other rights; because without it none of our other rights matter.

Right. Sorry, but your posts have shown clear evidence to the contrary. You're only fooling yourself...but if you repeat it enough someone else may buy it.

Liar.

And speaking of being dismissive; your rhetoric is nothing but dismissive.

But keep pretending my words are nothing more than an emotional rant.

I don't have to pretend...you're doing all the work for me...ad hom and all!

Someone doesn't know the meaning of "innocent."

And someone else doesn't quite fathom the idea of the projection of said innocence.

Bombastic?

How is my use of either of those terms high-sounding, high-flown, inflated or pretentious?

This is the general, anti-abortion, manipulative approach...using unqualified terms for their effect. You employ it as well as the next lifer.

For trespass to occur there must be intent, thus cognizance of said trespass; I thought you were arguing the unborn were incapable of cognizance of any sort.

Not in the legal context you dolt! :chuckle: (hint: The physiological context. You know...that woman who just happens to plays host to your sacrosanct fetus.)

And in cases of rape the one guilty of trespass is the rapist, so why aren't you arguing for the termination of his life?

Well, such scum, long asunder from mother's womb, have legal rights...that's why.

 

[Lighthouse]

Right. Sorry, but your posts have shown clear evidence to the contrary. You're only fooling yourself...but if you repeat it enough someone else may buy it.

What evidence? They are "written" which reduces the conveyance of emotion, almost to the point of completely eliminating it, and actually doing so many times.

The most you have is your assumptions regarding my emotional state when it comes to the issue.

I don't have to pretend...you're doing all the work for me...ad hom and all!

Ad hominem? Where?

And someone else doesn't quite fathom the idea of the projection of said innocence.

:blabla:

Innocent is the opposite of guilty and the unborn do not lack the capacity to be guilty of anything; you agreed to that yourself.*

Points for redundancy to me!:banana:

This is the general, anti-abortion, manipulative approach...using unqualified terms for their effect. You employ it as well as the next lifer.

What terms are unqualified?

Not in the legal context you dolt! :chuckle:

Huh?

Are you saying I'm wrong about the legal definition, or are you saying the baby is trespassing, but not in a legal sense?

Well, such scum, long asunder from mother's womb, have legal rights...that's why.

What right? The right to life? How was that not forfeit when he saw fit to violate the rights of another in such a violent manner? Specifically her right a life of liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[quip]

What evidence? They are "written" which reduces the conveyance of emotion, almost to the point of completely eliminating it, and actually doing so many times.

The most you have is your assumptions regarding my emotional state when it comes to the issue.

You know full well the posts and pics. Purblindness resonates a humorous ring of irony for one brandishing the forum moniker of a lighthouse.
Really, formulate another strategy

Ad hominem? Where?

Ad hom's your stock and trade. I'm not jumping through your hoops...reread your prior posts.

:blabla:

Innocent is the opposite of guilty and the unborn do not lack the capacity to be guilty of anything; you agreed to that yourself.*

...and this is where Lighthouse steps up as official, right-to-life proxy! :idea:

Points for redundancy to me!:banana:

At last, we agree on something...not all is lost. :wave2:

What terms are unqualified?

The bombastic ones....reread.

Huh?

Of course. atrol:

Are you saying I'm wrong about the legal definition, or are you saying the baby is trespassing, but not in a legal sense?

You're getting warmer.:devil:

What right? The right to life? How was that not forfeit when he saw fit to violate the rights of another in such a violent manner? Specifically her right a life of liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Cold..... colder.....freezing to death! :sigh:

 

[mighty_duck]

Go ahead and point to the last time I did that in the last month of time...

Month?! How about your last post.
"You, sir, are devoid of sense, reason and heart"
If you really are intent on changing your ways and avoiding ad-hominems, I suggest you focus on attacking the argument and not the person making it.

They're not body parts.

So what are they?

So the mother does this willfully?

No. The question was whether detaching the placenta from the uterus (via medical procedure) was something wholly within the mother's bodily domain.

We're not discussing a simple cell; we're discussing another person.

We disagree that the zygote is a person. We do not disagree that it is a cell.

It means an implicit consent to risk pregnancy.

Look at the context again. WoO asked what the difference between a 9 month fetus and a 9 week fetus was. I explained that one of the differences was in the level of consent from the mother.

Consent to sex is not the same as consent to carry a child to term.

Either way, consent is a non-issue for you, since you reject abortion even in cases of rape.

How is it a trespass?

You are assuming that only creatures with moral intent are capable of trespass. This simply is not true.

Her body is used in a way she does not want, and without her consent. The intent or lack thereof of what is causing this has no bearing on the actual trespass.

 

[WizardofOz]

The fetuses right to live versus the mothers right to decide who can or can't use her body's most private parts.

With the exception of rape, the mother should be held responsible for the consequences of her sexual activity. If she engaged in consensual sexual activity and gets pregnant why should society allow her to shirk her responsibility because getting pregnant just isn't desired or convenient?

Especially as it stands now where a woman can abort over and over and over if she feels the desire to, once pregnant.

We're quickly becoming a nation of irresponsible (adult) children due to society always bailing us out of personal responsibility.

Of course not. My bar is much higher (or lower, depending on your perspective), and you are well within your right to attack me at my weakest link (IE a woman who actively wanted to get pregnant, and then changes her mind because of convenience at the the 24th week).
Just like I will attack your position at its weakest link (ie a rape victim with a preexisting life-threatening medical condition, that wants to take the morning-after pill).

Other pro-lifers involved in the legislative process have noted that it would be hard to charge the rape victim who takes a morning-after pill with a crime sans proof of pregnancy.

I am looking for workable ideas and realize there will have to be negotiations. I do not personally want exceptions but realize that for any headway to be made, both sides will have to be willing to compromise.

Where are you willing to compromise?

Very early on. 2nd or 3rd week I believe?
"Clump of cells" is a literary device, even if it is accurate to describe the embryo during the first few days or weeks.

Hence the
Usually women don't realize they are pregnant until well after the "clump of cells" stage so it's largely a moot point.

It would be a much tougher call. Suppose a woman is raped and goes in to a comma, only to finally wake 6 months later, horrified.

I would hope she could be peacefully convinced to carry her baby to term.

Are your prepared to legally force her to do so?

I never said that. Pro-lifers are very proud of their clear cut magic moment.

The law has a clear cut "magic moment" by necessity.

Reality has no such moment, or at least not one we can easily point to. Like most everything, it is a large gray area.

:cheers:
-MD

But there is a "magic moment" whether by opinion or legal necessity. We all simply differ on where the "magic" begins

 

[mighty_duck]

With the exception of rape, the mother should be held responsible for the consequences of her sexual activity. If she engaged in consensual sexual activity and gets pregnant why should society allow her to shirk her responsibility because getting pregnant just isn't desired or convenient?

Especially as it stands now where a woman can abort over and over and over if she feels the desire to, once pregnant.

We're quickly becoming a nation of irresponsible (adult) children due to society always bailing us out of personal responsibility.

While there is truth to a lot of what you are saying, I don't completely buy the slippery slope argument. I'll also refrain from presenting a contrary slippery slope argument about how repressing women's rights over their own body will lead us to a tyrannical, chauvinistic dystopia.

The real solution is through education, not legislation. We need to talk about sex, contraception, and responsibility early and often. That is the real way to lower abortion rates. Many conservatives work against this, thereby increasing abortion rates.

Other pro-lifers involved in the legislative process have noted that it would be hard to charge the rape victim who takes a morning-after pill with a crime sans proof of pregnancy.

Pro-life groups are doing all they can to make the pill itself illegal and unobtainable - in effect barring rape victims from taking it.

I am looking for workable ideas and realize there will have to be negotiations. I do not personally want exceptions but realize that for any headway to be made, both sides will have to be willing to compromise.

Where are you willing to compromise?

There is a pretty big gulf, but I appreciate your willingness to work on it.

As I said, there is a grey area on where the "magic moment" happens, and would be willing to err slightly on the side of life (ie lower the last week you can have an abortion).

I think counseling should be a legal requirement prior to later term abortion (after the first trimester). It should be a balanced effort, explaining both sides of the decision to the mother (ie talking to PP is not enough). There are emotional, ethical and physical ramifications, and the mother must be aware of it.

Hence the
Usually women don't realize they are pregnant until well after the "clump of cells" stage so it's largely a moot point.

And the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, which doesn't stop the vast majority of pro-life pictures to feature near-term fetuses.

Are your prepared to legally force her to do so?

It would be a very tough call. I'll put it this way - I'd support legislation to ban such abortions, but if I were on a jury, I would not indict her of a crime.

But there is a "magic moment" whether by opinion or legal necessity. We all simply differ on where the "magic" begins

Another difference is that you think there is actual magic involved

 

[Lighthouse]

You know full well the posts and pics.

I didn't take the pictures. And they elicit no emotion in me. Just my sense of justice, as that which took place as recorded in them is clearly an injustice.

Purblindness resonates a humorous ring of irony for one brandishing the forum moniker of a lighthouse.

I'm the one shining a light on the reality of abortion; you're trying to keep it in the dark.

I bet you cry during that Sarah McLachlan ASPCA commercial, don't you?

I don't. I don't even get angry. I think it's wrong that people do things like that to animals, and those people should be punished, but I don't feel emotion when I see it.

I don't even like my own cat; and when she went missing for about two months last year I didn't care. I didn't even look for her.

Really, formulate another strategy

I posted pictures once. Are you delirious?

Ad hom's your stock and trade. I'm not jumping through your hoops...reread your prior posts.

You can't even point to one incident within the past week?

Go ahead and point to just once where I called someone something other than a fool when they were truly being a fool...

Of course you could just stop to think for a second as to why I would issue such a challenge...

...and this is where Lighthouse steps up as official, right-to-life proxy! :idea:

Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die
-Proverbs 31:8

At last, we agree on something...not all is lost. :wave2:

Missed the joke, eh? Not surprising, really.

The bombastic ones....reread.

lain:

Nice non-answer.

You're getting warmer.:devil:

:yawn:

Cold..... colder.....freezing to death! :sigh:

Did you take a look inside, to your heart?

Month?! How about your last post.
"You, sir, are devoid of sense, reason and heart"
If you really are intent on changing your ways and avoiding ad-hominems, I suggest you focus on attacking the argument and not the person making it.

If your going to claim that as ad hominem you're going to have to show that it is one.

So, in which way did I not answer your argument?

So what are they?

They are not body parts as body parts are things with which we are born and stay with us the rest of our lives, normally.

placenta=vascular organ
umbilical cord=cord

No. The question was whether detaching the placenta from the uterus (via medical procedure) was something wholly within the mother's bodily domain.

Thus leading to the death of another person?

It is no one's right to take the life of another person who is not intentionally harming, or about to harm, them or another person.

We disagree that the zygote is a person. We do not disagree that it is a cell.

It is more than a "simple" cell.

Look at the context again. WoO asked what the difference between a 9 month fetus and a 9 week fetus was. I explained that one of the differences was in the level of consent from the mother.

Consent to sex is not the same as consent to carry a child to term.

Either way, consent is a non-issue for you, since you reject abortion even in cases of rape.

Consent to sex is consent to the consequences.

Rape is a separate issue, because no one has the right to take the life of an innocent person; no matter what.

You are assuming that only creatures with moral intent are capable of trespass. This simply is not true.

Her body is used in a way she does not want, and without her consent. The intent or lack thereof of what is causing this has no bearing on the actual trespass.

tres·pass [tres-puh

s, -pas] noun

1. Law. a. an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property, or rights of another, committed with force or violence, actual or implied.
b. a wrongful entry upon the lands of another.
c. the action to recover damages for such an injury.

2. an encroachment or intrusion.
3. an offense, sin, or wrong.

verb (used without object)

4. Law. to commit a trespass.
5. to encroach on a person's privacy, time, etc.; infringe (usually followed by on or upon ).
6. to commit a transgression or offense; transgress; offend; sin.