Abortion

Life - The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Proof enough for you?

And you keep saying that since neither side can be proven, your side is the default choice. Whether or not that is true legally is irrelevant because that still wouldn't make it the right choice.




Yes, I know, that is why I included the word also.



You still don't get it. I say a zygote is a person, you say it is not. What if I were to say that a child is not a person. You say it is because it is sentient but again, sentience is NOT recognized by law. I have told you that mental handicapped people can in fact be considered to be without sentience and yet they are still protected by the law.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/res2856.htm

"1. The mentally retarded person has, to the maximum degree of feasibility, the same rights as other human beings."

And even if such people were not protected by the law, it does not make it right. The whole reason there is a controversy over abortion is because of conflicts as to what is right and wrong.



You have not shown why a zygote is does not deserve rights objectively, therefore we have no reason to believe they do not. Just because you say the law defaults to your position does not make it the correct or even objective course of action.

I was arguing from the pro-life side because I felt it was underrepresented on Fakku. I also felt like arguing, so I'd have something to do. It's not like I personally care all that much.

The only aspect of the abortion argument I care about is the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions. Personal responsibility is my main concern.

Is that subjective definition of what life is proof enough that a zygote is a living thing objectively? No. And it certianly isn't proof that the zygote is a living human.



I didn't say it was legally the correct conclusion, it's the LOGICALLY correct conclusion.



So you know you're still wrong. great.



See, in the paragraph prior to this, you go, "Well, just because the law says something, doesn't make it right!" So I just think it's funny you would use that argument. Eswpecially when...well you don't think it matters.



Explain how it does, because you still haven't succeeded in showing why that's true.



Don't need to. Until you show why they do, there's no reason to assume they do. give a reason to assume they do, or I reject your premise, rightfully and logically.

[/quote]therefore we have no reason to believe they do not. Just because you say the law defaults to your position does not make it the correct or even objective course of action.[/quote]

Right, which is why I demonstratted logically that logic is on my side, which is an objective measureable system. :)

Don't need to. Until you show why they don't, there's no reason to assume they don't. Give a reason to assume they don't, or I reject your premise, rightfully and logically.





Except that you have not demonstrated logically that logic is on your side. You can say whatever crap you spew is logical, but that doesn't make it so. And not to mention the FACT that I have explained my side logically and objectively multiple times and in multiple ways, yet you still point me out as illogical. You can keep living in this fantasy world of yours where you know everything that is logical. Since you cannot seem to be capable of understanding logic, I am done. I'm tired of arguing with a child. Maybe someone else will take pity on you for your ignorance and try to get you to understand.

Don't need to, both of our premises are rejected. which means the fetus' rights have neither been established or established as nonexistent, which means they are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT UNTIL THEY ARE! Congrats, you've defeated your own argument. HOW DO YOU FEEL?







See above, you defeated your own argument. Well done.

I am unable to understand the logic of Biglundi's arguments, while I understand the logic of everyone else. Either I'm not smart enough to understand, or he's being illogical. To determine which is true, I ask:

does anyone besides Biglundi think that Biglundi is being logical?

Yeap, his last post was childish but other than that the rest made sense.
You're tryharding to view an opposing opinion as illogical.

He does make sense. There is no default position; if one can't present evidence for one thing doesn't automatically make the other correct.

Let me see if I can help you understand. I already made a posting about what the 'default position' is in logic, but it DID concern god, which I know you and I have a fundamental disagreement on.


So let's try a different example. I'm going to make a claim.

I have a dragon in the trunk of my car.

Do you believe me?



That's not my argument. See, the reasoning isn't that "If you can't prove your side, I win." it's "If you can't provide evidence that your side is correct, there is no reason to adopt your side as correct, and therefore it is to be disbelieved until you do so." It doesn't matter if you take it one step furthur and say, "But I proclaim that the zygote ISN'T a person, so since you haven't shown why it is, it therefore isn't!" then you'd be wrong, but I haven't DONE this. This is a consistent misunderstanding people seem to be having.

I support abortion being covered by taxes. I would go on...but Nekohime already covers everything I would say ^_^

Reasonably Bored's remark is indeed true. Although Biglundi and Jash2o2's arguments have become ever more childish, his basic argument is still true.

Jash2o2 has failed to provide any whatsoever secular proof of his position, merely relying on the (false) argument that "(P)==FALSE => NOT(P)==TRUE", which is a logical fallacy.

Actually Biglundi too made the mistake of getting bogged down in scientific terms, as he keeps insisting that a zygote is not alive, when it fact it's scientifically quite proven that it's a living organism (albeit one incapable of life on its own... a trait shared by many "parasites", hence why Doctor House referred to a fetus as suck).

However I agree with his basic position that a zygote is not (yet) a person. Arguments about when life begins, whether the zygote is truly alive is just a smokescreen that detracts from the central ethical problem of when do we (legally) grant person-hood to the unborn.

I'm not entirely sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered

If legally, abortion is not murder, then doesn't the law contradict itself as to where life begins?

I can explain this one rather simply. Currently the law states that the woman has a choice to birth her baby or not. If one kills a pregnant mother, they have stripped him of that right, as well as taken it upon themselves to deny the baby life, the baby in which they do not have the option of making that decision for. Because of that, it could, if the family desired, be pressed as a double homocide, depending on where you are.

I have know nothing about law, but I question whether this exact wording is true. Most of your remaining argument is based off this fact, so I'd prefer some sort of credibility to this statement.



Is "him" a typo? or are you referring to the baby?



I'd like to remind you that the charge is double homicide, not "denying potential life". You say that it's homicide because life is denied, but this still contradicts abortion, because abortion also denies that same life.

What makes abortion not murder, but the murder of a pregnant women a double-murder?

Ok, in order to explain this, let me begin by defining what the law says about abortion. Currently, abortion is legal if and only if the following is true. The doctor performing the abortion is a licensed professional, and the mother has given her consent to perform the abortion. for under age abortions, the mother's mother has to give consent.

Abortion is allowed in the United States under the following reasons given by the mother for wanting abortion

to protect the woman's life, to protect her physical health, to protect her mental health, in case of forced insimination(rape), in case there's a fetal defect, socio-economic factors(too poor to have a baby), or simply on request.

Nationally, the prohibition against banning abortion is thusly: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The law being protected in allowing abortion is apparently the Right to Privacy.

Now, here's the thing about those rare cases. this isn't a federal law, except for the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which denies physicisans the right to abort ababy while it is in the process of being birthed, that states people will be prosecuted, or should not be prosecuted, as a double homicide if their victim is a pregnant mother.


That's what the law states, there are states that can simply say that killing a pregnant mother counts as double homicide, because nothing about the prohibition against abortion banning means the can't NOT make it NOT a law that the fetus is alive, and killing it isn't homocide. However, the law DOES state that "Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a mother to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy" (Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149,)

Because of this, states CAN arbitrarily say that anyone BESIDES the mother making the choice to kill the baby in the womb IS committing homicide, but they have no basis on this other than arbitrary opinion.

I'm indifferent about abortions. People make mistakes and sometimes they aren't ready to be parents, and it isn't always the fact that they didn't use a condom. Though it's rare that happens...

I just wish people my age in Britain would stop having kids already. I'm 21 and I'm waitin' until I'm ready.

Pretty sure it doesn't necessarily mean that this sentence is the verdict for all murderers of pregnant women. It's just that in cases where pregnant women victims are involved, judges probably tend to round up the body count to show the severity of the crime.

If no one knew a person was pregnant at their death, I doubt this would be the verdict.

No, I'm not saying it's wrong because it kills potential life; I'm saying it's wrong because kills life.



I don't think sperm are cells, though I'm not completely sure

...*facepalm.jpg*
If you don't know the basic way reproduction works, how can you even argue about abortion. Ugu internet.

I know the basics of reproduction, I just forgot that the 23 X-chromosomes that join with the egg were inside a cell. It's been a while since I took biology, So correct me when necessary

Besides, I'm trying to discuss the governments response to abortion, not the biological aspects of it