It's time to define the unborn

Dec 2018
1,698
973
Unionville Indiana
#44
The same way we equip them to deal with those who snuff out their babies life after they are born.
You may not understand the meaning of equal protection under law. Murder and medical investigations would be required for each and every suspicious miscarriage. That requires a robust and intrusive police state which violates the Fourth Amendment.

the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
 
Nov 2005
8,784
3,282
California
#45
I've never known an anti-choicer who doesn't run away from this question like the plague:
If a zygote deserves equal protection, under law, at the moment of conception, how would YOU equip the police and the courts to enforce the expanded murder statutes?
Heck. Why not make it more personal...
What would they do in a situation that involved weighing the life of 1,000 zygotes vs the life of one born child.
Question for the Anti-Abortion Crowd
Here it is.
You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important.
The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. He's in one corner of the room.
In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos".

The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one.

Do you:
a) save the child, OR
b) save the thousand embryos?
There is no "C". "C" means you all die.​


The anti-abortion crowd want to pretend that zygotes should be treated as "human beings", but when push comes to shove and actual choices need to be made instead of just hypothetical pontification, their stated actions do not match their rhetoric...
 
Likes: catus felis
Dec 2018
1,698
973
Unionville Indiana
#46
Heck. Why not make it more personal...
What would they do in a situation that involved weighing the life of 1,000 zygotes vs the life of one born child.
Question for the Anti-Abortion Crowd
Here it is.​
You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important.​
The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. He's in one corner of the room.​
In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos".​
The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one.​
Do you:​
a) save the child, OR
b) save the thousand embryos?​
There is no "C". "C" means you all die.​


The anti-abortion crowd want to pretend that zygotes should be treated as "human beings", but when push comes to shove and actual choices need to be made instead of just hypothetical pontification, their stated actions do not match their rhetoric...
Don't expect a coherent or reasonable response from them anytime soon.
 
Nov 2005
8,784
3,282
California
#47
The same way we equip them to deal with those who snuff out their babies life after they are born.
Your response is like saying that we should deal with the apple the same way we deal with the orange, while you ignore the differences between the two that prompted the question in the first place.
RB can follow up, but I've got a specific angle for you...

1.7 Million Human Embryos Created for IVF Thrown Away | Center for Genetics and Society
In Great Britain, 1.7 million embryoes have been thrown away by IVF clinics.
Great Britain has about 1/5th the population of the U.S., so let's assume the U.S. has about 8.5 million embryoes that are thrown away.

What is your solution for the 8.5 million embryoes which are being destroyed?
Do we just ban IVF?
Do we force the donors to fertilize themselves otherwise they will be charged with child abandonment?


You guys keep pretending it's all the same thing when it is definitively NOT.
 
Feb 2007
5,556
3,120
USA
#48
No, they did not attempt to define when someone becomes a human being.

It was not based upon science.

If it was, what is the SCOTUS definition of when life begins?

With emphasis added in bold font.:

“Our approach is to look at both adult and fetus as a biologist would: as parts of a complex and interconnected web of living things on our planet. Instead of asking about how a fetus resembles an adult human, we propose to ask how both of them differ from other living things, what it is that makes them uniquely human, and then to use this information in coming to policy decisions. Over the years, scientists have developed new understandings about life on our planet and about the nature of Homo sapiens. A good deal of this understanding has come since the original Roe decision and, to our knowledge, has been largely ignored in the ensuing debate. It shouldn’t be.

This is not to say that the abortion debate can be reduced, in the end, to a question of scientific fact. It can’t. Neither, however, can the debate be conducted intelligently if one ignores what scientists have learned about human beings and about the process by which a single fertilized egg develops into a newborn child. This truth is nowhere more evident than when legislators trying to grapple with the abortion issue turn to the scientific community and ask, “When does an individual life begin?”

This is not only the wrong question, it is a question that cannot be answered by use of methods of science. Any scientist who says it can either doesn’t understand the limits of our craft, has defined “life” in a way that he or she hasn’t made explicit, or is trying to be deceptive. We’ve seen examples of all three sources of error behind “scientific” answers to this question, by people on both sides of the abortion debate.

This question is sometimes confused with one that is more specifically biological: “When does life in general begin?” meaning, “When did living things first appear on the earth?” This more general question can, of course, be approached with the methods of science, although the fact of the matter is that life is one of those terms (like time) that scientists are usually quite content to use in a loose, colloquial way, but that they find extraordinary difficult to define with precision.

In the context of the abortion debate, life clearly means “the life of an individual.” So “When does life begin?” is still the wrong question. The only way we can define individual life is by making a list of the characteristics of an individual life and then seeing if the entity in question shares them. The only rational answer a biologist can give to the question “When does an individual life begin?” is to say, “Tell me what you mean by individual life, and I’ll tell you if this entity has it.” A biologist, in other words, cannot provide a definition of individual life (at least as that term is used in the abortion debate) solely from the biological sciences. He or she must go outside science for those sorts of definitions. For example, a geneticist can tell you that at conception a new combination of preexisting DNA has come into existence, but whether “life” has begun simply cannot be resolved by this information. This type of answer is profoundly unsatisfying, but it’s about all you can expect if you ask the wrong question.”


"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil
Furthermore, even if scientists were to be capable of objectively determining when an individual life (or a human being) begins, the supreme court would still have to find balance, in some way, between the competing rights of BOTH the unborn child and the pregnant woman...of which means the answer to that question is a mute point anyway.

And, of course, the RvW decision had, in a way, determined that the unborn are persons (or individuals, or human beings) to some degree anyway by effectively allowing restrictions to abortion after viability.

But, I guess, that just wasn't good enough for Either/Or-type extremists who see no area for compromise and apparently think woman have no right to reproductive privacy and who apparently believe that pregnant women must be walking incubators who must live up to the terms of someone else's subjective beliefs.

:rolleyes:
 
Likes: catus felis
Nov 2005
8,784
3,282
California
#49
So human belief on the matter has changed over a 5 year period?
No. You quoted somebody who was lying about the assessment of your previous poll.
I already pointed this out.
It's time to define the unborn


So what?
What compels me to uphold a belief that is popular vs. a belief that is unpopular when human opinion if obviously so fickle and flawed?
I always have to chuckle at people who try to claim a justification for something (i.e. you trying to claim justification based on support) and then when that is proven to be not true they suddenly act like that aspect was irrelevant all along... :rolleyes:


That is the power of law and the state, it molds public opinions.
NO!
Jesus. I really wish people would stop making things up in their head and persuading themselves their imagination is somehow truth.
Below is a graph showing the long history on abortion opinions since Roe v Wade.
It hasn't changed.

Abortion was legalized.
People who thought it should be legal STILL thought it should be legal.
People who thought it should be NOT legal STILL thought it should be NOT legal.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Your assessment is b.s. And if you actually
 
Last edited:
Likes: Rescue Basket
Nov 2005
8,784
3,282
California
#50
I like the heart beat bill. Life is identified medically as stopping when there is no heart beat, so why not defined it as when the heart beat begins?
Because the life is not viable then.

There is a well known analogy that describes the situation...
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.[6]

A Defense of Abortion - Wikipedia
 

Similar Discussions