Against abortion and against person-hood?

[PureX]

Whether the pregnancy was intended or not is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If the pregnancy was intended, then abortion is not an issue. If the pregnancy was not intended, then abortion does become a issue. So whether or not the pregnancy was intended is in fact the crucial issue relative to abortion.

The fact that the woman is pregnant with an unborn human child is the only thing relevant in an abortion

No, the fact that she may not want to carry the child through to birth is the issue that concerns abortion. You're so intent on being contrary that you aren't paying attention to what you're writing.

... since abortions are not performed on women that are not pregnant with an unborn human child.

They are also not performed on women who intended to get pregnant, or on women that want to carry the pregnancy through to birth, regardless. So the abortion debate only comes up when unintentional and subsequently unwanted pregnancies occur, just as I'd stated.

But my question to you is: why is the personal autonomy of pregnant woman of absolutely no concern to you? Are they not to be considered human beings with the same personal autonomy as yourself?

And why is the non-autonomous and presumed personhood of a fetus of so much greater import to you that you feel compelled to completely ignore the mother's personal autonomy in favor of the fetus'?

 

[genuineoriginal]

And Auschwitz was legal.

But
You wouldn't consider pipe bombing it 'Christian extremism'

It looks like you have taken Godwin's law to new levels of stupidity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why is the personal autonomy of pregnant woman of absolutely no concern to you?

The "personal autonomy" of a woman does not give her the right to murder her children, whether they are 8 weeks after conception or 8 years after birth.

 

[PureX]

The "personal autonomy" of a woman does not give her the right to murder her children, whether they are 8 weeks after conception or 8 years after birth.

It's only "murder" in your mind because you have endowed the fetus with the same autonomous personhood that you demand for yourself. But the fetus in not autonomous, yet. And without autonomy, it cannot fully express 'personhood'. (Just as a slave cannot fully express his or her personhood without self-will, and is not considered a whole person by those that enslave them.) So you are accusing the mother of something that you can't reasonably prove, and then you intend to use your accusation to strip her of her personal autonomy so as to further empower your own.

That's illegal in most countries, for good reason, and should remain illegal in this country for the same reasons. And until you are able to face and address this issue of personal autonomy, and your own desire to strip all pregnant women of theirs in favor of yours, you are never going to be able to change the minds or hearts of those who believe that women should have the right to choose what happens inside their own bodies.

This is why the whole abortion issue hinges on the concept of autonomous personhood, and NOT on "murdering babies". No one is in favor of murdering babies. And no one is suggesting that we should.

 

[Crucible]

It looks like you have taken Godwin's law to new levels of stupidity.

Godwin's Law is not something you use in debate- it does not make an argument invalid. You're the one rising to a level of stupidity

And
It's by those who call abortion 'murder' who have outright stated that the abortion rate is a holocaust.

HOLOCAUST.

Let it sink in.

 

[Town Heretic]

You said the Immaculate Conception

lain: As popularly used it simply refers to the virgin birth, but in a larger sense, do you understand that more of Christendom than not (and so, orthodoxy) actually does follow that doctrine. Just a technical point, but given it's the only one you actually addressed, failing again to respond to my rebuttal of your "Who would you save" and, really, every other point you raised...

As for everything else, I'm done with it for now. It's just as productive for me to shout to the grass that it's green at this point.

All you do is shout. You don't argue or answer argument and rebuttal. You proclaim, denounce, decide the honesty of others, declare what they have to be or believe then move on.

You're just a series of odd punctuations and a (((GENIUSES!!!))) away from Letsargueland at this point. lain:

 

[Crucible]

The "personal autonomy" of a woman does not give her the right to murder her children, whether they are 8 weeks after conception or 8 years after birth.

You can't 'murder' that which is not 'born', you blithering lunatics.

 

[Town Heretic]

You can't 'murder' that which is not 'born', you blithering lunatics.

Tell that to Aaron Ashley, convicted of double homicide for the murders of his girlfriend and the baby she was carrying. Or, you response was inadequate, failed as a proof, or argument and is, once again, an inaccurate statement as it addresses the law. At last count, around 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

It's hard to imagine how a person could be more wrong on a point. Slathering that with a bit of name calling really puts a bow on it though.

 

[Crucible]

Tell that to Aaron Ashley, convicted of double homicide for the murders of his girlfriend and the baby she was carrying. Or, you response was inadequate, failed as a proof, or argument and is, once again, an inaccurate statement as it addresses the law. At last count, around 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

It's hard to imagine how a person could be more wrong on a point. Slathering that with a bit of name calling really puts a bow on it though.

I don't care about the double standards you all created with your vast inconsistencies. You sit here and call abortion 'murder' now, but you were all about the supposed liberation of women and their disease of 'womanhood', which resulted in divorce, birth control, abortion, and these myriad of privileges which prove most often to just be parasitic toward men.

It's hard to imagine how a person would want to be seen as a plain face denier than admit that I have proven you all wrong on this damn thread.
I am done with this discussion.

 

[ok doser]

The "personal autonomy" of a woman does not give her the right to murder her children, whether they are 8 weeks after conception or 8 years after birth.

of course


but you'll never convince purex of the simple truth of this

 

[Stripe]

To be useful, an opinion has to be based on a clear and well-defined set of precepts.

In this thread, the personhood of a baby from conception onward has to be either affirmed or denied.

Those who deny personhood need to provide extremely convincing evidence to overturn the obvious.

However, personhood deniers never attempt that. They prefer arguments from consequence, obfuscation, insults and willful stupidity.

 

[PureX]

Tell that to Aaron Ashley, convicted of double homicide for the murders of his girlfriend and the baby she was carrying. Or, you response was inadequate, failed as a proof, or argument and is, once again, an inaccurate statement as it addresses the law. At last count, around 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

It's hard to imagine how a person could be more wrong on a point. Slathering that with a bit of name calling really puts a bow on it though.

Those laws only apply to unborn fetuses that have developed beyond the non-autonomous stage, and could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb if necessary. Which is the same criteria used to deny access to an abortion after the 24th week of development. So the unborn infant's 'personhood' is, by law, directly tied to it's physical autonomy.

To fully address the issue of abortion, we must address the concept of autonomous personhood.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't care about the double standards you all created with your vast inconsistencies.

Haven't done it/you won't make an objective case for it....or answer any number of actual rebuttals. Nice declaration string you've got going though. Did you get soup with that or just the hard roll?

You sit here and call abortion 'murder' now,

Did more than that. I noted (as I did then, do now and will tomorrow) that abortion is the unjustified and premeditated taking of life and asked you for a definition of murder that was something else.

but you were all about the supposed liberation of women and their disease of 'womanhood' which resulted in divorce, birth control, abortion, and these myriad of privileges which prove most often to just be parasitic toward men.

So you think giving women the vote and/or equal standing before the law was a bad idea? lain:

It's hard to imagine how a person would want to be seen as a plain face denier than admit that I have proven you all wrong on this damn thread.
I am done with this discussion.

A discussion involves more than one person. Your internal dialogue spilling out onto a page doesn't qualify, even if you hear voices.

 

[gcthomas]

Tell that to Aaron Ashley, convicted of double homicide for the murders of his girlfriend and the baby she was carrying. Or, you response was inadequate, failed as a proof, or argument and is, once again, an inaccurate statement as it addresses the law. At last count, around 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

It's hard to imagine how a person could be more wrong on a point. Slathering that with a bit of name calling really puts a bow on it though.

Interestingly, the statute that Ashley was convicted under does not include foetuses under the category human being, but separately, and it includes exemptions, such as when the killing was done with the consent of the mother. In other countries, the crime described would be called child destruction, since human rights are not being conferred on the foetus.

 

[Rusha]

You can't 'murder' that which is not 'born', you blithering lunatics.

That would include an unborn baby in the ninth month ... care to rethink your claim?

 

[Town Heretic]

Interestingly, the statute that Ashley was convicted under does not include foetuses under the category human being, but separately, and it includes exemptions, such as when the killing was done with the consent of the mother. In other countries, the crime described would be called child destruction, since human rights are not being conferred on the foetus.

That varies by jurisdiction, the point being that most states recognize the act of killing a fetus as a homicide. The federal government is another matter, of course. In Alabama statutes a fetus is named a person and human being. I'll back edit to see how many among the fetal homicide states do that much. Give me a minute.

Alabama and Kansas use "human being" in their statutes.

Arkansas has it: “offspring of human beings from conception until birth.”

Florida and Georgia haveh it: “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

Idaho has fetalcide under certain conditions, but stops short of defining the fetus as a human being.

Michigan has a limited set of recognition parameters for fetal homicide.

Mississippi: I believe used human being but now doesn't, though fetal homicide is still on the books.

Alaska, Arizona, North Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Penn., South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin consider the fetus an "unborn child".

Ohio plays with distance: “unborn member of the species homo sapiens"South Car: "child in utero” is defined as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

Tenn.: “a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero”

Virginia and West Virginia use language that allows the fetus individual status allowing for homicide charges, separate from the mother.

California and seven other states have some law criminalizing the intentional ending of the unborn's life, within one circumstance or another.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's only "murder" in your mind because you have endowed the fetus with the same autonomous personhood that you demand for yourself. But the fetus in not autonomous, yet. And without autonomy, it cannot fully express 'personhood'. (Just as a slave cannot fully express his or her personhood without self-will, and is not considered a whole person by those that enslave them.) So you are accusing the mother of something that you can't reasonably prove, and then you intend to use your accusation to strip her of her personal autonomy so as to further empower your own.

That's illegal in most countries, for good reason, and should remain illegal in this country for the same reasons. And until you are able to face and address this issue of personal autonomy, and your own desire to strip all pregnant women of theirs in favor of yours, you are never going to be able to change the minds or hearts of those who believe that women should have the right to choose what happens inside their own bodies.

This is why the whole abortion issue hinges on the concept of autonomous personhood, and NOT on "murdering babies". No one is in favor of murdering babies. And no one is suggesting that we should.

autonomous
from Greek autonomos ‘having its own laws’

Maybe you are misusing that word?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Godwin's Law is not something you use in debate- it does not make an argument invalid.

No, it is your stupidity that makes your argument invalid.
You equated an act of government (legally sanctioned war against Nazi Germany) with vigilantism (breaking the law to enforce your own ideals).
Christians should never engage in vigilantism, you moron, since that would be against the teachings of scripture.

It's by those who call abortion 'murder' who have outright stated that the abortion rate is a holocaust.

You must have me confused with someone else.
The only time I use the word holocaust is when I am referring to the prisoners in the Nazi death camps.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You can't 'murder' that which is not 'born', you blithering lunatics.

murder
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The definition doesn't say anything about the human being needing to be born first.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't care about the double standards you all created with your vast inconsistencies. You sit here and call abortion 'murder' now, but you were all about the supposed liberation of women and their disease of 'womanhood', which resulted in divorce, birth control, abortion, and these myriad of privileges which prove most often to just be parasitic toward men.

It's hard to imagine how a person would want to be seen as a plain face denier than admit that I have proven you all wrong on this damn thread.
I am done with this discussion.

I am sure someone like you goes home and slaps your mother every day, just because she offends you by being a woman.

Most of us don't hate women like you do.