NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Deal with the context of what I wrote. In no way, did I mention some Judeo-Christian God. I stated simply

Quote:

Yes, there is Life…(call it what you wish, God, Mitochondria, Wanker, call it anything you want.) That is a fact!

Yes there is life. Why not just call it LIFE? Why give it any other name? So we are in agreement -- there is LIFE.

Quote:

Life gives souls…(again, call it what you wish, psyche, ego, Living Life Force that defines Me," call it whatever you want) Human life is defined by the individual will… That is a fact

Nonsense. That is not a fact -- that is a guess. It happens to be a silly guess in my opinion, but it is a guess nonetheless. We have precious little idea of what LIFE actually is let alone what metaphysical properties are inherent to it. You are ascribing metaphysical properties to it that are pulled out of thin air -- and pretending they are facts.

We have absolutely no need for ideas of soul or any of those other life force things that you tell me I can name anything I want. Whatever it is you are trying to name - may not even exist.

Up to this point - all you have established is: THERE IS LIFE. I've agreed to that.

Quote:

And at some time in it's development, this living being, becomes defined, and it's will to survive ensues. That is a fact.

More mumbo jumbo.

We've agreed that THERE IS LIFE.

Quote:

You really have wasted enough time on this little side trip of yours. Has anything really been accomplished… Not really.

You know...I was just thinking that same thing. And I was wondering why you are wasting my time with this.

Quote:

You have yet, failed to offer constructive input on the subject matter of this discussion, and have commandeered it into a direction, best suited for a philosophical forum. I stepped in, and am now trying to redirect the discussion back to the question at hand…

One, I was commenting on something that was said in this thread - and that is my right. If you want to give the person that made the statement a tongue-lashing - do so. But get the hell off my back on the issue, because I have not been out-of-line here.

Two, I think I have offered constructive input into this thread -- and I think your reaction to what I've said is proof of that.

Frankly, I think you are doing the equivalent of striking up a conversation about peanut butter in a room in which there is an elephant sitting - and you are pretending there is something wrong with people who veer from talk about peanut butter - and mention the elephant.

As to the part about you trying to redirect the discussion back to the question at hand...

...you are failing miserably at that. You are three quarters of the way through your presentation --- and you have not gotten back on track for a second. In fact, you are wasting more time on this nonsense than I am.

Quote:

When does human life, become viable, to afford equal protection, under the Law?"

Aha, finally…in the last sentence, you get back on track. Congratulations.


RESPONSE:

We really don't know. From all indications, none of us knows.

So what problem do you have with arbitrarily picking BIRTH as that point - and constructing law that protects a fetus from harm in a way different from the way we protect humans (homo sapiens who have been born) - WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COICE OF ABORTION - since it presents such a unique circumstance?

Fishin' - I am not especially au fait with how the law works in America - but I would have thought that a possible concern for pro-choice people would be that, if the law were changed as proposed, once the first successful prosecution under such a law occurred, then lawyers acting for pro-life groups would be able to cite this as a relevant precedent re murder/manslaughter of a foetus and take it as far as the Supreme Court?

When does human life begin?

According to devlopmental biologists, human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes a human ovum.

Need I say more?

The relevance that is carries is that Laci Peterson was brought up as an example (by Lola)

and the date clearly demonstrates that her case was not in any way, a consideration in drafting the law - exactly as you stated.

This law would not have protected Laci Peterson's baby or any other fetus.

Quote:

So you counter with your own brand? Hence the two wrongs don't make a right comment.

Yup. My comment was intended to be a tongue in cheek response intended to demnostrate the absurdity of the "religious conservative Republicans" comment. Apparently people took notice.

Really? Which unrelated laws cover this? There is another case pending in NC which is somewheat similar. A woman, 7.5 months pregnant was murdered. The accused is being held on one charge. No additional charges are available nor is there any additional penalty for the fact that the woman was 7.5 months pregnant. When this bill was in the Judicary Committee in the House there were 4 other cases that were covered where there was no additional charges/penalties available to prosecute the offenders with. At the Federal level, there AREN'T "other laws". What is unmitigated bull here is the claim that the bill infringes on abortion rights.

Quote:

B) Nobody wants the woman to have less of a right to bear her child. Straw man.

Straw man yourself. Where did I ever say they did? What I said was that they weren't holding the abortion and having the child options on the Freedom of Choice decision on equeal levels.

The right to have the child exists and we have proof that people are being denied that right.

Call it a bicycle. Call it a car. Call it whatever you'd like. The reduction of a fetus to mere property wasn't done by me and ought to be offensive to anyone. It is also a faulty view of standing law.

Quote:

Please point out my straw men. When I called your arguments straw men I pointed them out and explained why I think so.

Look at your responses. You didn't counter most of the points nor did you counter the overall idea. You made lots of accusations of red herrings and straw man arguments. "Nice straw man you have there" is a rebuttal and/or explanation????

Another example:
Terry said "Like any other property, she may dispose of it if she chooses but must be compensated for any harm done to it by others."

to wit I commented: "Property? Compensated? So the woman should be handed $20 and told to be on her way? What is the cash value of a fetus nowadays?"

And then you followed with: "What's the value of an adult's life these days? The difficulty in quantifying value of life that does not have a policy taken out on it is one not particular to this case."

The original point raised there was that the fetus has (or should have) no status other than property and that the woman "must be compensated" which I commented on and then you commented that it isn't particular to this case.

You disected the comment and chose to focus on one line and missed the point entirely. The value is irrelevant. The issue I questioned is the reduction of the fetus to property and afixing a value to that "property".

ferrous wrote

Quote:

Your argument was too quick to split hairs rather than deal with the intent of the article.

New Haven simply wrote "It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"?

Once again -- who are you to say that a human being has God-given virtures. And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?

Among alot of other stuff, Craven said--

2) You create straw men by saying that persons here do not consider the woman's right to bear her child as unquestionable. You imply that they are less interested in this than in protecting the woman's right to choose.

----------------------

Craven is unaware that he has fallen into the debating faux pax of nobo binobo, which means he quickly discounts other's opinions, by overuse of terms like straw man and red herring and circular logic.

How about ix-nay on the raw man stay, and looking at what fishin' said? I think he's right. NOW is much more concerned about the Peterson child NOT being considered alive at the time of his murder than justice being served in the Peterson case. This is a legitimate comment.

I know I'm nuts to put my foot in this pile, but all the nobo binobo seems like a dodge.

fishin' wrote:

The relevance that is carries is that Laci Peterson was brought up as an example (by Lola)

Lola did not bring up Laci.

fishin' wrote:

Really? Which unrelated laws cover this? There is another case pending in NC which is somewheat similar. A woman, 7.5 months pregnant was murdered. The accused is being held on one charge. No additional charges are available nor is there any additional penalty for the fact that the woman was 7.5 months pregnant. When this bill was in the Judicary Committee in the House there were 4 other cases that were covered where there was no additional charges/penalties available to prosecute the offenders with. At the Federal level, there AREN'T "other laws". What is unmitigated bull here is the claim that the bill infringes on abortion rights.

Explain how a person can willfully kill an unborn child against the mother's consent with impunity. Your example does not illustrate impunity. It illustrates the lack of a law that is the subject at hand. The argument was raised that such a law was not needed, you intend to show it's need by illustrating it's absence? That is absurd. Show us how someone can intentionally kill a baby against the mother's wishes with legal impunity. That would be a better argument for the law, not an example showing the lack of said law. What you did is called circular logic.

fishin' wrote:

Call it a bicycle. Call it a car. Call it whatever you'd like. The reduction of a fetus to mere property wasn't done by me and ought to be offensive to anyone. It is also a faulty view of standing law.

Adult humans are routinely characterized as assets, even property (ever eveluate the worth of a sports team?). Humans are routinely bought and sold. It's a nice notion that humans should not be property but hardly exclusive to this subject.