Abortion.What do you think about it?

It's a medical document that upholds a person's legal status. Assertion done.

Diest TKO wrote:

It's a medical document that upholds a person's legal status. Assertion done.

Medical groups such as the American Academy of Family Physicians regard the unborn as a separate patient.

The birth certificate records an event (birth) but does not address the question of personhood.

Obviously the unborn is alive (would you dispute that?) while in the womb. The body of the unborn meets all of the criteria of a living being, i.e. evidence of metabolism, growth, etc.

The unborn is also a human being (any evidence to suggest otherwise?) before he/she is born because it is obvious that he/she is not any other type of creature.

The unborn has 46 chromosomes and is fully, genetically human from the moment of conception.

The date of birth is simply the first occasion (traditionally) where the unborn can be easily observed (since he/she is no longer in the womb) and therefore the birth certificate records vital data , i.e. length , weight, handprint, etc. But the birth certificate does not address the personhood of the unborn.

You have provided no medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

It's a medical document that upholds a person's legal status. Assertion done.

Medical groups such as the American Academy of Family Physicians regard the unborn as a separate patient.

The birth certificate records an event (birth) but does not address the question of personhood.

Obviously the unborn is alive (would you dispute that?) while in the womb. The body of the unborn meets all of the criteria of a living being, i.e. evidence of metabolism, growth, etc.

The unborn is also a human being (any evidence to suggest otherwise?) before he/she is born because it is obvious that he/she is not any other type of creature.

The unborn has 46 chromosomes and is fully, genetically human from the moment of conception.

The date of birth is simply the first occasion (traditionally) where the unborn can be easily observed (since he/she is no longer in the womb) and therefore the birth certificate records vital data , i.e. length , weight, handprint, etc. But the birth certificate does not address the personhood of the unborn.

You have provided no medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

So predictable. What comedy.

As said before, you can prove that a fetus is a alive, you can name it, you can test it's DNA and show that it is even human, but you can't prove it has individual life rights that aren't given to it by the mother. The birth certificate is more than just a record of sucessful birth.

As for a fetus being treated as another patient, of course. that makes perfect sense. But let me ask, who makes the decisions for the fetus? Not the fetus. You can't deny that.

Mother's choice. Same as always. consistant.

If we allow 'rights' to be defined as something that any individual can take from us on a whim, then none of us will have ANY rights , in any meaningful sense of the word.

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

Don't you understand that rights are not rights if they can be taken away on a whim?

If the unborn only has a 'right' to life if the mother wants to allow him to survive, then that's not a 'right' in any real sense of the word.

If one individual can determine whether another has the 'right' to live based on how they feel when they wake up in the morning, then that's not a 'right' at all.

real life wrote:

If we allow 'rights' to be defined as something that any individual can take from us on a whim, then none of us will have ANY rights , in any meaningful sense of the word.

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

The choice to give life rights doesn't come from several people. It comes from the mother, a singularity.

If you are advocating for making abortion illeagel, you are saying in essencse that those things that you listed SHOULD BE ABLE to be taken "at whim."

As for majority opinion, truth is not dictated by democracy. I could presnt a vote on what emotion I am feeling at the moment and it woun't matter how you vote or how well you argue, I wouldn't feel "happy" on the basis that a mojority voted on happy.

Our country is at odds. The world for that matter. Concensus, not majority rules will help us. You are going to have to live with abortion in this world, just as other's who believe in choice coexist with you.

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

The choice to give life rights doesn't come from several people. It comes from the mother, a singularity.

Quote:

If you are advocating for making abortion illeagel, you are saying in essencse that those things that you listed SHOULD BE ABLE to be taken "at whim."

No, I'm not.

Quote:

As for majority opinion, truth is not dictated by democracy. I could presnt a vote on what emotion I am feeling at the moment and it woun't matter how you vote or how well you argue, I wouldn't feel "happy" on the basis that a mojority voted on happy.

I understand your point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimate truth is a matter of individual experience. But the conventional truth would be decided by the majority of voters, in much the same way that your rights are determined. If your pro-choice belief was not supported by law, then on what grounds do you think you would base your opinion?

Quote:

Our country is at odds. The world for that matter. Concensus, not majority rules will help us. You are going to have to live with abortion in this world, just as other's who believe in choice coexist with you.

That is exactly what you and I are doing.

And of course:



America's abortion battlefield

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Rights aren't being taken, there being given, by choice.

That's right, Diest. But your rights exist only because enough people have agreed to give them to you. Those same people could just as easily take them away, strip you of your property, even take your life, and you could do nothing about it but cry. Since right and wrong are purely subjective, receiving authority from majority opinion, how could you object? Would you?

The choice to give life rights doesn't come from several people. It comes from the mother, a singularity.

Quote:

If you are advocating for making abortion illeagel, you are saying in essencse that those things that you listed SHOULD BE ABLE to be taken "at whim."

No, I'm not.

Quote:

As for majority opinion, truth is not dictated by democracy. I could presnt a vote on what emotion I am feeling at the moment and it woun't matter how you vote or how well you argue, I wouldn't feel "happy" on the basis that a mojority voted on happy.

I understand your point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimate truth is a matter of individual experience. But the conventional truth would be decided by the majority of voters, in much the same way that your rights are determined. If your pro-choice belief was not supported by law, then on what grounds do you think you would base your opinion?

Quote:

Our country is at odds. The world for that matter. Concensus, not majority rules will help us. You are going to have to live with abortion in this world, just as other's who believe in choice coexist with you.

That is exactly what you and I are doing.

If abortion was illegal right now, I'd still be basing my stance on the mother's right to choose. Beyond that (assuming it was illeagal) I'd be very critical of laws that would put such a huge burden on adoption programs that simply cna't handle the load. I'd still be basing my stance on families needing to be enabled to raise their children sucessfully. My stance would still be that the stadardization of values is a bad thing. My stance as mush as it is about "rights," a legal issue, it's just as much about culture.

As for removing rights at whim, what I gather from what you have said is that whatever a simple majority votes should become law and that's it. typically I'd just say well duh, that's law, but with abortion, it's not like other issues to vote on as it is so personal. You'd have people voting on it whom it would never affect. So as a mother who wants to keep her choice, she'd have her right to choose being decided by other people.

A choice would still be made. I'm just more comfortab;e with the mother, not others making that choice. Many people who are for making abortion illegal are fine with taking the choices others make and making them for them because it's a system that can't ever come back at them; It's not like they will be having people mandate thir choices any time soon.

And of course:



America's abortion battlefield

And of course:



America's abortion battlefield

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And of course:



America's abortion battlefield