• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chile lawmakers lift abortion ban

Lursa said:
It certainly is Homo sapiens. If it's not...then what is it? What kind of baseline are you using for anything else? Is it medical? Biological? Biblical? Philosophical? Legal?

As for the Chileans, they are basing their 'law' on a religious belief. And it's consistent....illegal, period, any stage.
Click to expand...

It is Homo sapiens only in its potential. The same potential is present in any separate pair of egg and sperm. As we get closer to the third trimester, human features emerge.

As for our Chileans, that's exactly the problem: It is NOT illegal anymore - in the case of rape. As if a human being ceases to be such if she is a product of rape.
 
Cyrylek said:
It is Homo sapiens only in its potential. The same potential is present in any separate pair of egg and sperm. As we get closer to the third trimester, human features emerge.

As for our Chileans, that's exactly the problem: It is NOT illegal anymore - in the case of rape. As if a human being ceases to be such if she is a product of rape.
Click to expand...

This (bold) is factually wrong. It has human DNA, it is Homo sapiens. It is basic biology.

So exactly what 'human features' *in your opinion* must be present for abortion to be illegal for unborn humans?
 
Cyrylek said:
I see...in this instance, killing of an innocent, helpless person is just one of those things that can be rationalized/justified by the point of view or the emotional state of the killer. Remarkable.
Click to expand...
Whether you find it remarkable or not is irrelevant, reality is what it is and given the lack of rational reasoning in your post, clearly understanding reality is not in your scope or capacity.
 
Lursa said:
This (bold) is factually wrong. It has human DNA, it is Homo sapiens. It is basic biology.
Click to expand...

You are right. I meant a human person.

Lursa said:
So exactly what 'human features' *in your opinion* must be present for abortion to be illegal for unborn humans?
Click to expand...

Face recognizable as human, developed brain, ability to form memories, etc - there's no particular red line, it is a gradual process, and you cannot really say: here! it was not a baby a second ago, but now it is. But it is a baby when it is born, right? And when it is born, it is not any different from just before birth.

There's no binary solution to this problem. Like other similar questions - age of consent, for example - it can be resolved only by convention. Most modern societies consider somewhere between 12 (Germany, France, Denmark) and 18 (Sweden) weeks to be the deadline for ethically allowable abortion (unless medically necessary). Sounds acceptable to me.
 
prometeus said:
Whether you find it remarkable or not is irrelevant, reality is what it is and given the lack of rational reasoning in your post, clearly understanding reality is not in your scope or capacity.
Click to expand...

So, you are fine with the "reality" of someone legally killing a human being (someone who believes it is a human being) to alleviate his or her emotional distress?
 
Cyrylek said:
It's interesting how a simple question just cannot be read, let alone answered.

One last attempt. For whatever reason, right or wrong, in a given culture, under a given jurisdiction, the fetus is considered a human being at time X during gestation. Abortion is banned at time X, because you do not kill human beings. Except, they say now, if this human being is a fruit of a rape. I don't see how this exception can be justified. How?
Click to expand...

Because the abortionists see the child as a parasitic inconvenience. That's how they justify.

Don't expect to get an honest answers.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
No problem. I've been in the abortion debate for awhile and when pro lifers call abortions "convenience abortions" I know what they mean by that since it was explained to me a long time ago. Never did I purposely forgot like some pro choicers here do to play mental gymnastics with you. I'm not like that. It's good that you can spot stuff like that like I do to save time.
Click to expand...

Speaking of mental gymnastics, this thread is about a law in Chile allowing abortions in cases of rape and where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother

Which of those are "inconveniences"? Rape? Death?
 
sangha said:
Speaking of mental gymnastics, this thread is about a law in Chile allowing abortions in cases of rape and where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother

Which of those are "inconveniences"? Rape? Death?
Click to expand...

You need to read back trough the thread before you embarrass yourself more.
 
Cyrylek said:
So, you are fine with the "reality" of someone legally killing a human being (someone who believes it is a human being) to alleviate his or her emotional distress?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am fine with it in case of abortion. Let me know when you find an example outside of abortion that also falls in that category.
 
Cyrylek said:
You are right. I meant a human person.



Face recognizable as human, developed brain, ability to form memories, etc - there's no particular red line, it is a gradual process, and you cannot really say: here! it was not a baby a second ago, but now it is. But it is a baby when it is born, right? And when it is born, it is not any different from just before birth.

There's no binary solution to this problem. Like other similar questions - age of consent, for example - it can be resolved only by convention. Most modern societies consider somewhere between 12 (Germany, France, Denmark) and 18 (Sweden) weeks to be the deadline for ethically allowable abortion (unless medically necessary). Sounds acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

Your criteria are still completely 'personal' to you. Is there a medical text that confirms your opinion?

Correct it varies in different countries, and we use rule of law here for that. It is not random or arbitrary, it takes place when the 'person' is capable of acting on society and society is capable of acting on the person (with consent of the mother and/or without violating her rights except with due process). And yes, a newborn starts manipulating society...its caregivers...as soon as it is born.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
So, you are fine with the "reality" of someone legally killing a human being (someone who believes it is a human being) to alleviate his or her emotional distress?
Click to expand...

Who believes it? Under current laws, a woman may make her decision based on 'what she believes.' She's the only one whose 'belief' matters in HER circumstances. She has the right to make the best decision for herself and her family, current and future. No one else knows that better than she, nor is entitled to do so.
 
Lursa said:
Who believes it? Under current laws, a woman may make her decision based on 'what she believes.' She's the only one whose 'belief' matters in HER circumstances.
Click to expand...

Under the current Chilean law that is the topic of this thread, that is not the case. Assumption is being made that the unborn is a human being - otherwise abortion would be legalized, not just allowed in the case of rape.
 
Cyrylek said:
Assumption is being made that the unborn is a human being
Click to expand...
Based on what? Can you cite anything in the Chilean law(s) that point to that?
For instance, Catholic dogma does not make that distinction and Chile more than likely is basing their laws on that.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Do you now remember what pro lifers mean by "convenience abortions"? If you ever forget again, I'll repost the message again just to refresh your memory. :cool:
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any proof that those are 'convenience' abortions. Though it's mighty convenient that most of the people yapping about 'convenience' will never, ever be pregnant.
 
Cyrylek said:
"Most people" include myself. Nobody is doubting what a rape victim is going through. Once again, the question was: If we consider the baby/fetus a human being (and the Chilean law at this point does, at all stages of pregnancy - unlike you and me), what is the justification for its murder, in the case of rape? Surely, there is no other instance, in the Chilean law or any other legal code, when killing one person is justified by another person going through a horrible psychological ordeal?
Click to expand...

The unborn are not persons

And the law, both in the US and Chile, does allow for killing humans both born and unborn
 
Scrabaholic said:
I haven't seen any proof that those are 'convenience' abortions. Though it's mighty convenient that most of the people yapping about 'convenience' will never, ever be pregnant.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that there is nothing 'objectively factual' about 'convenience,' lol. It is a subjective opinion, different for every person.
 
WCH said:
Because the abortionists see the child as a parasitic inconvenience. That's how they justify.

Don't expect to get an honest answers.
Click to expand...

Mighty CONVENIENT for you that you will never, ever be pregnant.....
 
Scrabaholic said:
I haven't seen any proof that those are 'convenience' abortions.
Click to expand...

That's how pro lifers label certain abortions usually those done for economic and social reasons. The black wrote in from that list from me is how pro lifers typically use the term ''convenience abortion.''
 
minnie616 said:
Pro life has no idea what convenience really is.
Click to expand...

Feel free to ''correct'' them if you so wish.

minnie616 said:
They say convenience when they really mean social reasons..
Click to expand...

Social reasons and economic reasons or even ''unjustifiable abortions'' are labeled as ''convenience abortions'' by them or just ''convenient abortions'' whichever they use.

Just like for example ''ZEF'' can mean the developmental names (zygote, embryo, and fetus) that are given to prenatal humans in the womb or it can mean a slang word in certain cultures.


minnie616 said:
Why do say convenience instead of social reasons?
Click to expand...

I don't know ask them. From my experience with them so far on this site and many others, that's how they used the word ''convenience/convenient'' with abortion. From them telling me once what they meant by that, I never forgot.

minnie616 said:
Because they wish to dehumanize the woman.
Click to expand...

It's fine if you want to accuse them of ''dehumanizing'' woman when they call most abortions a matter of ''convenience.'' Just don't jump off the roof when pro lifers accuse you of ''dehumanizing'' prenatal humans by calling them ''ZEFs'' for example. But hey, you can fight with them over that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom