Page 1 of 145 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 1447

Thread: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

  1. #1
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,121
    Blog Entries
    17

    [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    "Protection of unborn children"

    This thread was inspired by exchanges with

    minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic

    --DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--

    whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb

    opened my eyes

    --a newcomer to abortion debate--

    opened my eyes

    to the confusion at law

    and to the cultural confusion

    underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.

    The Law has confused them

    and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.

    This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

    18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
    (d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

    18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Are we all paying attention?

    "a member of the species homo sapiens"

    or as the federal law reads in another place:

    (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

    I say, are we paying attention?

    "a human being"

    Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
    Abortion 101
    Abortion 201
    AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

    Think
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  2. #2
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    12-04-19 @ 09:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,358

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    "Protection of unborn children"

    This thread was inspired by exchanges with

    minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic

    --DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--

    whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb

    opened my eyes

    --a newcomer to abortion debate--

    opened my eyes

    to the confusion at law

    and to the cultural confusion

    underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.

    The Law has confused them

    and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.

    This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

    18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
    (d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

    18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Are we all paying attention?

    "a member of the species homo sapiens"

    or as the federal law reads in another place:

    (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

    I say, are we paying attention?

    "a human being"

    Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
    Abortion 101
    Abortion 201
    AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

    Think
    This really isn't that hard. When something or someone is attached to and receiving from your own body, you have a right to end such. When it is in someone else's body you do not have that right. Being human or not, being already born or not, being an adult or not, none of that matters, because of bodily autonomy.

    This is why the father can't abort or force it to term when it is in the mother's body. This is why the mother can't abort or force it to term when it is in a surrogate's body. And that is also why it is important for someone else to terminate the ZEF, or unborn child if you wish, while still in the mother against her wishes. It's not their body.

    Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

    My leaving the conversation does not indicate you won. It means that real life took priority, or I have just tired of your idiocy.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,121
    Blog Entries
    17

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    This really isn't that hard. When something or someone is attached to and receiving from your own body, you have a right to end such. When it is in someone else's body you do not have that right. Being human or not, being already born or not, being an adult or not, none of that matters, because of bodily autonomy.

    This is why the father can't abort or force it to term when it is in the mother's body. This is why the mother can't abort or force it to term when it is in a surrogate's body. And that is also why it is important for someone else to terminate the ZEF, or unborn child if you wish, while still in the mother against her wishes. It's not their body.

    Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
    Had you read my moral argument in the linked threads, you would know that the point you make here in this post is wasted on me. My moral argument is a principled argument for the women's autonomy, existential freedom, right to choose, etc. In other words, you're preaching to the choir here and missing the point of this thread: the point of this thread is the muddled legal thought involved the the abortion discussion and the resultant muddleheaded arguments from Pro-Abortion advocates like our Four Horsewomen and perhaps you too. Tell us, is the fetus a human being or not?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  4. #4
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    20,714
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    A fetus is no more a human BEING than a catirpiller is a butterfly.

    Human =/= human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,121
    Blog Entries
    17

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    A fetus is no more a human BEING than a catirpiller is a butterfly.

    Human =/= human being.
    So US Law is confused?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  6. #6
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    20,714
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    So US Law is confused?
    Yes. To conflate human cells with human beings, and thereby legally growing them with the rights of thinking, reasoning, self aware beings is nothing short of confused.

    Thought experiment (you seem to like these)

    In the future, technology will allow us to enhance yourself either genetically, or with cybernetics. Think, eye replacements that have 100 zoom, and infrared spectrum, data bank implants that will allow us photographic memory of specific things, like, legal codes, etc. Consider that we already have mechanical organs and joints. One human life span ago, that was science fiction. 3 human life spans ago, we all read by candle light, road horses, and died from catching a cold.

    In such a world, a persons mind fails theme, despite their body being strong. They agreed to donate their body to science, just as people do today. And the experiment is, can we place a full artificial "brain" into a human body, and will it function? Watson, with a human body. And they succeed? Is that a human being?

    Flip side, a person like Stephen hawking is born...solid mind, useless body. We remove the mind, and put it inside an artificial body. Is that still a human being?

    What say you? And why?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  7. #7
    Little Miss Sunshine
    TheGoverness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Nacogdoches, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    32,830

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Oh, brother.
    "Everyone makes mistakes. It's what makes us human."
    CLASS OF 2021
    PRIDE

  8. #8
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    04-01-19 @ 10:25 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    149

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    As the devils advocate ( it's ok, I know you dont accept his existence either) I have to say that you should CONTINUE in your ways of curtailing your 'responsibility' by the furtherence of abortion. Also, there is this topic of killing homosexuals and adulterers. I feel...well WE feel that this is probably the best way to handle the issue as well. You see there is no better remedy than to just eliminate your problem to make things better.
    We encourage homosexuality, adultery and abortion because it is your right to be whatever you want, to do whatever you want. Just like it is the right of other people to murder to take care of these issues that they feel plague their way of life.
    In fact, 'we' feel it is time to increase efforts to make more of these circumstance happen.
    Life is short so get busy people. And like 'we' said before,"Ye shall surely not die, but you will become like him knowing good from evil". And isnt that true. You have discerned good from evil and chosen as you will as gods over your own lives. Outstanding work!
    Get to it

  9. #9
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,346

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    "Protection of unborn children"

    This thread was inspired by exchanges with

    minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic

    --DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--

    whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb

    opened my eyes

    --a newcomer to abortion debate--

    opened my eyes

    to the confusion at law

    and to the cultural confusion

    underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.

    The Law has confused them

    and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.

    This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

    18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
    (d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

    18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Are we all paying attention?

    "a member of the species homo sapiens"

    or as the federal law reads in another place:

    (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

    I say, are we paying attention?

    "a human being"

    Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
    Abortion 101
    Abortion 201
    AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

    Think
    Please keep my name out of your querulous OPs. Thank you.

  10. #10
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,088

    re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    So US Law is confused?
    It's not confused at all. In some cases however, unConstitutional laws do stand merely because there have been no challenges. If no one in a state objects to that state's charges for killing the unborn, then it stands. It does not change the federal recognition of the unborn as designated by SCOTUS in multiple decisions however.

    1 U.S. Code: SS 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

    (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.
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 1 of 145 1231151101 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •