Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

[Bodi]

Help me out here. Where in the bill/law does it note what animals are affected by this law? There is no clear title to a section that indicates this. Because without this, by my reading of the sections you cited, it is illegal to cause an animal to die as a food animal, such as a cow, or even a chicken or pig.

That said, still nothing about consumption of any given animal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Part 1
Protection of wildlife
3 Wildlife to be protected
Subject to the provisions of this Act, all wildlife is hereby declared to be subject to this Act and (except in the case of wildlife for the time being specified in Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, Schedule 4, or Schedule 5) to be absolutely protected throughout New Zealand and New Zealand fisheries waters.

Wildlife Act 1953 No 31 (as at 21 December 2018), Public Act 3 Wildlife to be protected – New Zealand Legislation

 

[code1211]

No they have clearly separated human being from the fetus.

Separated them by bestowing the same protections upon them.

They have an interesting methodology to their segregationist actions.

 

[code1211]

Which definition?

Go for it you clearly need it.

Which definition? The one you cited.

Are you reading your own posts?

 

[maquiscat]

Part 1
Protection of wildlife
3 Wildlife to be protected
Subject to the provisions of this Act, all wildlife is hereby declared to be subject to this Act and (except in the case of wildlife for the time being specified in Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, Schedule 4, or Schedule 5) to be absolutely protected throughout New Zealand and New Zealand fisheries waters.

Wildlife Act 1953 No 31 (as at 21 December 2018), Public Act 3 Wildlife to be protected – New Zealand Legislation

Ok so wild life. Fair enough. But still doesn't counter my point. There is still nothing on consumption. Additionally, I am sure there is still hunting of wildlife, such as venison animals and other fowl. Furthermore, if any given animal was farm raised, then it is not wildlife. So again, what law out there prevents the consumption of any given animal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[prometeus]

Which definition? The one you cited.

I did not cite any, only poiubnted out that you ate clueless about the difference between definitions and interpretation.

Are you reading your own posts?

Clearly you are not.

 

[prometeus]

Nope the fetus is not uninvited. There is a necessary procedure a woman must go through with a male partner in order for a fetus to form.

You can't even imagine how utterly stupid is your post.

 

[Bodi]

Ok so wild life. Fair enough. But still doesn't counter my point. There is still nothing on consumption. Additionally, I am sure there is still hunting of wildlife, such as venison animals and other fowl. Furthermore, if any given animal was farm raised, then it is not wildlife. So again, what law out there prevents the consumption of any given animal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I never said that there was such a thing... I said that animals have rights and I have proven that they do.

 

[code1211]

I did not cite any, only poiubnted out that you ate clueless about the difference between definitions and interpretation.

Clearly you are not.

You have the right to communicate, such as you might do, with others.

You have the right to use English and the current rules that govern its use.

Having any right does not reflect the possession of matching abilities. This last part should help with any frustration you may encounter.

 

[Lursa]

Then those women would need to be responsible adults and not get pregnant, or use other forms of contraceptives to keep such an event from happening. This isn't exactly rocket science here.

Been camping for a week or so, but here are some answers to your inaccurate assumptions. Or at least, food for your thoughts.

Not sure how out of touch with the human race you have to be to believe that people will start choosing to have less sex...one of the most enjoyable, satisfying, and bonding activities on the planet.*

*All thru history...and prehistory...people have had sex when it meant a high risk of death, disease, and social consequences for both men and women. STDs, death during childbirth, being disowned, publicly flogged or otherwise punished, exiled, no chance at decent jobs, etc etc etc...alot of those affected men too.

People are never going to stop enjoying sex and today, with safer, legal options to choose for accidental pregnancies, it's ludicrous to believe they will.


Actually, 68 percent of women of childbearing years in the US use artificial birth control consistently.

Another 22 percent:

-- Cannot become become pregnant due to a medical condition or procedure. (infertile or have been diagnosed as such)
-- Or are currently pregnant and thus are not currently using birth control

That leaves 10 percent who do not use artificial birth control for whatever reason (some may be using the so called rhythm method. Or similar natural methods)


And now for the math:

--80-90% of American couples use birth control/have sex responsibly

--non-surgical birth control is only ~98% effective

--millions of Americans have sex millions and millions of times every day

--this means that there will still be 10s of thousands of accidental pregnancies every day.​

Yes, that's right. 10's of thousands every day after women/couples having sex responsibly.

As for women being responsible when they choose abortion? Of course it can be a very responsible decision:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

You are correct...it's not rocket science. People are not going to stop enjoying sex, doing it responsibly, OR making the most responsible decisions that are in the best interests of their lives, their responsibilities to their families (current dependents of all sorts), or their commitments and obligations to their employers, communities, society, etc.

Do you believe that women/couples are going to decide to have less responsible sex? Do you believe that having responsible sex is 'irresponsible?'

 

[prometeus]

You have the right to communicate, such as you might do, with others.

You have the right to use English and the current rules that govern its use.

Having any right does not reflect the possession of matching abilities. This last part should help with any frustration you may encounter.

I have no frustrations, but clearly you do as you are still clueless not only pon the topic but your own posts too.
Congrats on spotting the typo, it was a good one.

 

[code1211]

I have no frustrations, but clearly you do as you are still clueless not only pon the topic but your own posts too.
Congrats on spotting the typo, it was a good one.

I had to track back to see what typo you were referencing. I did not refer to the typo nor did i really take note of it in reading it.

I posted a definition from a legal dictionary and you said that I needed to understand the difference between definition and interpretation. I do.

You may want to review your own understanding of these words.

 

[prometeus]

I had to track back to see what typo you were referencing. I did not refer to the typo nor did i really take note of it in reading it.

I posted a definition from a legal dictionary and you said that I needed to understand the difference between definition and interpretation.

Post number?

 

[Lursa]

Abortion is against science and its against common sense, its murder plain and simple. We need to ban it altogether, this article hits the nail right on the head.
Penny Nance: World'''s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense | Fox News

Was gone camping for awhile and just perusing this topic...didnt see much in response from you, OP.

But here's something that addresses the 'common sense' aspect of your OP (recently also part of a response to another poster, but perhaps you would address it?):

Abortion can be a very responsible decision:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

How is making a responsible decision "against common sense?" What things, listed above, are not 'common sense' decisions?

 

[Lursa]

The right isn't telling anyone what they can do with their body. The topic of abortion has always concerned the life of the child, not the mothers body.

Thank you for that admission.

As such, it's hard to imagine that so many pro-life people believe that they hold the moral High Ground on the issue.

 

[Lursa]

Depends on how you come to the conclusion that a fetus has no value as a life?

Who says it has no value?

How about this: why do you value the unborn more than the woman? At risk is the entirety of a life (not just breathing) for either...why should the govt be given the legal power to force a decision on the woman?

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. Now you answer: why do you value the unborn more than women?

 

[Lursa]

If it the object being removed didn't have value as a life. I would find no reason to disagree with you. Though I will admit that there are two very extreme splits on the divide of the fetus being an actual life, or if it's just a lump of flesh.

I'm all for making exceptions. But in my opinion if one is to put a value on life, then that fetus must be treated as if it's value was just a viable to any child, minutes from being born.

Science is objective and applies no value to anything. Man does that. Value is subjective.

So then, 'who says' the unborn must be treated the same as if it was a child? While it might be nice for 'every fetus to be born,' that's not realistic for the lives of all women and even for society.

And in the US, women have rights. Rights that would be violated if the govt were to recognize rights for the unborn...which SCOTUS has examined and decided the unborn are not equal and not recognized any rights. (SCOTUS did the same in the past for blacks and women...and found them/us equal).

So as nice as it might be for all to be born, we can only protect women's rights or affect abortion with laws. All laws are man-made.

Here's why IMO, the unborn should not be given protections that would violate women's rights...they have not yet and may not ever survive to be born. And as such. are not equal:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (with due process).​

Why do you believe that the laws should suborn women's rights in order to give the same exact rights to the unborn? (If it should even survive to birth/not be born severely defective)

 

[Lursa]

Tantamount to the murder of a child. Prison time, not withstand the parent, or parents in question. Being able to prove that they did not intentionally do as such. Accidents from everyday events can be just as hazardous to the life of the child. So I would like to make sure that the parents are protected as well as can be, in case it was actually an accident that caused such an event to come to pass.

As well as having the child remanded into the custody of the state after it's born. Should it actually survive the original event. With the parents being given a stern punishment comparable to attempted murder.

Whew! So much for 'less govt intrusion' in our lives. All those personal investigations, medical privacy out the window, miscarriages investigated...sounds unConstitutional and very expensive.

As for remanding the kids to the state...there are already over 400,000 kids in foster care in the US, and over 100,000 available for adoption. To me, it's unconsionable to encourage women unnecessarily to give birth. That means that for every kid already aware and hoping for a new home, each new infant added to that pool means it's that much less likely they'll get a new family.

How do you justify that? It's expensive of course, but these kids are waiting, knowing, perhaps even suffering...in hopes of finding a home. And each new infant reduces their chances.

My view is that quality of life is more important than quantity. That life is more than just breathing. Your view may be different, perhaps you will explain?

 

[Lursa]

Abortion is against science

Abortion -- against science? That doesn't make sense in my mind. That would be like saying that any surgery is against science.

Explain how it is "against science."

This article is agitprop of the worst description.

Explain to me why I should stand down, and NOT fight against folks like you, who, in your desperation, want to remove a constitutional right from women?

These are really key, I'd love to see responses to these.

 

[Lursa]

My entire question for this is when does this fetus/child start to have the same rights and privileges that any other human is capable of possessing and what is the validation for such a bestowing of affirmed value?

Well I think by now it's clear that since science is objective and applies no value to anything, our laws are not based solely on scientific classification as Homo sapiens.

Rights are a man-made concept, and subjective. Value is also subjective. As previously mentioned, there can be no changes to abortion without laws (which are based on rights). The govt has indeed answered your question (that I bolded) above:

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.

It's not random or arbitrary. It occurs at the point where the govt can protect the life of the unborn without violating the rights of the woman carrying it (with due process). At the point where the unborn is finally capable of exercising at least some of its rights independently and can be treated as an equal.

 

[Lursa]

I never said I was unwilling to compromise in the amount of time that should pass before a fetus matures, to the point it's life should be considered absolute. I have also stated that I am completely fine with such procedures and that my same sense of compromise fully extends to them as well. I'm fine with fetal tissue testing and stem cell research as well.

I'm just a proponent for a standard of operation, that can be agreed upon by all, and while I recognize that such an ideal is rather.. shall we say, unlikely. A prominent consensus would be the best way for us to go about this.

On the topic of why conservatives aren't going after them. I think it mostly surrounds the fact that only a small amount of the most ardent conservatives are the "life at conception" variety.

If it's human life that you value...what distinctions are you making 'in the spirit of compromise' for these IVF embryos or those inside women (up to about 5 weeks according to you, by which time a woman cant even confirm she's missed a period :doh That's dishonest, it's no 'compromise.')

Why are you willing to accept destroying those IVF embryos/early pregnancy embryos if they are all equal, deserving of rights? What's the distinction?

If you cant make the same 'compromise for a 2 yr old and a 4 yr old toddler...what's the distinction here? ^^

Tough questions? Yup. And if you feel you have the right to demand that the govt force women (by law) to remain pregnant against their will, I think they deserve answers.

 

[uptower]

Whew! So much for 'less govt intrusion' in our lives. All those personal investigations, medical privacy out the window, miscarriages investigated...sounds unConstitutional and very expensive.

Don't be silly. Conservatives only want a less intrusive govt when it protects Trump's tax returns. Otherwise they want to stop gays hooking up, force people who've voted all their lives to 'prove' they're citizens, teach the Bible in school and control women's reproductive organs.

The 'no intrusion' bit only applies to them apparently.

 

[Lursa]

Re: There is a price tag, & when you exceed it, everything goes into slow motion

Money isn't the reason women don't get prenatal care. There's a variety of reasons.

It's not? Let's see you provide some support for that. Because I'm pretty sure that's the primary reason and most of the others are linked to finances too.

However it's also good to remember that most pro-life people are also clamoring to close down PP and other such facilities which provide exactly those services...free or substantially subsidized.

 

[Lursa]

The brain wavbes are readable much earlier than your source indicates.

The brain is not fully developed until about 25 years after birth. Synapses will continue to develop throughout a lifetime.

'The Ethical Brain' - The New York Times

<snip>
Even though the fetus is now developing areas that will become specific sections of the brain, not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur.
<snip>
During weeks 8 to 10, the cerebrum begins its development in earnest. Neurons proliferate and begin their migration throughout the brain. The anterior commissure, which is the first interhemispheric connection (a small one), also develops. Reflexes appear for the first time during this period.
<snip>
By the time a child is born, the brain largely resembles that of an adult but is far from finished with development. The cortex will continue to increase in complexity for years, and synapse formation will continue for a lifetime.
<snip>

Blacks and women could fully exercise their rights when SCOTUS examined their/our cases and determined they/us as equals and recognized our rights. (SCOTUS did the same for the unborn and decided the opposite, of course).

Here's why their decision makes sense IMO:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (with due process).​

It's a very clear distinction. How do you justify violating women's rights in order to 'recognize rights' for something with no capacity to exercise ANY? OTOH, women and slaves were fully capable of doing so when recognized as equals.

 

[Lursa]

A BC pill has instructions, as does that same antibiotic. Not to mention, that when the condom breaks. That there are plenty of other options to accompany it, such like IEDs.

Your claim was about responsibility. People using the Pill and condoms are being responsible...but accidents happen. No non-surgical bc is 100% and everyone knows that. So is your basic view that people should just not have sex then? Or if they do, accept having a kid they dont want or cant afford? And it's downright ludicrous for married couples who cant yet afford or care for kids.

That 'view' has been demonstrated as a complete fail for millenia basically, and certainly for decades now with better bc. So your view on punishing people even when they act responsibly seems unrealistic, not rational, and not a valid foundation for restricting elective abortion.

(And it's IUDs)

 

[Lursa]

Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Again I never said there weren't abortions, I never said they were sanitary.

Avoiding answering the question is not answering.

My point stands unless you can show evidence to the contrary from a reputable source.

Our parents ( maybe not yours ), and their parents before them, were able to better manage pregnancies than people today despite all the birth controls that are currently available. Parents were able to space their children out ( usually 1.5-2 years apart ) with amazing success. As a result there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than there is today.

:doh 1.5 to 2 yrs is because many more women back then were breast feeding and for longer periods and that confers a good deal of natural birth control.

And let's see some sources that show pregnancies today are occurring more frequently at less than that period (1.5-2 yrs) please?