Should Philly Abortion Dr go to Prison for Muder?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.

The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?

And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.

If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.

Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]

And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]

Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]

They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]

So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]

Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.

To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.

Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.

What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?

Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[/quote]
Incorrect again.
Your statement: “Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.”
This is not even a strong inductive argument. All humans are entirely dependant on their surroundings to survive. There is no objective measure of such dependence.
The rest of your arguments all also either fai inductively or are entirely anecdotal or subjective. They are as you put it “just your two cents”.
Your last statement: “These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.”
I have said a few times now that I can surmise personhood to a zygote(more specifically stated above) with ONLY DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Theres no need to use any religious text WHATSOEVER.
It is lengthy, though, but I can provide it in text form over a few posts. I’d rather not though, because it is a shit ton of work.

62

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Not sure if this is historically accurate or not, but what about Spartans ‘throwing away defective babies’? Look at what they achieved.

I just watched ‘Freakonomics’ the other day, and they started talking about the ‘drop in crime’ around 1990ish, and what were the reasons for it. Of course the police tried to take credit for most of it saying how they were using ‘new’ tactics and ‘getting tough on crime’ etc. But what they allege caused ~45% of the drop in crime was because of Roe v. Wade, and that there simply wasn’t as many children that would’ve been born into poverty, eventually moving onto a life of crime.

Whether true or not, it’s something to think about.[/quote]

Current statistics say that ~1.37 million abortions are performed every year in the US. That’s a whole lot of unwanted children and does give some credit to this theory.

What I don’t understand is why people who are staunchly anti-abortion don’t support family planning with as much passion as they support their pro-life views.

63

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.

The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?

And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.

If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.

Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]

And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]

Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]

They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]

So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]

Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.[/quote]

So the second after children are born…they start feeding themselves, wash themselves, care for themselves, buy their own car, buy their own house, go to their own job on Wall Street, have their own kids. No, babies after birth are still completely dependent on the mother.

So you agree with pat in his OP, that it doesn’t if the child is born or not…if the child is dependent on the mother or parents they should be able to terminate the child.

So mentally handicap children should be terminated, too.

So as long as they kid is harder than normal to raise, we shouldn’t force the parents to take care of their child. Or does this include all children, even healthy children?

You sound very dogmatic in your statements, you did not prove that “abortion is murder are religious in nature.” You just claimed it definition of dogmatic.

I have to disagree with you, after all the great philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, Aquinas, Hobbes, and English and American jurisprudence, as well as many more, disagree with you. [/quote]

And many others agree with me.
Aristotle, Socrates and others existed at a time where pedophilia was morally acceptable, as was torture, slavery, rape, pillaging and whatnot.

The reason they thought abortion was bad was because they believed it would end the human’s soul’s journey. While they were against abortion, also because they said it would cause problems for the mother during the medical procedure, they did gave advice on how to induce a miscarriage.
The famous philosopher Rene Descartes (I think therefore I am), believed that animals did not feel pain because they had no minds and that the soul of the human resided in the pineal gland.

Just cause they were great thinkers does not mean they weren’t without fault; so, spare me.

It seems in the modern world that the majority of those who oppose abortion are religious.

“So as long as they kid is harder than normal to raise, we shouldn’t force the parents to take care of their child. Or does this include all children, even healthy children?”

People have abortions because they cannot afford having a child or don’t want one. What is it of my concern what ‘type’ of child it is?
I don’t see why people should be forced to raise a mentally retarded child. The key word is FORCED.
A mentally retarded person contributes very little to society and can be a burden on the parents. Some individuals have a problem with raising their children, having to see them suffer and whatnot. Does it mean they won’t be loved? No. Would they rather have a child who is not handicapped or has illness? Yes.
I find it extremely selfish to raise a child who has severe issues, mental or physical.
Do you know the life you are putting this person through? Just for the sake of your ‘morality’, you’re willing to make one or more individuals suffer a terrible fate. Most parents say they would die for their kids. I would and I certainly wouldn’t mine to live a life of suffering.
http://www.whypain.org/all_he_needs.html

"So you agree with pat in his OP, that it doesn’t if the child is born or not…if the child is dependent on the mother or parents they should be able to terminate the child.

So the second after children are born…they start feeding themselves, wash themselves, care for themselves, buy their own car, buy their own house, go to their own job on Wall Street, have their own kids. No, babies after birth are still completely dependent on the mother."

All children are dependent on their parents. Even teenagers are. It’s all about personhood. In the womb, it is not subject to interactions with anyone or anything other than what the mother passes on. It is not privy to any sort of stimuli. I fail to see why 2 months as opposed to 8 months, matters. It is a potential human.

Either way, your point is just a terrible strawman.

[/quote]
No, stimuli? Read the below, twins are social before birth.

64

[quote]firespinner93 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Not sure if this is historically accurate or not, but what about Spartans ‘throwing away defective babies’? Look at what they achieved.

I just watched ‘Freakonomics’ the other day, and they started talking about the ‘drop in crime’ around 1990ish, and what were the reasons for it. Of course the police tried to take credit for most of it saying how they were using ‘new’ tactics and ‘getting tough on crime’ etc. But what they allege caused ~45% of the drop in crime was because of Roe v. Wade, and that there simply wasn’t as many children that would’ve been born into poverty, eventually moving onto a life of crime.

Whether true or not, it’s something to think about.[/quote]

Current statistics say that ~1.37 million abortions are performed every year in the US. That’s a whole lot of unwanted children and does give some credit to this theory.

What I don’t understand is why people who are staunchly anti-abortion don’t support family planning with as much passion as they support their pro-life views. [/quote]

It’s about consistency and maintaining the dignity of the human person. While crime may have lowered due to abortion the ends do not justify the means. Abortion is really only a “necessity”, because of contraception/family planning. The reality is the issue of crime and unwanted children could better be solved, by first society at large, but mostly parents taking responsibility for their actions (I mean owning the fact that what they have done brought a child into this world and realizing it is not their right to kill it), if the parents are ill equipped to raise the child that’s time for the rest of us to step up to the plate. I know you aren’t going to agree with this, but contraception is like handing out drugs to addicts. You are essentially telling people, well you can’t control yourself, so we’ll just enable your habit. But in doing this you are then creating the “necessity” of abortion. So, people who are against abortion and contraception are just being consistent with the idea of the dignity of all human life.

(There are other reasons people will use also, like most contraception can be abortifacent)

65

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

contraception is like handing out drugs to addicts.
[/quote]

As much as that analogy would be helpful to you, it’s really not like that at all

66

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Not sure if this is historically accurate or not, but what about Spartans ‘throwing away defective babies’? Look at what they achieved.

I just watched ‘Freakonomics’ the other day, and they started talking about the ‘drop in crime’ around 1990ish, and what were the reasons for it. Of course the police tried to take credit for most of it saying how they were using ‘new’ tactics and ‘getting tough on crime’ etc. But what they allege caused ~45% of the drop in crime was because of Roe v. Wade, and that there simply wasn’t as many children that would’ve been born into poverty, eventually moving onto a life of crime.

Whether true or not, it’s something to think about.[/quote]

So the end justifies the means?

67

I am not particularly religious, however I have a difficult time rationalizing how a fetus is not a person. The dependency argument seems weak to me because that definitely does not end with birth. That an unplanned or unwanted child, particularly one with physical or mental challenges, is a terrible burden I cannot deny and abortion provides an expedient solution to this problem. It is very convenient for us as a society to have that option. It is however morally unacceptable to kill babies so, it seems to me, we’ve created this whole line of reasoning to circumvent that little problem by saying the fetus is not a person. I have never understood why this issue seems to break so strongly along religious lines or why you’re considered a religious nut-case if you have a problem with abortion. If a pregnant woman wants her baby and you kick her in the stomach you kill her baby. If she doesn’t want the child and has an abortion you simply excise a lump of tissue. How the fact that your parents don’t want you negates your personhood is simply beyond me.

68

[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
What I don’t understand is why people who are staunchly anti-abortion don’t support family planning with as much passion as they support their pro-life views. [/quote]

Where do you get this information, and what is your definition of family planning?

69

Is there any chance of not posting that babies picture, again and again and again?

Just asking.

70

[quote]orion wrote:
Is there any chance of not posting that babies picture, again and again and again?

Just asking.

[/quote]

lmao. Dunno why but couldn’t stop laughing when you said that… It isn’t exactly the most pleasant thing to see so I know what you mean.

71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
What I don’t understand is why people who are staunchly anti-abortion don’t support family planning with as much passion as they support their pro-life views. [/quote]

Where do you get this information, and what is your definition of family planning?[/quote]

My “information” is based on personal experience, and I define family planning as education and access to contraceptives. The state of Alabama has a government funded program for women aged 18-45. It offers free or low cost women’s health services and birth control, including condoms, pills, iuds, and tubal ligation. IMO, this should be nationwide.

72

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Not sure if this is historically accurate or not, but what about Spartans ‘throwing away defective babies’? Look at what they achieved.

I just watched ‘Freakonomics’ the other day, and they started talking about the ‘drop in crime’ around 1990ish, and what were the reasons for it. Of course the police tried to take credit for most of it saying how they were using ‘new’ tactics and ‘getting tough on crime’ etc. But what they allege caused ~45% of the drop in crime was because of Roe v. Wade, and that there simply wasn’t as many children that would’ve been born into poverty, eventually moving onto a life of crime.

Whether true or not, it’s something to think about.[/quote]

So the end justifies the means?[/quote]

Depends if you agree with the outcome and the cause of it.

73

[quote]firespinner93 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
What I don’t understand is why people who are staunchly anti-abortion don’t support family planning with as much passion as they support their pro-life views. [/quote]

Where do you get this information, and what is your definition of family planning?[/quote]

My “information” is based on personal experience, and I define family planning as education and access to contraceptives. The state of Alabama has a government funded program for women aged 18-45. It offers free or low cost women’s health services and birth control, including condoms, pills, iuds, and tubal ligation. IMO, this should be nationwide.

[/quote]

Pills and IUDs are abortifacient.

As well condoms haven’t decreased the amount of abortion, and I won’t go into tubal litigation, but is immoral as well.

I however support Natural Family Planning, which is more effective than other “family planning” options.

74

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.

The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?

And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.

If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.

Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]

And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]

Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]

They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]

So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]

Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.

To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.

Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?

Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[/quote]
Incorrect again.
Your statement: “Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.”
This is not even a strong inductive argument. All humans are entirely dependant on their surroundings to survive. There is no objective measure of such dependence.
The rest of your arguments all also either fai inductively or are entirely anecdotal or subjective. They are as you put it “just your two cents”.
Your last statement: “These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.”
I have said a few times now that I can surmise personhood to a zygote(more specifically stated above) with ONLY DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Theres no need to use any religious text WHATSOEVER.
It is lengthy, though, but I can provide it in text form over a few posts. I’d rather not though, because it is a shit ton of work.[/quote]

It is meant to portray that until birth, the baby is a total parasite and is nothing but a ‘potential human’. Parasite is not meant in a negative term, but simply to define it.
When the baby is born, anyone can take care of it. However, when it is in the mother, only the mother can further its development.

I take it you fully disagree with abortion?

75

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.

The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?

And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.

If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.

Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]

And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]

Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]

They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]

So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]

Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.

To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.

Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?

Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[/quote]
Incorrect again.
Your statement: “Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.”
This is not even a strong inductive argument. All humans are entirely dependant on their surroundings to survive. There is no objective measure of such dependence.
The rest of your arguments all also either fai inductively or are entirely anecdotal or subjective. They are as you put it “just your two cents”.
Your last statement: “These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.”
I have said a few times now that I can surmise personhood to a zygote(more specifically stated above) with ONLY DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Theres no need to use any religious text WHATSOEVER.
It is lengthy, though, but I can provide it in text form over a few posts. I’d rather not though, because it is a shit ton of work.[/quote]

It is meant to portray that until birth, the baby is a total parasite and is nothing but a ‘potential human’. Parasite is not meant in a negative term, but simply to define it.
When the baby is born, anyone can take care of it. However, when it is in the mother, only the mother can further its development.

I take it you fully disagree with abortion?[/quote]

Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Now that I’m done with the ad hominem…
No, it is not a parasite. Two human Gametes(spermatazoan and oocyte"egg") can ONLY produce a cell(zygote) with HUMAN genetic identity. It can not produce a parasitic species or a tumor UNTIL THE CELL HAS LOST ITS CELLULAR INTEGRITY(aka DIED). This HUMAN cell is unique in it’s genetic identity and distinct from either parent by definition of the process of karyogamy(nuclear merger of two cells).
It is NOT a cellular extension of the mother. It is a whole living human body. The fact that it is one cell DOES NOT contradict the fact that it is human as presented above.

More ad hominems:
You’ve really got to be a moron to keep spouting this menial cliche horseshit about parasites and dependence/care, because I have demonstrated repetitively that they are not only deductive logical fallacies, but also fail even inductively.

Back to sound rhetoric:
I DO NOT agree or disagree with the act of abortion. In this conversation I am presenting the reasoning behind the legality/illegality of abortion and the identity of human individuals existing/not existing at conception.
LIKE I HAVE STATED ABOVE…
HOMICIDE(the act of ending the life of a human) IS NOT a federal issue. It is a realm of jurisdiction RESERVED to the states. MURDER is a CLASS of homicide defined under state law.
ABORTION is HOMICIDE.(I have asserted this deductively above. Whether or not it is MURDER(or some other form of crimes against persons) is up to the states individually.

76

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

contraception is like handing out drugs to addicts.
[/quote]

As much as that analogy would be helpful to you, it’s really not like that at all[/quote]
You are going to have to do a bit more than just say no it’s not. Analogies are never perfect, but there is at least some truth in that one.

77

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

contraception is like handing out drugs to addicts.
[/quote]

As much as that analogy would be helpful to you, it’s really not like that at all[/quote]
You are going to have to do a bit more than just say no it’s not. Analogies are never perfect, but there is at least some truth in that one.[/quote]

Humans react to incentives.
Remove risk, increase demand.
Contraception removes risk(or at least the perception of risk) so the behavior, previously perceived to be risky, increases.
No magic here, just economics.

78

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

contraception is like handing out drugs to addicts.
[/quote]

As much as that analogy would be helpful to you, it’s really not like that at all[/quote]
You are going to have to do a bit more than just say no it’s not. Analogies are never perfect, but there is at least some truth in that one.[/quote]

Humans react to incentives.
Remove risk, increase demand.
Contraception removes risk(or at least the perception of risk) so the behavior, previously perceived to be risky, increases.
No magic here, just economics.[/quote]

Statistically speaking, the least risk is in marriage, and the people have the most sex are those that practice NFP within marriage.

79

NFP?

80

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.

The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?

And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.

If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.

Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]

And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]

Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]

They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]

So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]

Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.

To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.

Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?

Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[/quote]
Incorrect again.
Your statement: “Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.”
This is not even a strong inductive argument. All humans are entirely dependant on their surroundings to survive. There is no objective measure of such dependence.
The rest of your arguments all also either fai inductively or are entirely anecdotal or subjective. They are as you put it “just your two cents”.
Your last statement: “These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.”
I have said a few times now that I can surmise personhood to a zygote(more specifically stated above) with ONLY DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Theres no need to use any religious text WHATSOEVER.
It is lengthy, though, but I can provide it in text form over a few posts. I’d rather not though, because it is a shit ton of work.[/quote]

It is meant to portray that until birth, the baby is a total parasite and is nothing but a ‘potential human’. Parasite is not meant in a negative term, but simply to define it.
When the baby is born, anyone can take care of it. However, when it is in the mother, only the mother can further its development.

I take it you fully disagree with abortion?[/quote]

Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Now that I’m done with the ad hominem…
No, it is not a parasite. Two human Gametes(spermatazoan and oocyte"egg") can ONLY produce a cell(zygote) with HUMAN genetic identity. It can not produce a parasitic species or a tumor UNTIL THE CELL HAS LOST ITS CELLULAR INTEGRITY(aka DIED). This HUMAN cell is unique in it’s genetic identity and distinct from either parent by definition of the process of karyogamy(nuclear merger of two cells).
It is NOT a cellular extension of the mother. It is a whole living human body. The fact that it is one cell DOES NOT contradict the fact that it is human as presented above.

More ad hominems:
You’ve really got to be a moron to keep spouting this menial cliche horseshit about parasites and dependence/care, because I have demonstrated repetitively that they are not only deductive logical fallacies, but also fail even inductively.

Back to sound rhetoric:
I DO NOT agree or disagree with the act of abortion. In this conversation I am presenting the reasoning behind the legality/illegality of abortion and the identity of human individuals existing/not existing at conception.
LIKE I HAVE STATED ABOVE…
HOMICIDE(the act of ending the life of a human) IS NOT a federal issue. It is a realm of jurisdiction RESERVED to the states. MURDER is a CLASS of homicide defined under state law.
ABORTION is HOMICIDE.(I have asserted this deductively above. Whether or not it is MURDER(or some other form of crimes against persons) is up to the states individually.
[/quote]

Cool.
Thanks for defining so clearly, on your terms, what constitutes personhood. If only everyone knew that it was so simple! I guess you have clearly solved this ‘personhood’ enigma. I’ll contact all major philosophers and politicians right away and let them know.
Parasite is defined as an organism one who lives at others’ expense without making any useful return or a plant or animal that lives on or within another. Some parasites belong to the same genus and species as their host. The fact that you agree that it is its own organism and not a cellular extension of the mother exactly defines it as a parasite.
You have not proven anything.

Deductive reasoning, go:
Personhood is defined as ‘a human being, or more formally as any entity with attributes constituting personhood, e.g. any individual self-conscious or rational being, or any entity having rights and duties’.
Babies are not self concious or rational.
Babies do not display personhood.