[quote]pat wrote:
Now provide a single shred of evidence that the unborn is anything but a human being.[/quote]
Look up the reasons why abortion is legal and you’ll have a list. [/quote]
Provide a single shred of proof that the unborn is not a human being. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?
Can’t find any? Because there is not any.[/quote]
If it were as you say then abortion would be illegal.[/quote]
Abortion is legal because of semantics not science. [/quote]
No. Both sides use science.
[quote]pat wrote:
Now provide a single shred of evidence that the unborn is anything but a human being.[/quote]
Look up the reasons why abortion is legal and you’ll have a list. [/quote]
Provide a single shred of proof that the unborn is not a human being. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?
Can’t find any? Because there is not any.[/quote]
If it were as you say then abortion would be illegal.[/quote]
Abortion is legal because of semantics not science. [/quote]
No. Both sides use science.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Now provide a single shred of evidence that the unborn is anything but a human being.[/quote]
Look up the reasons why abortion is legal and you’ll have a list. [/quote]
Provide a single shred of proof that the unborn is not a human being. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?
Can’t find any? Because there is not any.[/quote]
If it were as you say then abortion would be illegal.[/quote]
Abortion is legal because of semantics not science. [/quote]
No. Both sides use science.[/quote]
Sure they do. [/quote]
If that’s your answer then you haven’t bothered finding out what the other position is based upon.
[quote]pat wrote:
Now provide a single shred of evidence that the unborn is anything but a human being.[/quote]
Look up the reasons why abortion is legal and you’ll have a list. [/quote]
Provide a single shred of proof that the unborn is not a human being. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?
Can’t find any? Because there is not any.[/quote]
If it were as you say then abortion would be illegal.[/quote]
Abortion is legal because of semantics not science. [/quote]
No. Both sides use science.[/quote]
Sure they do. [/quote]
If that’s your answer then you haven’t bothered finding out what the other position is based upon. [/quote]
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics.
[quote]pat wrote:
Now provide a single shred of evidence that the unborn is anything but a human being.[/quote]
Look up the reasons why abortion is legal and you’ll have a list. [/quote]
Provide a single shred of proof that the unborn is not a human being. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence?
Can’t find any? Because there is not any.[/quote]
If it were as you say then abortion would be illegal.[/quote]
Abortion is legal because of semantics not science. [/quote]
No. Both sides use science.[/quote]
Sure they do. [/quote]
If that’s your answer then you haven’t bothered finding out what the other position is based upon. [/quote]
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics. [/quote]
Personhood is a true/false position which is not the problem here. If that were the case there would be no grey area, although peoples opinions could still be split. Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.[/quote]
They are though, when the state wants to send the person doing the killing to jail. A mugger shoots and kills a pregnant woman, then that mugger will get charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter.
However when a person simply wants to remove a “parasite”, the unborn aren’t protected.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.[/quote]
They are though, when the state wants to send the person doing the killing to jail. A mugger shoots and kills a pregnant woman, then that mugger will get charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter.
However when a person simply wants to remove a “parasite”, the unborn aren’t protected. [/quote]
The value of the unborn in these two cases is tied to whether the fetus was wanted or not. Someone who takes the life of an unborn child that was wanted (by the murdered mother) is legally considered a murderer, just as someone who comes into your house uninvited and takes your TV is considered a burglar.
We would not prosecute a man for entering your house with your permission and taking your unwanted TV that you asked him to pick up.
We value the things that we want, and don’t value the things, or the people, that we don’t.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.[/quote]
They are though, when the state wants to send the person doing the killing to jail. A mugger shoots and kills a pregnant woman, then that mugger will get charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter.
However when a person simply wants to remove a “parasite”, the unborn aren’t protected. [/quote]
So is the answer to all of these a yes?
A double homicide is charged in 100% of these cases
All 50 states have the same law for this matter
The age of the fetus is irrelevant
It’s not just a excuse to give larger prison sentence because of our lenient legal system
It has the same consensus as regular murder as far as what people think the law should be
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Personhood is a true/false position which is not the problem here. If that were the case there would be no grey area, although peoples opinions could still be split. Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.[/quote]
Agree, value is the real issue. Read back through the thread or google why abortion is illegal, though. “Personhood” is always used as the basis for the position and “personhood” is all semantics.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The whole “zygote isn’t a person” whining is mostly poinless anyway:
In 2009, most (64.0%) abortions were performed at Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¤8 weeks’ gestation, and 91.7% were performed at Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¤13 weeks’ gestation.
What is that? Looks kinda like an Elephant. [/quote]
Or a monkey.[/quote]
Well, according to the promurder camp it is ANYTHING but a person. [/quote]
Promurder isn’t divisive language that doesn’t help create an environment for debate that is hostility free?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics. [/quote]
And? [/quote]
Lol…
Like I said, it’s not about science it’s about semantics. [/quote]
Do you know what semantics is? [/quote]
You planning on giving me another free English lesson?[/quote]
It’s my second language which means I am more proficient at it than most who claim it as their first.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics. [/quote]
And? [/quote]
Lol…
Like I said, it’s not about science it’s about semantics. [/quote]
Do you know what semantics is? [/quote]
You planning on giving me another free English lesson?[/quote]
It’s my second language which means I am more proficient at it than most who claim it as their first. [/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
We value the things that we want, and don’t value the things, or the people, that we don’t. [/quote]
Sure. That is the problem though.
“Well shit, that hobo over there has no family, no job, contributes to society in no way other than smells bad and collects that pocket change that raddles in your pocket. So we should just shoot him and get it over with.”
“That heroin addict will never amount to anything, end his life too.”
People have inalienable rights, whether you, I nor anyone “wants” them. And once you start down the road of picking and choosing who’s rights are worth protecting, and who’s aren’t, you run into a very serious problem…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics. [/quote]
And? [/quote]
Lol…
Like I said, it’s not about science it’s about semantics. [/quote]
Do you know what semantics is? [/quote]
You planning on giving me another free English lesson?[/quote]
It’s my second language which means I am more proficient at it than most who claim it as their first. [/quote]
I guess you know what hubris means than?[/quote]
My people coined the term.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Its about value, and until the unborn are valued as much as the born they will not be protected in the same way.[/quote]
They are though, when the state wants to send the person doing the killing to jail. A mugger shoots and kills a pregnant woman, then that mugger will get charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter.
However when a person simply wants to remove a “parasite”, the unborn aren’t protected. [/quote]
So is the answer to all of these a yes?
A double homicide is charged in 100% of these cases
All 50 states have the same law for this matter
The age of the fetus is irrelevant
It’s not just a excuse to give larger prison sentence because of our lenient legal system
It has the same consensus as regular murder as far as what people think the law should be[/quote]
Irrelevant questions. As long as there is 1 case of a double murder charge, and 1 case of elective abortion being done, the logical disconnect is there.
Ever heard the saying: “If one vote isn’t counted, none of the votes actually count”?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s about the concept of “personhood,” which is semantics. [/quote]
And? [/quote]
Lol…
Like I said, it’s not about science it’s about semantics. [/quote]
Do you know what semantics is? [/quote]
You planning on giving me another free English lesson?[/quote]
It’s my second language which means I am more proficient at it than most who claim it as their first. [/quote]
I guess you know what hubris means than?[/quote]
My people coined the term. BTW, that isn’t an English word. [/quote]