Abortion compromise

rossum said:
We agree. A placenta is not a human being, which is why DNA alone is not sufficient to define what is, and what is not, a human being. Some further criterion is needed. For me, that further criterion is a functioning brain. Human life ends when the brain ceases functioning, so it is reasonable to say it starts when the brain begins functioning.
Click to expand...
You don't hear yourself do you? Let's try something easier. Do the mother's fingernails have the same DNA as the mother?

I don't think the brain functioning argument follows at all. But first things first.
 
rossum said:
I disagree. A functioning brain is required, and that does not yet exist at conception.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. We can see the human being develop from the zygote to an embryo to a foetus to a baby to a child etc.
You prerending its not the same entity until it has a brain is just you picking a characteristic. Not relevant, nor logical nor rational
 
rossum said:
We agree. A placenta is not a human being, which is why DNA alone is not sufficient to define what is, and what is not, a human being. Some further criterion is needed. For me, that further criterion is a functioning brain. Human life ends when the brain ceases functioning, so it is reasonable to say it starts when the brain begins functioning.
Click to expand...
The human being develops, not the placenta.
If the human being begins life when it does, not when you.decide you would like it to
 
glenlogie said:
In a democracy all of those things could be permitted. You want a democracy don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I recognize that all those things would only be favored by a small minority and could only be enacted if that minority manipulated the system to gain control of govt.
 
Thistle said:
I am perfectly willing to believe that, that is an interpretation that is held perhaps even by some experts. There's no way that when our founders wrote the words "we the people" they had in mind corporations. So I really don't care who makes that argument, it's flawed. But to your point "grants rights" that is completely off base. The founders did not believe that any mortals could "grant rights." If you would like to take an idea that has been refined and perfected in the intervening years, and read that back into the constitution, you're not engaged in a legitimate intellectual process of any kind.

Nobody "grants" anybody any rights. If something is right in the fundamental sense not the colloquial sense the thing that makes it so is the fact that nobody's in a position to grant it. Stages of development or not categories of people every person goes through stages of development. And everybody comes into possession of the rights that are granted to them by God by virtue of their maturity. So dividing people by stages of development is it a logical and frankly ridiculous.

Of course it is. The rights of human beings is not dependent on their stage of development, is dependent on their humanity.

There's no principal on which this comment turns. You've simply worked back from your conclusion concoct it.
Click to expand...
If rights can be denied by govt, then those rights are defined by govt.
You might think you have those rights anyway, but in practice, you do not.
 
Nedsk said:
No. They want their democracy not democracy. They play with words. Democracy means absolutely nothing to her or democrats. When they say "democracy" what they really mean is, having things their way.

It's like the electoral college. They don't oppose it because it violates some democratic principle they hold sacred, they oppose it because it gets in their way.
Click to expand...
Not remotely like that when it comes to abortion.
Choice means just that, the woman gets to choose, and no one's opinion is forced on others.
Dobbs is the opposite allowing states to force all women to follow their dictates.

The Electoral College DOES violate a democratic principles of one person, one vote, and all votes treated equally.
 
Thistle said:
But if I linked an article which cited an unnamed source you would believe it? This is truly astonishing. You will not believe firsthand testimony, but you will believe someone who is repeating hearsay from someone who will not stand behind the information that they're providing. Do you have any idea how completely illogical that is? The only rational conclusion to draw is that you have no rational basis whatsoever for the things that you believe!

I would expect the Illinois fund these programs at 10 times the level that Indiana funds these programs, and that just simply means that there's 10 times as much money to steal, and not spend on what it was legislatively appropriated for. The differences Indiana actually spends the money doing what the legislature appropriated it for.

It's readily available! What are you asking me to come up with it for.
Click to expand...
I would be skeptical of an unnamed source.
Firsthand testimony of the type you provided is anecdotal and not necessarily representative.

What you expect about funding has not been compared with what funding there is.
If money is being stolen, then people should be in prison.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
I know. And we know that legally corporations and even trusts are legal "persons". That tells us about law, but it doesn't tell us at ALL what the thing is BIOLOGICALLY.



Nobody has ever equated a fetus with a full grown adult. Nobody has ever said that a fetus should have the same rights as a full grown adult. Nobody has ever said that a toddler should have the same rights as a full grown adult.

All we have been saying is that biologically a fetus is a living human being, and should have the right to not be slaughtered.



Well....kind of. I mean, if biology made it clear that the fetus was NOT a human being, then abortion should obviously be legal, as it means that the fetus is essentially an appendage of the woman, like an appendix. And therefore the state has zero interest in denying a woman the right to have it removed.

But it's because biologically, the fetus IS a human being, that suddenly it's no longer one human (the woman) that's involved in the equation, and both have to be considered here.



Generally speaking, the right for someone to live outweighs another person's rights. You have to explain why it should be otherwise in this case.
Click to expand...
Rights of different entities can sometimes be in conflict, and where compromise is not possible, rights of one will be prioritized above others.

I prioritize the rights of an actual living human above the rights of a fertilized egg.

You relegate the woman to the status of an inert incubator by prioritizing that egg.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Oh believe me, we know - when it comes to abortion, just like transgender stuff, all of a sudden leftists despise biology and ignore it because it doesn't suit them. Science deniers, the lot of you.
Click to expand...
Abortion is not a biological issue. It is an issue decided by politics, philosophy, religion, culture, etc.
 
vibise said:
Toddlers are not fetal forms of human life. They are independent living beings.
Click to expand...
Correct, they are not. They are a later stage of development of human life, and fetuses are an earlier stage of development of human life. Just like adult is an even later stage of development of human life.
 
BMS said:
The human being develops, not the placenta.
If the human being begins life when it does, not when you.decide you would like it to
Click to expand...
All organs develop, including the placenta, which is not present before pregnancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top