abortion is not murder.
Any bar that will let him in, in fact.
No, it doesn't and no, they're not.
Personal attack removed except being a patient.
You have been told a great many things. You have learnt nothing.
Ending the life of a slave was legal. Therefore according to your argument, it's not murder, correct?
Western medicine in general is bad news. Western medicine is the third or fourth leading cause of death in the US.
Word games. It is premeditated murder.
It'[s odd how people justify an act of murder simply by an act of legislation. They might as well point out that it's legalized murder. Legalizing something doesn't change the definition, it simply legalizes it. Doing drugs used to be illegal. Now drug use is legalized. They're trying to legalize infanticide which means it is legalized infanticide. Calling it by another name or legalizing it doesn't change that it's still murder.
Got it. Thanks. So it's legally killing a human being.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Abolition ended slavery, not human lives.
You're referring to pain, and suffering, not harm. One can be harmed without inflicting pain and suffering. People can be put to sleep just like animals, but that doesn't mean they haven't been harmed. They've lost their lives.
Why? a person is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual." Is the fetus a human being? Can it not be distinguished from its mother?
I know. Again, I can only grasp at straws because you're not supplying any information. What was your point?
My comment was in response to this: "the neural correlates to personhood are absent at that time of development." That was in relation to "harm". I thus concluded that you were making some sort of connection to begin able to feel pain or suffer which requires neural pathways.
It's the defining criteria. what better criteria is there? After all, if you miss your target, you end up taking the pregnancy to full term, right?
One's cognitive capacity is reduced to zero during any number of situations such as sleep, while under general anesthesia, etc.
They can be absent during later stages of development as well, even well into adulthood. That's not much of a reason to kill someone.
FWIW thanks for sharing.
I've come to the conclusion that evolution has a way of insuring that the fittest survive to reproduce. Abortion is just a fail safe to make sure only the absolute fittest are able to pass on their genes.
You must have some reason for using this as a criteria, no? What effective difference does it make? As I pointed out already, people who are asleep, put to sleep, etc. are effectively no different.
Their neural structures are ineffective. They are not aware of anything whatsoever.
What effective difference is there? Both are oblivious? For some reason you seem to think that as soon as some neural structure appears this automatically precludes the possibility of performing an abortion? Why? Why not make the same claim for fingers and toes, or nostrils, or hair?
It is natural selection in that only those who already have this tendency to kill their offspring will entertain this idea.
There is no effective difference. That's my point. Your point seems to be that with the advent of this arbitrary state of development, we should stop preforming abortions.
Neither do neural structures in the first trimester.
Meaning as someone with neural structures, right?
They have no legitimate authority to prevent me from beating my personal property either so why start complaining now? Because my slaves have neural structures? So what? That's why they're slaves.
To a certain extent I agree, but the problem is that the State does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens, or at least they used to take that position. if they no longer have that interest, then they really don't have any business telling anyone what to do with their lives for any reason. For example, the rapist should not be prosecuted, or even arrested because he's got neural structures which should offer him protection from prosecution.
Is too.