It's obvious Abortion is wrong

Partially true.

Because there is no definitive answer to the question of when a baby becomes a person, people (including you and me) declare personhood to be granted at selected milestones. You select the moment of birth or a stage of brain development or a vague moment of "experience", and bless that milestone as the moment of personhood. Science does not prove that it is a person at that moment, science only proves that the developmental milestone occurs.

I select the milestone of conception, the point at which the entity has the genetic material to join the species homo sapien (science certainly verifies that event). Science does not prove it is a person at conception, just as science does not prove it is a person at your milestones, science only proves those milestones occur.

Science does not define the subjective moment personhood is bestowed, if it could then this argument would be over. But unlike you, I base my selection on the current and historical legal and moral principles of our society, principles which you have not even attempted to address.

 

Except anti-rightists, like yourself, want to ENFORCE pregnancy against the will of We the People.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion was LEGAL when this nation was founded.

 

WRONG. The law of the land is NOT the will of the people. Is obamacare the will of the people? Certainly not. How about civil asset forfeiture, the war on drugs, gun control (or gun rights of you are on the other side), illegal immigration, transgender bathrooms, Citizens United, taxes? Not even abortion law reflects the "will of the people".

Was slavery and Jim Crow the "will of the people"? How are you going to resolve those issues with your "will of the people" argument?

Theoretically the law reflects the will of the people. In practice it does not, it is subject to political and financial influence.

- - - Updated - - -

I see, as usual you have no argument.

 

Are you trying to say that the majority of Americans want abortion illegal?

 

Science tells us the brain is not capable of meaningful thought until about the middle of the third trimester. If you were assembling a computer it is like putting the CPU in the case but not plugging it in... You might see some lights blink when you press the buttons but it does not have what it needs to think).
Science tells us the brain is prevented from thinking until actual birth (blood chemistry and oxygen levels). If you assembling a computer it is like inserting the CPU in the socket but not yet turning on the power. At that point you could argue that it would be sad to discard the computer (or the fetus) without "turning it on" to see what it can do... but it is not a person yet because it has not started processing and incorporating experience.

The historic LEGAL principals of our society define a person to be a person upon birth. We saw two citations from two different countries already in this thread that prove the law is against your definition of personhood.

That leaves you with what you consider to be popular opinion (although pro-life is in the minority according to those charts we just saw), but even if most people agreed with you that the unborn human is a person at conception didn't you point out earlier that popular opinion can be wrong (e.g. the flat earth theory)?

Where do you get your definition of personhood that can says you do not need a functional brain?

 

Excellent post!

I especially liked :

"""The historic LEGAL principals of our society define a person to be a person upon birth. We saw two citations from two different countries already in this thread that prove the law is against your definition of personhood.

That leaves you with what you consider to be popular opinion (although pro-life is in the minority according to those charts we just saw), but even if most people agreed with you that the unborn human is a person at conception didn't you point out earlier that popular opinion can be wrong (e.g. the flat earth theory)?"""



However it is hard to argue against someone who has nothing but his opinion to offer and ignores facts.......I don't think we'll make a dent....

 

Ironic!

 

No other response to your insane position.

 

It was legal in some colonies, not all, and abortion was not socially accepted.

 

I choose what is sensible, what fits the experience of medical science (the 21 week threshold), what is aligned with the legal and medical and social constructs (innocent until proven guilty, Blackstone, "first do no harm", err on the side of caution). Issues which you have not even attempted to address.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, ironic, as I have posted many, many times explaining my position on abortion, and you have posted many times simply claiming "its the law!" and whining.

 

LOL the only insane thing posted here is your comments, your lack of ability to understand how biology works is astounding ... to claim that a woman can choose to become pregnant is one of the funniest things I've heard in years, I can just imagine the thought process of the woman.

"Hmmm sex tonight I feel like getting pregnant .. hey ova can you get yourself in position to receive a sperm"

 

Assumes factoids not in evidence.

 

My position is based entirely upon REALITY.

Your position VIOLATES the Constitutional rights of female Americans.

So until you can come up with a coherent, rational and logical basis for CHANGING the Law of the Land WITHOUT stomping all over the rights of women all you are doing is whining.

 

Wrong, you don't even know your own countries history .. The first set of abortion restrictions came into force in the UK in 1803 which was followed by the US until in 1880 most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those ``necessary to save the life of the woman.'' But the tradition of women's right to early abortion was rooted in U.S. society by then; abortionists continued to practice openly with public support, and juries refused to convict them. So from 1492 to 1880 (388 years) abortion was not illegal in the US or the colonies prior to the formation of the US.

Abortion was not illegal, it was kept quiet not because of any social un-acceptance but because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

- - - Updated - - -

All of which are irrelevant, as no person (which is what you claim the unborn are) can injure another person without their consent, and to date you have not produced a single relevant piece of evidence to show that consenting to sexual intercourse is consenting to pregnancy.

 

See, it's clear yo have no argument or facts to back it up......or you could have proved me wrong..you didn't

 

The "sensible" thing is to consider the newborn a person if it is alive when it is removed from the womb.

The fact that abortion is currently legal just means you have the burden of proof the provide evidence the fertilized egg is an actual person (not the other way around). I happen to agree that the law is wrong, but in the opposite direction (due to lack of information or understanding the law inappropriately restricted abortion). That is why I provide scientific evidence to demonstrate that the fetus (even in the last few days before birth) is blocked from starting personhood.

Principles like "Do no harm" apply to people (unless you also do not harm animals or plants to have your occasional burger and fries). First you have to prove the fertilized egg is a person.

You dodged the question (maybe it was because I had a typo so let's try again): Where do you get your definition of personhood that says you do not need a functional brain? (looking for a quote and a link here)

 

You have no argument, you have claims, nothing more.

 

There is scientific data that details the stages of development, there is NO scientific evidence that proves or defines personhood. "Personhood" is not a scientific state, it is a subjective philosophical condition. You select a state of development, then you - not "science" - bless that state with personhood.

Or you have to prove it is not a person. The charitable, compassionate person assumes it is a person until proven otherwise - that's follows from the foundational principles of the society (such as "first do no harm").

No, I answered the question. I do not have to limit my thinking or beliefs to your imposed criteria. Your problem is that you want me to argue your argument, not mine. You refuse to expand your thinking to be able to consider and understand (not accept, but understand) views outside your "box".

 

Irony squared!

 

""" The charitable, compassionate person assumes it is a person until proven otherwise""""


Why? Being charitable and compassionate doesn't mean being ignorant of facts.

Like the fact that a fetus isn't a person until it's born.

Like the fact that forcing women to be nothing but broodstock is NOT charitable nor compassionate.

Like the fact that if a fetus was a "person" it would have NO more rights than the woman it's in no matter what anyone's OPINION is....

Like the fact that IF a fetus was a "person" it would have the same restrictions every other person has.


It's neither charitable nor compassionate to force women to comply to your wishes.......(and thankfully that will never happen )

You seem to think that because you erroneously think a fetus is a person it has superior rights to everyone else...and, like your other arguments, you have NO BASIS for this, no facts to back it up....

 

The reality is that abortion laws have little effect on abortion. Mexico, nominally 95% Catholic, where abortion is illegal, has a higher abortion rate than the U.S.

 

And Canada , which has no abortion laws, has a slightly lower rate than the US.

 

How many times have you been pregnant?

 

You might want to look at that graph again.....

 

Again you fail to provide your definition. Saying "I answered the question" is different from answering the question and fails to move the conversation forward. I am still looking for a quote and a link.

You cannot say who has to prove what until you explain your definition of personhood (still looking for quote and link).

The scientific data tells us what is possible. If your definition is limited to the living human organism (without a mind with the ability to acquire or retain experience) then we are obligated to maintain Terry Schaivo and others until their bodies die of heart failure. Most of us know that the empty body is no longer a person. The definitions presented here have been similar in that personhood requires a mind that can acquire and retain experience. (and the hospital should be charged with murder for killing a person. Most of us know personhood is impossible without a mind that can acquire or retain experience. We are NOT defined by the color of our skin or the number of fingers we have. We ARE defined (as persons) by our minds. I look forward to seeing your definition of a person that does not depend on the mind (remember to include quote and link).