Undeniable proof that the unborn are all persons!

Always interesting how you post your Opinion as if it were Fact, I have bad news for you but I know you would ignore it so why bother.

 

On the contrary, if that were true there would be no need whatsoever for an exception. An exception would be an allowable homicide.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if it is the usual pro abortion lies, I certainly will.

 

Interesting line of reasoning we are getting into. However, I must disagree with both of you. An exception for abortion proves neither that it is nor is not a homocide. It merely clarifies that abortion is not to be treated as a normal homocide.

I think both most pro-lifers and most pro-choicers recognize that a fetus is a human life, but not to the same extent that an older baby is. Of course, most on both sides are unwilling to admit this. Furthermore, even if a fetus was a full human life, the situation of the fetus's life simultaneously being intwined with the woman's pregnancy is potential reason to reduce the punishment for such a murder.

 

There are also other exceptions, proving that "fetal homicide" only exists in the narrow context of assault on the woman, and only for the purpose of preserving a woman's right to choose.

 

And that is a simple easy argument to win. When there is a conflict of rights what should you consider in determining whose rights supercede? Consider the woman, in the overwhelming majority of cases she engaged in an activity she knew carried a substantial risk of pregnancy as a result and she ganmbled and lost. Now consider the unborn child person, he/she was created due to the woman's risk taking and had no say in the matter whatsoever. Futhermore, he/she is at a severe disadvantage when compared to the woman as far as power to defend onesself goes.

I see it as an easy call to place the child's rights over the woman's. Why should a child be wantonly intentionally killed just because a woman's risk taking didn't turn out the way she had hoped it would?

- - - Updated - - -

The law recognizes the personhood of a child in utero at any stage of development, OBVIOUSLY.
I know this hurts your agenda of supporting at will abortion homicides, but it is what it is!

BTW, in what other instance is a person allowed to commit an intentional homicide without oversight by anyone?

 

Your response had nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted ...but that's OK, they usually don't have much to do with anything.


You can call it homicide, vegetarianism, Chevy, abortion, whatever, and it's still legal.....and that's all I care about....

Rant on...it's hilarious.....

 

Glad you think its funny, it shows how little you comprehend about what you read.
I find THAt hilarious!

 

At some point in the later stages of pregnancy I would grant that the fetus is a living human and hence, a person.

This is not because some group of partisan religious zeolots made some law based on flawed religious belief, but because it has almost all of the charactristics required for entrance into the club Homo Sapiens.

There are many doctored pics available from pro life sites that cater to emotionalism.

If the entity has significant brain function (which begins from 20-24 weeks) then perhap we should be considering the entity a person, having met at least that basis requiremeint. A requirement that if any human did not meet would be classified as dead, put into a wooden box, and buried.

 

OK, how about this undeniable proof of evidence, that I strongly believe is interesting and noteworthy enough to create a new thread about this stuff that I had recently just learned about.

Regardless of whether or not you are pro life or pro abortion, the law recognizes the unborn as persons. And the proof is HERE

The US. Supreme Court, or the Congress, I forgot which one it was, (but I'm leaning more towards the US. Congress), stated that if a woman commits a crime that warrants capital punishment, and she was pregnant, then they have to wait until she gave birth, until the capital punishment could happen.

Doesn't that prove that even the law recognizes the unborn as persons? You can argue about bodily rights and all of that stuff, just please understand that the law recognizes the unborn as persons. Every pro choice person on these forums reading my messages, please understand that the law recognizes the unborn as persons. I just proved that point above.

 

The simple fact that abortions are legal shows that the law does not recognize the unborn as natural persons.

 

Hmmm. I addressed this already in my first post.

The fact that a few wing-nuts make a law in some state or country is not proof of anything other than some people decided to make a law.

Dumb laws are made all the time. In this case the law is an affront to the rule of law. (It is a person in the case of an assault on a pregnant woman but not a person for a woman having an abortion)

Can you say "contradiction" ?

Regardless, silly laws are made by silly people all the time. What the law happens to state is not a valid argument for what science claims is a living human.

One would hope that the law would be made on the basis of subject matter experts but unfortunately that was not the case.

 

its not just some religious freaks wanting a theocracy, who want to ban abortion for that same reason
its also because the law recognizes the unborn as persons, already, even without religion
the abortion laws are nothing but pure and stupid hypocricy

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily, and here's the proof why. Please answer this question. Even if the unborn were persons (which you believe they aren't), does a woman still have the right to an abortion? I'm just curious as to what your opinion is, exactly.

 

No, killing a person is murder. The Supreme Court scoured the Constitution to determine if there were any indication the founders meant to include the unborn as persons, and nothing was found to indicate that.

 

It was during the Bush admin that definition of personhood was changed. There were no subject matter experts consulted. It was essentially a panel stacked with Pro Life advocates who based their opinions primarily on Religion and fallacy.

I agree that the abortion laws are pure and stupid hypocrisy.

 

Please state why the unborn aren't persons. Explain that to me.

 

Yes, the woman still has the right to an abortion. It doesn't matter WHAT it is, or WHAT you CALL it, what matters is WHERE it is. Should a group of people, even a group of people numerous enough to affect the law, decide to change what the zef is called, it is still, regardless of what it is called, the same thing, with the same lack of brain, survivability, etc.

 

Yes, but you didn't answer my earlier questions.

1-Are the unborn persons
2-And if so, why not?

I'm not asking why abortion is justifiable. I'm asking something a bit different, a much more deep and philosophical question than that. This entire abortion debate depends upon that question being answered (or does it, hmm)?

 

For the same reason an acorn is not a tree. Even if the acorn is growing in the soil, it is not a tree until it emerges from the earth.

 

Well, excuse me, I didn't realize this was a deep and philosophical discussion, since I don't think I've seen one of those on the abortion threads. No, I don't think so, as I explained above.

1. NO. But it doesn't matter what you CALL it. We all know that the unborn are different from the born, and some think that is not important, while others do think it important. Some others even refuse to recognize the difference, and some, even tho they recognize some difference, attempt to minimize the differences for their own purposes.
2. They're not persons, at least until very late in gestation, because they're lacking in the characteristics that we commonly ascribe to persons, i.e. thinking, bodily autonomy, personality.

 

Yes, those are very deep questions, which is why there is no consensus for the answers even after centuries of debate. Why do you think you know the answer that scholars have been unable to determine throughout all of history?

 

Let me make sure I get your statement clear....
A woman you stated has the right to an abortion....ok...do you mean throughout all nine months?

You said...It doesn't matter WHAT it is, or WHAT you CALL it, what matters is WHERE it is."

Would you agree with this statement then....It does not matter what is it, what you call it or when it is aborted...what matters is where it is?

 

Having a right to something doesn't mean that right will ever be exercised. We know from looking at Canada that women do not choose late term abortions without good reason, i.e. medical reasons. That's close to what I said Churchmouse,

 

When an acorn is stepped on, the forest experiences no moral dilemma. When a toddler sapling or a teenage oak dies, the mtoehr tree does not week, nor does the saplings siblings. We naturally value oak trees more than acorns. Unfortunately, the comparison encourages us to make the quantum leap of concluding that we should value bigger and older people more than smaller and younger ones...specifically, the unborn. But what are our reasons for valuing the oak tree over the acorn? They are not moral or humanitarian, but simply pragmatic. The oak tree serves us well, either aesthetically of for the lumber or firewood it can provide. Acorns are plentiful and expendable. They why are they expendable? For the same reason the oak tree is also ultimately expendable-it is not a person, it is only a thing.
A baby however isn't a thing, its a person. The unborn are not more expendable because they have not developed into infants, nor infants more expendable because they haven't developed into toddlers, nor teenagers more expendable because they haven't developed into adults.

Even if the acorn analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person.

All the oak tree is or ever will be was in the acorn. If the acorn wee destroyed there would be no oak tree. Likewise all that the adult is or ever will be was in the embryo. If the embryo were destroyed there would be no baby, no teenager and no adult. When the baby dies, the teenager dies. When the embryo dies the baby dies. Abortion does not kill potential people. It kills actual people. And the loss of a person is far greater loss than even an entire forest.

While no house was ever a blueprint, every oak tree was once an acorn. So it is with the person. EAsh person does not simply come from a zygote, embryo a fetus. As every oak tree was an acorn, very person WAS ONCE A CONCEPTUS.

RANDY ALCORN PRO-LIFE ANSWERS TO PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENTS.

 

This was an analogy. How expendible an acorn is has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a tree.

Scientifically speaking, scientists would never refer to an embryo as a "little person." They would refer to it, scientifically, as the embryo of the species homo sapiens.

Your opinion only.

That isn't true, oak trees can be propagated from cuttings.

Proving what?

 

So should it be legal or not? yes or no