If you think it crosses the ethical line to want to prohibit killing of babies, then sorry, but I don’t share your ethics. Never will either.
How do you measure society agreeing? You know the proliferation of laws recently in various states that restrict abortion more and more - is that the sign of “society” agreeing with me and not with you? The fact that Mississippi only has one abortion clinic now and that may close soon - is that “society” agreeing with me or with you?
That’s not immutable.
I certainly cannot “force everyone to believe”. But I can “force everyone not to kill”. You can believe whatever you want. Just don’t kill babies.
If that’s your definition, fine. But it’s a definition that you are making for your own purposes. I’d argue that the conceptus/life support system doesn’t start to make an embryo for a few days after implantation. Not that those few days are likely to be a part of most abortion choices. Of course I, personally, don’t define an embryo as a baby, but that’s a separate issue.
From your definition, I’m assuming that you don’t object to medical actions that prevent implantation. I’d also guess that, baby or not, you would not make the removal of ectopic pregnancies illeagal.
Correct and correct.
The first is utterly inconsistent with your previous statements regarding “those who, without intervention or natural failures, will become a baby” (paraphrased). What makes interventions post-implantation more objectionable than interventions pre-implantation according to your logic?
Mississippi hardly represents “society”. One small part, but I also represent one small part, as do you. Do you think Mississippi should be able to enforce their laws on the rest of the country? You must since you also think you should be able to enforce your feelings and beliefs on the rest of the country for some reason.
Also restricting is not outlawing. Laws that restrict abortion, but do not make it illegal agree more with the pro-choice position than with yours. They want to limit the amount of them, but not outlaw them, just like Planned Parenthood does. They are using the law to try to end run around the fact that the majority of the public does not want abortion illegal across the board, so the activists are trying to use the law to make it harder, but still not illegal, because that would never pass. Even the most hardcore pro-life state you could bring up does not want abortion illegal. So you are completely wrong, society does not agree with you, and that is not going to change anytime soon.
We can believe whatever we want unless our beliefs contradict yours and then what? Yours win? Why? You are the one that believes that a clump of cells literally is a baby. Even those that miscarry without the Mother ever knowing she was pregnant. That is your personal belief, which you are entitled to, but others have different beliefs. Why are you the only one entitled to your beliefs, and the only one that gets to impose their beliefs on others? What makes you so special?
Actually, just the opposite. I favor fetal murder laws; I am fine with it being considered murder if someone shoots a pregnant woman, and she lives, but the fetus dies. I object to the language in the law, where the fetus is said to be a “person.”
Exactly so. The two sides are not functionally communicating. They’re stuck in an “Is too,” “Is not” loop. Each side tries to clarify their views with analogies…which the other side rejects.
The only joy here, of any sort, is that it probably won’t lead to a second American Civil War.
Dealt with already; you’re repeating yourself. Our society has a firm consensus that rape and murder are wrong. That matter is settled. There isn’t any debate or controversy. The comparison is invalid. You cannot point to a significant “pro-rape” segment of our society (other than a few Republican Congressmen.)
For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about nuclear weapons. At least you’ve got the Hyde Amendment, that prevents tax money from being spent on abortions. My tax money goes toward building civilization-incinerating obscenities, something I hold to be no less immoral than anyone here holds abortion to be.
Because the egg has not implanted yet. For example, frozen embryos, though they are fertilized eggs, need further intervention to implant.
Sure. No human being, or “person” was killed, but someone is charged with murder. Whose murder exactly? And you think that’s consistent or logical.
Sigh. It’s like watching a Freeman on the Land with his Black’s Law Dictionary, trying to use linguistic magic to persuade a judge that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over “Self-Incorporated Persons.”
If simply changing the wording in a state law were enough to overrule Federal Law, we wouldn’t have Federal Law at all.
Imagine if a state declared that Marijuana Plants were a form of Azalea, and then legalized smoking Azalea leaves.
Imagine if a state declared that the money you get from working is a “restitution” for your “lost time.” Restitutions aren’t taxable. No more income tax!
By attempting to claim that state laws declaring fetuses as “persons” is binding on the Constitution is just about that silly, and to claim it is binding on us, as individual pro-choicers, is offensive and remarkably shallow.
BobLibDem is 100% right here: some of these guys simply cannot comprehend the simple fact that we disagree with them.
This “needs intervention” meme of yours is a good example of the completely spurious kind of argument and illogical grasping at straws that the “pro-life” side struggles with to try to rationalize an inherently irrational point of view.
Case in point: someone suffers an acute serious illness like a heart attack, or the discovery of some other life-threatening ailment, or an accident. S/he will require intervention in order to survive, otherwise, death is certain. According to your apparent values, any available paramedics would be justified in ignoring the person in order to rush across town to prevent an abortion.
Even better, a baby is born prematurely, and will die without medical intervention. According to your morality, the baby can be left to die without any moral concerns. Because “intervention” is somehow a key to defining human life. But woe be to anyone who interferes with a zygot!
Don’t like those conclusions? Then better rethink the “needs intervention” argument.
The real point that you and others on your side of this typically make is that the embryo or whatever the thing may be at a given point in time is, and I emphatically quote, a “human being”. A human being isn’t defined by the need for “intervention” or lack thereof to keep it alive. I believe it’s defined in the terms I previously described. If you think it’s defined in terms of pre-ordained “potential”, then you have to accept that it’s a “human being” from the instant of egg fertilization, because that’s biologically when the unique DNA is formed. I suppose the reason that argument isn’t brought up all that often is because it’s so obviously ridiculous.
You mean the “sentience, consciousness, awareness or intelligence” criteria? I thought we got rid of that red herring already.
Nope; we refined it.
Originally, we said, “A human being is conscious.”
You pointed out a man in a coma is not conscious.
We agreed, and refined the language: “A human being is capable of consciousness.”
An infelicitous choice of wording was corrected. That’s how progress happens.
You may disagree with that definition. As a matter of fact, I know damn well that you do. But that’s the whole point here: you disagree with us, and we disagree with you.
We know that you have proven your point to your own satisfaction. That ain’t news.
Come back when you have something we might be willing to take into consideration.
Demonstrably, the man in coma is not capable of consciousness. If he was, he’d be conscious. Or you could “wake him up” and make him conscious. Since you cannot, no, he is not “capable of consciousness”.
That’s odd. I’m pretty sure I’m conscious…
…but I’ll make sure to offer your argument to my doctor the *next *time I need to be placed in an induced coma.
Again, weaseling. “Induced coma” one can wake someone from.
Other comas as well. Happens a lot. But if you meant only “comas no one can ever revive from,” I’m not sure I’m the one weaseling.
And the shame of it is that I really want to respect your position. I respect Hector_St_Clare’s considerably more. As someone who’s been spectating the hell out of this thread, I really think you should quit while you’re behind.
So…I’m not capable of singing The Stars and Stripes Forever, because I’m not currently singing it? The only way I can demonstrate a capability is to exercise it?
Fascinating re-definition of the word. I suggest you are not capable of swimming.
I wonder if any of us are capable of that… 
This is what I mean:
“You have someone in a coma. He has no sentience, consciousness, awareness or intelligence. Just a body laying there. Doctors tell you that they are pretty sure that if you leave him alone and don’t do anything, he will come out of the coma in several months. Do you think you should be allowed to kill him because he has no sentience, consciousness, awareness or intelligence, and only a “potential” to have them in the future?”