The Abortion Question

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-03-2015, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 1. You never stop being an individual, so you use the opposite criteria for death to establish individualism, because at that point it meets all the qualifications to becoming an individual living human. Why would you say something is an individual at the point we can prevent it's death? We know it's alive, and we know that it's not a part of the mother, because after conception it attaches to the mother. So that obviously shows that it's a separate entity.

If someone is dead, but still an individual why would you use the opposite of death to establish individualism when their individuality is independent of their death?  Why would you say something is a separate entity when it would die within moments if not connected to an umbilical cord for life support?

Quote:2. When is someone alive, but doesn't have a heartbeat and brain activity?

Your answer to #2 . . .

(10-01-2015, 11:01 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's living but not alive. It doesn't have a heartbeat or brain activity. If you say someone is dead when they don't have brain activity and a beating heart then it only makes sense to say they're alive and their own individual at that point also.

[Brownshoe]

(10-06-2015, 06:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If someone is dead, but still an individual why would you use the opposite of death to establish individualism when their individuality is independent of their death?  Why would you say something is a separate entity when it would die within moments if not connected to an umbilical cord for life support?


Your answer to #2 . . .

Because once someone is dead their not an individual anymore.

So you're saying that the fetus is a person? Why wouldn't it he the most basic of rights then? Why wouldn't it have the right to live? Just because we can't prevent its death doesn't mean that it's not a individual.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 07:55 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because once someone is dead their not an individual anymore.

So you're saying that the fetus is a person? Why wouldn't it he the most basic of rights then? Why wouldn't it have the right to live? Just because we can't prevent its death doesn't mean that it's not a individual.

Do individuals posses volition?

[Brownshoe]

(10-06-2015, 08:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Do individuals posses volition?

How can you prove volition?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2015, 07:55 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because once someone is dead their not an individual anymore.

You contradict yourself . . .

(10-03-2015, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 1. You never stop being an individual

Quote:So you're saying that the fetus is a person? Why wouldn't it he the most basic of rights then? Why wouldn't it have the right to live? Just because we can't prevent its death doesn't mean that it's not a individual.

I'm saying I agree with the Supreme Court's decision for the reasons they expressed in their opinion.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 09:03 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How can you prove volition?

My apologies, my initial question was vague.  Do individuals poses the ability to act on their decisions?

[Brownshoe]

(10-06-2015, 09:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You contradict yourself . . .




I'm saying I agree with the Supreme Court's decision for the reasons they expressed in their opinion.

I only tried to argue that people don't stop being an individual because you tried to assert that as the case.

You haven't done anything to refute my case. Just keep covering your eyes and plugging your ears while the government allows people to kill unborn babies.

[Brownshoe]

(10-06-2015, 09:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: My apologies, my initial question was vague.  Do individuals poses the ability to act on their decisions?

Not always, but the majority of the time, yes.

[Blutarsky]

In California when a pregnant mother is murdered and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with double homicide, and the fetus is referred to as a "victim".
But when an abortionists kills a fetus its OK because the fetus is not really an individual?...not really a victim?
How can that be?
Would any of you pro abortionists mind clearing that up for us?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004 (see Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson). Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[GMDino]

(10-06-2015, 09:58 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: In California when a pregnant mother is murdered and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with double homicide, and the fetus is referred to as a "victim".
But when an abortionists kills a fetus its OK because the fetus is not really an individual?...not really a victim?
How can that be?
Would any of you pro abortionists mind clearing that up for us?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004 (see Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson). Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Without knowing the ins and outs of this law I'd guess it is because someone else killed the mother...and the child died because the mother did vs the mother making the choice.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

Quote:© Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species ***** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2015, 09:58 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: In California when a pregnant mother is murdered and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with double homicide, and the fetus is referred to as a "victim".
But when an abortionists kills a fetus its OK because the fetus is not really an individual?...not really a victim?
How can that be?

Simple logic.

Same reason I can not be arrested for vandalism if I destroy my own property.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2015, 11:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Simple logic.

Same reason I can not be arrested for vandalism if I destroy my own property.

What if it is joint property?

[Brownshoe]

(10-06-2015, 11:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Simple logic.

Same reason I can not be arrested for vandalism if I destroy my own property.

I didn't think that humans can be considered property anymore. That's very interesting.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2015, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if it is joint property?

I think if you are in WA, CO or OR that's legal.

(10-06-2015, 11:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I didn't think that humans can be considered property anymore. That's very interesting.

Everything after the first three words in that sentence was unnecessary.

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2015, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if it is joint property?

Still yours, and you are allowed to destroy it.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 12:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Still yours, and you are allowed to destroy it.

So if you and I buy a piece of art and we decide to keep it in your trailer. If you purposely destroy the piece of art one night you are saying I have no recourse?

WTS the analogy makes no sense. It's like saying I can kill my own children. 

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2015, 11:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I didn't think that humans can be considered property anymore. That's very interesting.

It does not have to do with humans being considered property.  It has to do with superiority of an individuals rights.  Calling your own body your own property is just semantics.

I guess a better example would be saying that I can not be charged with assault if I cut off my own hand.

[Brownshoe]

(10-07-2015, 12:06 AM)GMDin Wrote: Everything after the first three words in that sentence was unnecessary.

My bad for pointing out that Freds logic is that humans can be property.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So if you and I buy a piece of art and we decide to keep it in your trailer. If you purposely destroy the piece of art one night you are saying I have no recourse?

WTS the analogy makes no sense. It's like saying I can kill my own children. 

Sorry, I thought you were talking about marital property.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: My bad for pointing out that Freds logic is that humans can be property.

Except I never said that.  See post #337.