Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 6:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2015 10:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/26/2015 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2015 8:39:00 PM (view original):
No, I'm asking you, at what point should we prohibit the termination of a pregnancy? 10 weeks? 12? 24?

How about conception?

It's incredibly stupid to make a random determination of 6 weeks or 10 weeks, or 12 weeks, or whatever.  Because when you do that, you're essentially saying that there's something materially different about the embryo or fetus or whatever you call it at that stage, between 11:59PM and 12:01AM on the day that you cross that date

Unless you can tell me what that material difference is, then it's just an arbitrary number.  I don't think that's a good way to determine life or death..   

Incredibly stupid? There is a difference between an unimplanted egg and a person. A woman isn't even pregnant at conception.

An unimplanted fertilized egg that never implants still qualifies as a human life in the strictest sense.  If it never implants it suffers death by natural causes, not by choice (other than some of the "morning-after" pills and specific pills that work by preventing implantation if I understand them correctly). 

But your answer doesn't address tec's point regarding what the material difference is between the two.  Or where the arbitrary magic moment is.  My assertion is there is no such magic moment (or in my terms biological event) that changes it from one kind of living being to another.

If I have to pick, the fetus is a person when it can survive outside the mother. Until then, it's a part of her, not a separate person.

Then you are not picking based on any fact, because clearly the fetus is not a part of another person; it is a living organism unto itself.  Its mother's womb is its location, i.e. where it lives.  A being that has human DNA, but with a different "fingerprint" is separate - not the same person at all.

Well, in that case, any pregnant woman that wants an abortion can just give the fetus to the hospital. They can find a new home for it.

Right now the law says she can, and we know that at early stages the fetus won't survive the process.  I understand that she may not want to be pregnant, but pregnancy is simply how things work and a potential consequence of a specific action.  If a human is created, we have a duty to protect that life - because it is human.  That can sound harsh to those who wish there were no consequences, but the alternative is much harsher for the most innocent human involved. 

I also see you dodged the "separate" vs. "part of" point without addressing...

If the fetus can't survive without the mother, it is part of the mother.

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Abortion is a loser for "true" conservatives.    "Every life is precious" doesn't work when you believe in the death penalty.    Or, in tec's case, that some criminals get what they deserve on the street. 

And the "it's just a page turn on a calendar" is a horrible argument if you believe grown men shouldn't have sex with 17 y/o girls but 18 is legal in the eyes of the law.

"Every life is precious" is not really the position.  The position is that human life has a natural right to life for one reason, and one reason only:  by virtue of its being human.  Not where it lives, not its degree of dependence on another person, not its stage of development, and not its own ability to take care of itself.  A human's right to life is one of the most basic foundations of natural law, and of our own nation. 

The death penalty is logically a different issue, but with some shared elements.  I'm not a big death penalty proponent, but when it's administered there is due process involved.  For the record, without eyewitness to corroborate even the most powerful of circumstantial evidence, I'm generally against it - even though it is a just punishment for murder.

There is a "due process" for abortion.   One must be a consenting adult, or have parental permission, and the pregnancy can't be beyond a certain date.   You're OK with due process for the death penalty because it somewhat lines up with your personal belief but not with abortion because it does not.

I know I can't convince you to change your mind, the street runs both ways, but we're both just dealing with the semantics of what we believe.   A woman eight months wants an abortion and I'm all "OH HELL NO!!!" because that's beyond acceptable to me.   It should be beyond acceptable to those who say "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body" but that conflicts with the sentence just uttered.  Nonetheless, I bet it's hard to find a proponent of 8th month abortions even though it's still the woman's body.  IOW, regardless of belief, everyone has a line.   The line is just different for me, you and "woman has the right" people.  But there's still a line.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 10:53:00 AM (view original):
If the fetus can't survive without the mother, it is part of the mother.

There's the disconnect between pro-life and pro-choice.

Pro-choice says "it's just a part of the mother's body".

Pro-life says "It's a separate person growing inside of the mother".

Unfortunately for the pro-choice crowd, they can't define a specific biological event where an embryo/fetus becomes a person, so they conveniently hide behind a calendar and arbitrarily determined dates and then wash their hands of it.

If it's a separate person, it can, by definition, be separated.

That's the test. When the fetus can survive separately, it's a person.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/27/2015 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 10:53:00 AM (view original):
If the fetus can't survive without the mother, it is part of the mother.

There's the disconnect between pro-life and pro-choice.

Pro-choice says "it's just a part of the mother's body".

Pro-life says "It's a separate person growing inside of the mother".

Unfortunately for the pro-choice crowd, they can't define a specific biological event where an embryo/fetus becomes a person, so they conveniently hide behind a calendar and arbitrarily determined dates and then wash their hands of it.

Don't go back to that "arbitrarily determined dates" on abortion if you can't apply them to other "arbitrarily determined dates".

Simple question:   Is it OK for a 33 y/o man to have sex with a fertile(meaning she's had a period) 13 y/o girl?   Many cultures consider the menstrual cycle the difference between childhood/womanhood.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 11:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/27/2015 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 10:53:00 AM (view original):
If the fetus can't survive without the mother, it is part of the mother.

There's the disconnect between pro-life and pro-choice.

Pro-choice says "it's just a part of the mother's body".

Pro-life says "It's a separate person growing inside of the mother".

Unfortunately for the pro-choice crowd, they can't define a specific biological event where an embryo/fetus becomes a person, so they conveniently hide behind a calendar and arbitrarily determined dates and then wash their hands of it.

Don't go back to that "arbitrarily determined dates" on abortion if you can't apply them to other "arbitrarily determined dates".

Simple question:   Is it OK for a 33 y/o man to have sex with a fertile(meaning she's had a period) 13 y/o girl?   Many cultures consider the menstrual cycle the difference between childhood/womanhood.

That's a question of societal and moral taboos.

Physically, yes, a 33 year old man can have sex with a 13 year old girl.

Most, if not all, civilized societies frown upon that.

It's a bad comparison.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
If it's a separate person, it can, by definition, be separated.

That's the test. When the fetus can survive separately, it's a person.

What day does that happen?  What's the triggering event that separates "can versus cannot" survive separately?

Not really.   We've decided, as a society, the age of "consenting adult" is 18 like all 18 y/o are of the same mental maturity. 

We've decided, as a society, that first term abortions are legal.    That the rights to said abortion belong to the consenting adult.

Both are just arbitrarily determined dates that most in our civilized society have accepted.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/27/2015 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
If it's a separate person, it can, by definition, be separated.

That's the test. When the fetus can survive separately, it's a person.

What day does that happen?  What's the triggering event that separates "can versus cannot" survive separately?

Around 22 weeks.

But that's only a 25% survival rate. At 24 weeks the rate increases.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/27/2015 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Not really.   We've decided, as a society, the age of "consenting adult" is 18 like all 18 y/o are of the same mental maturity. 

We've decided, as a society, that first term abortions are legal.    That the rights to said abortion belong to the consenting adult.

Both are just arbitrarily determined dates that most in our civilized society have accepted.

I concur that "as a society", we've agreed to those things.

Once upon a time, "as a society", we also agreed that owning slaves was not just a legal thing to do, but gosh darn it, it was the RIGHT thing to do as well.

The "as a society, we've agreed that . . . " knife cuts more than one way.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
If it's a separate person, it can, by definition, be separated.

That's the test. When the fetus can survive separately, it's a person.

No, that's not the test.  You can still be charged with murder if you kill a baby in its mother's womb, regardless of whether it can survive outside or not.  (if you are not a doctor who's been given the mother's permission to do so).

Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
If it's a separate person, it can, by definition, be separated.

That's the test. When the fetus can survive separately, it's a person.

No, that's not the test.  You can still be charged with murder if you kill a baby in its mother's womb, regardless of whether it can survive outside or not.  (if you are not a doctor who's been given the mother's permission to do so).

But the mother can kill it without being charged because, until it's viable without her, it's part of her.