Abortion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

you don't understand my post?
i don't understand yours.

---

No i did understand your post, what i didn't understand was your point.

Quote:

---

You are using Argentinian law to influence your opinion on American law without actually knowing what Roe v. Wade actually does. It is simply abortion upon polite request.

---

Yes i know about that forever famous sentence, but you're wrong i never mentioned Argentinian law above yours.

Quote:

---

You are saying that as birth control it is wrong? Why is that? If it is not a human being than how could that possibly be any more wrong than any form of contraception if the woman decides to abort early on? How does that follow logically?

---

And you will do very good in reading my posts...i clearly stated that if your position is protecting the fetus as a person right from the conception then that position of birth control can't be defended. For me it's very simple, does the mother wants abortion? Well then give it to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And because of the medical arguments, the law is wrong!

---

Hmm... So you are against equality between men and womens, due to the medical arguments as well ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You are saying that as birth control it is wrong?

---

I don't think it's wrong as birth control. I think it's stupid due to medical risk and cost though......

Quote:

---

i clearly stated that if your position is protecting the fetus as a person right from the conception then that position of birth control can't be defended.

---

How so birth control has nothing to do with a fetus? It stops the sperm and egg from ever joing hence no fetus. This is why some oppose the morning after pill as abortion and not birth control.

Quote:

---

Hmm... So you are against equality between men and womens, due to the medical arguments as well ??

---

Uh, medically speaking, men don't need abortions. ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How so birth control has nothing to do with a fetus? It stops the sperm and egg from ever joing hence no fetus. This is why some oppose the morning after pill as abortion and not birth control.

---

Oh, yes but the poster stated this as a form of birth control by abortion, not like prevention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Uh, medically speaking, men don't need abortions. ~:confused:

---

In the name of equality, the father of the fetus that can not be aborted should also have his freedom limited since he is just as responsible for the pregancy as the mother. We could put them both in a cell for the 9 month and make them think over their disrespect for life and sexual morality...... That would be equal between the sexes wouldn't it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

In the name of equality, the father of the fetus that can not be aborted should also have his freedom limited since he is just as responsible for the pregancy as the mother. We could put them both in a cell for the 9 month and make them think over their disrespect for life and sexual morality...... That would be equal between the sexes wouldn't it.....

---

If the father gives his consense then i totally agree with you, of course looking on it from the position of the moralist in this thread, from my position it will not be acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

In the name of equality, the father of the fetus that can not be aborted should also have his freedom limited since he is just as responsible for the pregancy as the mother. We could put them both in a cell for the 9 month and make them think over their disrespect for life and sexual morality...... That would be equal between the sexes wouldn't it.....

---

Don't really see where you are going with this... ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Don't really see where you are going with this... ~:handball:

---

I know, and that is the problem in your logic. ~;)

Or maybe in your's.

:balloon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

And let me make a correction, to France and almost all western Europe the fetus is considered a person after born and live for 24 hs.

---

Well, I don't really understand you sentence, but in France, laws on this matter are really complicated.
Abortion is possible until the 12th week.
Now, the foetus is also considered as a person when it is in its interest (that rule is called 'infans conceptus pro nato habetur'), as long as he borns and lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Well, I don't really understand you sentence, but in France, laws on this matter are really complicated.
Abortion is possible until the 12th week.
Now, the foetus is also considered as a person when it is in its interest (that rule is called 'infans conceptus pro nato habetur'), as long as he borns and lives.

---

I was talking about when the french legislation considers the fetus a person. In there it's after 24 hs after the birth, that's all. Though the fetus is also protected before the birth like a will-to-be person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Or maybe in your's.

:balloon:

---

My logic is very simple.

A woman have full right and control of her body. A fetus is a fetus until the day it leaves her body and become a child. A fetus have no rights, since its a part of the woman.

You logic is that the woman and the fetus are humans. This means that you have to make a compromise on the rights of the woman in order to grant the rights of the fetus. I believe that is wrong and I can't understand the logic behind this.

Quote:

---

A woman have full right and control of her body. A fetus is a fetus until the day it leaves her body and become a child. A fetus have no rights, since its a part of the woman.

---

I think modern medicine disagrees with you there.

Quote:

---

You logic is that the woman and the fetus are humans. This means that you have to make a compromise on the rights of the woman in order to grant the rights of the fetus. I believe that is wrong and I can't understand the logic behind this.

---

My logic is based on science. Your's is based seemingly on feminism. Very simple indeed. I thought science was supposed to trump all other arguments (for a reference, see all threads on God).

Quote:

---

A woman have full right and control of her body. A fetus is a fetus until the day it leaves her body and become a child. A fetus have no rights, since its a part of the woman.

---

wait a minute...even if it's 8 months old? Only afew hours from being born?! What if it is in the process of leaving it's mother?!?! I don't get it ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I think modern medicine disagrees with you there.

---

Personal rights have nothing to do with modern medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

My logic is based on science. Your's is based seemingly on feminism. Very simple indeed. I thought science was supposed to trump all other arguments (for a reference, see all threads on God).

---

It has nothing to do with science or feminism either. A person is in full control over its own body. Period. Surely there are people that disagree, and that not only in regards to womens, but I will refrain from extending the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I was talking about when the french legislation considers the fetus a person. In there it's after 24 hs after the birth, that's all. Though the fetus is also protected before the birth like a will-to-be person.

---

are you serious?
this is absurd

please prove it

while i wouldn't put it past the French to have a law on the books stating this - i still find it incredibly unlikely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

wait a minute...even if it's 8 months old? Only afew hours from being born?! What if it is in the process of leaving it's mother?!?! I don't get it ~:confused:

---

Yes, the own body belongs to the individual at all times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Personal rights have nothing to do with modern medicine.



It has nothing to do with science or feminism either. A person is in full control over its own body. Period. Surely there are people that disagree, and that not only in regards to womens, but I will refrain from extending the discussion.

---

why dont we start another topic attempting to explain where personal rights come from? they are hardly inherent and based only on law, tradition and faith (not necessarily in god); all of these change like the wind. humans have the "right" to live and to then die - everything else is based on circumstance and the beliefs of those around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

why dont we start another topic attempting to explain where personal rights come from? they are hardly inherent and based only on law, tradition and faith (not necessarily in god); all of these change like the wind. humans have the "right" to live and to then die - everything else is based on circumstance and the beliefs of those around them.

---

Sure, I personally would think that if womens have less rights than men, it would be a step backwards.
On the other hand, if you stand up and say that the rights of a fetus is more important than the right for a woman to her body, I can accept that.

My problem in this discussion is that it is limited to juicy pictures of aborted fetuses, and nobody brings up the risks, experience and often trauma for a woman to be pregnant against her will. How she got pregnant is for me in this discussion irrelevant.

With the above said, I strongly believe that in the future, the western world will have to force womens to get more children, since there will be a problem with shrinking populations pretty soon (some areas already). If this should be done through change in tradition, by law or through incentives I don't know.

The abortion discussion is more than what trimester the fetus should be protected. Its about how we see womans, her biological differences and how they should be handled in a modern society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Sure, I personally would think that if womens have less rights than men, it would be a step backwards.
On the other hand, if you stand up and say that the rights of a fetus is more important than the right for a woman to her body, I can accept that.

My problem in this discussion is that it is limited to juicy pictures of aborted fetuses, and nobody brings up the risks, experience and often trauma for a woman to be pregnant against her will. How she got pregnant is for me in this discussion irrelevant.

With the above said, I strongly believe that in the future, the western world will have to force womens to get more children, since there will be a problem with shrinking populations pretty soon (some areas already). If this should be done through change in tradition, by law or through incentives I don't know.

The abortion discussion is more than what trimester the fetus should be protected. Its about how we see womans, her biological differences and how they should be handled in a modern society.

---

listen, i fundamentally disagree with nearly every point that you have ever tried to make. i don't wamt to see human bodies become property of the state - but i also do not want to see an arbitrary definition of where humanity begins as decided by people who ignore scientific evidence in favor of PC idealism. i view this as the clear and present danger. dehumanization for convenience legitimizes dehumanization any other reason.

also - i do not believe that the western world needs to increase the average birth rate. i think that immigration is the answer to that. we simply need to figure out how to regulate immigration in a way that is favorable to our values and their propagation. I see no inherent need to continue white skin, only the democratic, ethical and cultural (religious, etc) ideals that form the basis of our ideal social goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

listen, i fundamentally disagree with nearly every point that you have ever tried to make. i don't wamt to see human bodies become property of the state - but i also do not want to see an arbitrary definition of where humanity begins as decided by people who ignore scientific evidence in favor of PC idealism. i view this as the clear and present danger. dehumanization for convenience legitimizes dehumanization any other reason.

---

There are scientific evidence for differences between humans, not only men and womens, and these differences can be used to classify humans. I don't think you want to go further on this road......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

also - i do not believe that the western world needs to increase the average birth rate. i think that immigration is the answer to that. we simply need to figure out how to regulate immigration in a way that is favorable to our values and their propagation. I see no inherent need to continue white skin, only the democratic, ethical and cultural (religious, etc) ideals that form the basis of our ideal social goals.

---

If you want to keep the democratic, ethical and cultural ideals, you can't only depend on immigration. You need new generations born in this environment. Re-education is far harder than starting from scratch.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

are you serious?
this is absurd

please prove it

while i wouldn't put it past the French to have a law on the books stating this - i still find it incredibly unlikely

---

Read the Codé Civil of France and you'll see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Read the Codé Civil of France and you'll see it.

---

Quote:

---

why dont we start another topic attempting to explain where personal rights come from? they are hardly inherent and based only on law, tradition and faith (not necessarily in god); all of these change like the wind. humans have the "right" to live and to then die - everything else is based on circumstance and the beliefs of those around them.

---

I already started it on "About Punishment", the point is that the fetus is not considered an human person, even from the legislations I know, it's considered instead, as a will-to-be person, that may explain your "that's absurd" on your other post.

Quote:

---

I already started it on "About Punishment", the point is that the fetus is not considered an human person, even from the legislations I know, it's considered instead, as a will-to-be person, that may explain your "that's absurd" on your other post.

---

Well here in the US theres now a quandry. IF you kill a woman and she is preganant you are charged with double homiced. A kid in Texas was sent to jail for life for helping his girlfeind abort her baby by standing on her stomach. Of course nothing happened to her as abortion is legal but he was found guilty of murder. How can this be reconciled? It seems even the legislator is confused. Its legal for a doctor to kills a womans baby but no one else it seems. In that case its a license to kill. Not exactly the idea behind the Hippocratic Oath . Of course it could then be called the Hypocratic Oath. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

IF you kill a woman and she is preganant you are charged with double homiced.

---

I remember when that law was passed -- people took some very odd positions. The pro-abortion groups saw it as a backdoor method for outlawing abortion, so they opposed it vehemently. But it sounds really strange to say, "No, if you kill a pregnant woman, it's not a double homicide!" They never got much traction.

It is possible that outlawing abortion really was the intent of the law, as your argument demonstrates. I'm guessing the law must be federal, since otherwise it wouldn't have stirred up a national debate ... but who knows? The whole abortion debate is pretty darn scorched-earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well here in the US theres now a quandry. IF you kill a woman and she is preganant you are charged with double homiced. A kid in Texas was sent to jail for life for helping his girlfeind abort her baby by standing on her stomach. Of course nothing happened to her as abortion is legal but he was found guilty of murder. How can this be reconciled? It seems even the legislator is confused. Its legal for a doctor to kills a womans baby but no one else it seems. In that case its a license to kill. Not exactly the idea behind the Hippocratic Oath . Of course it could then be called the Hypocratic Oath. ~;)

---

Well though i really don't like and don't trust that confuse system called "common law" (even less in criminal cases), don't worry because those absurdities occur through all the world, and that happens because the judge forgets that his morals don't should take place in the trial. We've similar cases here, but as our legislation is codified (so it's more precise) I can give you an express example of absurdity in legislations: "Art. 83.- Será reprimido con prisión de uno a cuatro años, el que instigare a otro al suicidio o le ayudare a cometerlo, si el suicidio se hubiese tentado o consumado." This means that if you instegated somebody to commit suicide or you're accomplice of it, and the suicide is consumed, the you must be convicted!!! (letting the requiring of consumation aside that's wrong too) You cannot acuse somebody of instigation if the conduct that he caused is not in principle illicit, and suicide is not illicit here, so from where does the legislator comes with this ideas? I certainly don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

There are scientific evidence for differences between humans, not only men and womens, and these differences can be used to classify humans. I don't think you want to go further on this road.......

---

what are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

If you want to keep the democratic, ethical and cultural ideals, you can't only depend on immigration. You need new generations born in this environment. Re-education is far harder than starting from scratch.......

---

listen, our population hasnt stopped wholesale - and the funny thing is, most of my generation on the east coast does more to erode the nations culture than it does to prop it up. with a global population that is skyrocketing, i am sure that the population of certain ethnic groups slowing down is not a horrible thing. notice that i am aware of a population overdrive, but i do not advocate killing to solve this problem.





also - soulforged
i'd love to see some evidence that states that in france - baby is not a "person" until 24 hours after its birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Yes, the own body belongs to the individual at all times.

---

at that point(As it is leaving the mother) it is as much alive as a 2 year old and could easily survive out side of the mother. If a 1 year old infant was breast feeding, would that give the mother the right to "Abort" It because it is a parasite attached to her body? ~D

Soulforged said 24 hours, not 24 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

Soulforged said 24 hours, not 24 months.

---

right, i accidentally miswrote months

Quote:

---

at that point(As it is leaving the mother) it is as much alive as a 2 year old and could easily survive out side of the mother. If a 1 year old infant was breast feeding, would that give the mother the right to "Abort" It because it is a parasite attached to her body?
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The point is that he[Gawain] doesn't have a position.

---

This is pretty funny considering you have the same non position as I do here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

what are you talking about?

---

There is a scientifically proven difference between men and womans, or do you know something I don't ?? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

listen, our population hasnt stopped wholesale - and the funny thing is, most of my generation on the east coast does more to erode the nations culture than it does to prop it up. with a global population that is skyrocketing, i am sure that the population of certain ethnic groups slowing down is not a horrible thing. notice that i am aware of a population overdrive, but i do not advocate killing to solve this problem.

---

I didn't think you advocated killing to stop a shrinking population, after all that would be counter productive. I do remain that the local educational system needs kids to be able to maintain the local culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

There is a scientifically proven difference between men and womans, or do you know something I don't ?? ~;).

---

Listen - First of all, the classification of humans had nothing to do with my statement. Secondly, you answered my "what are you talking about" question with an fact that explained nothing. A probable reason that you believe "people turn arguments into english lessons" with you is because often it seems like there are 2 unrelated conversations going on at once. Sometimes someone doesn't translate a word/idea correctly and the entire argument gets de-railed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I didn't think you advocated killing to stop a shrinking population, after all that would be counter productive. I do remain that the local educational system needs kids to be able to maintain the local culture.

---

That isn't what I had said in the first place. I must have either not made myself clear or you simply did not read my post carefully enough.
*inappropriate wink*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

also - soulforged
i'd love to see some evidence that states that in france - baby is not a "person" until 24 hours after its birth.

---

Then read the french civil code. But if you are too lazy ~;) , then look to the following. Again this doesn't mean the fetus is not protected. And here the fetus is only considered a person after birth too, you must understand that the legislative system doesn't recognice the fetus as a person, but as a will-to-be person.

This are the articles where the viability is impied (viability is the requirement for the child of being capable to continue living, to be considered a person):Art. 79-1
(Act n° 93-22 of 8 Jan. 1993)Where a child is dead before his birth was declared to the civil registry, the officer of civil status shall draw up a record of birth and a record of death upon exhibition of a medical certificate stating that the child was born alive and viable and specifying the days and times of his birth and death.
In the absence of the medical certificate provided for in the preceding paragraph, the officer of civil status shall draw up a record of a lifeless child. That record shall be entered at its date in the registers of death and shall state the day, time, and place of the delivery, the first names and names, dates and places of birth, occupations and domiciles of the father and mother and, if there is occasion, those of the declarant. The record drawn up shall be without prejudice to knowing whether the child has lived or not; any party concerned may refer the matter to the judgment of the tribunal de grande instance.

Art. 311-4
No action is admissible as to the parentage of a child who was not born viable.

There's a couple of articles more in this link. The doctrine and jurisprudence asks for 24 hours to stablish viability (I'll investigate a little more and say to you where it's expressed, if it is). In the case that the child borns before 6º month he's never considered viable in principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

This is pretty funny considering you have the same non position as I do here.

---

~:confused: Sorry, not sure what you mean by that. I added the quote because i though it was amusing, given the fact that you are one of the more "positioned" (For lack of a better word) members of the forum(Though pretty much any one who posts in the back room on a regular basis is fairly well "positioned")

Back to the subject:

bmolsson

You have not answerd my question yet. Don't make me badger you!!!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php

That site is so annoying. :dizzy2: I don't understand why some people find it funny...

Quote:

---

Sorry, not sure what you mean by that. I added the quote because i though it was amusing, given the fact that you are one of the more "positioned" (For lack of a better word) members of the forum(Though pretty much any one who posts in the back room on a regular basis is fairly well "positioned")

---

Well in that case I take it as a compliment. I couldnt beileive when he posted that.

Okay, before I go read 4 pages of "I'm right", "No, you're not", "Yes, I am" can somebody short cut me here....

Bmolsson & Soulforged are claiming if a woman wants to abort her fetus right up until during delivery, it's her right. Everyone else is struggling with this, saying the deadline falls earlier. The argument for this put forward by the two of them is that as long as the baby is physically attached to the mother, through the umbilical cord, it is not it's own entity. Am I missing anything important?

Yes. Bmolsson takes this position because to do otherwise would, in his view, place unfair restrictions on the mother's freedom. Soulforged uses legal codes to back up his stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Okay, before I go read 4 pages of "I'm right", "No, you're not", "Yes, I am" can somebody short cut me here....

Bmolsson & Soulforged are claiming if a woman wants to abort her fetus right up until during delivery, it's her right. Everyone else is struggling with this, saying the deadline falls earlier. The argument for this put forward by the two of them is that as long as the baby is physically attached to the mother, through the umbilical cord, it is not it's own entity. Am I missing anything important?

---

Yes. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Listen - First of all, the classification of humans had nothing to do with my statement. Secondly, you answered my "what are you talking about" question with an fact that explained nothing. A probable reason that you believe "people turn arguments into english lessons" with you is because often it seems like there are 2 unrelated conversations going on at once. Sometimes someone doesn't translate a word/idea correctly and the entire argument gets de-railed.

---

Not at all. Our discussion is who ever is the most important to protect, the mother or the fetus. I say the mother and you say the fetus. This means that you have classified a pregnant woman to have less rights than a man or a not pregnant woman. I believe that is wrong.

Quote:

---

Not at all. Our discussion is who ever is the most important to protect, the mother or the fetus. I say the mother and you say the fetus. This means that you have classified a pregnant woman to have less rights than a man or a not pregnant woman. I believe that is wrong.

---

That's just unbelievable. Abortion in the last days of a pregnancy is about protecting the mother? Maybe a few times, but a paltry few at that.

To my knowledge, the majority of abortions is not about protecting the mother (ie her life is in danger) but about late birth control. That's more like murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

That's just unbelievable. Abortion in the last days of a pregnancy is about protecting the mother? Maybe a few times, but a paltry few at that.

To my knowledge, the majority of abortions is not about protecting the mother (ie her life is in danger) but about late birth control. That's more like murder.

---

Again, its up to the woman. Surely one can have a lot of emotional opinions on the reasons for an abortion, but it is up to the woman to make decisions over her own body. The fetus/child doesn't have any rights until it has left the mother body. Until that it is under total control of the "hostess".......

Bmolsson, you can call people emotional, irrational, any name you care to. The "law" has always been, and will always be about what a majority of the people see as just. At times, an unstable condition occurs and for brief periods, the particular laws of a state fall out of line with the will of the people. One way or another, this is always resolved. Just as people revolted in Athens, rioted in Rome and impeached Nixon, prolonged injustice can not stand.

A vast majority of the people believe that elective abortion beyond the first trimester is an abomination. I have no idea what the laws in Indonesia are, but I do know what they are in Sweden, UK and other Western European states. As far as I know, the United States and Canada are the only Western countries to participate in this abomination, and neither does so by a clear mandate of law or through a will of the majority of their people. In both cases, it is an unstable and untenable trick being played by a special interest group. Abortion is the law of the land in the US. Abortion on demand in week 38 will not stand, mark my words.

Should women be free to make a decision about their body? Yes. As repugnant and irresponsible as I find abortion to be, I can see no legal grounds for denying a woman's right to choose prior to the viability of her fetus. Should these same women have a right to dismember and vaccuum a living, self-sustaining entity, because they never got around to it in the first 37 weeks? All but you and Soul Forged seem to think not. You're not getting any converts and frankly, this is getting quite tiring. If you feel so strongly about dismembering 9 month old fetuses, why don't you move to America and become an abortionist yourself? You certainly seem to have a desire for it and to put it bluntly, your political skills seem to be lacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Bmolsson, you can call people emotional, irrational, any name you care to. The "law" has always been, and will always be about what a majority of the people see as just. At times, an unstable condition occurs and for brief periods, the particular laws of a state fall out of line with the will of the people. One way or another, this is always resolved. Just as people revolted in Athens, rioted in Rome and impeached Nixon, prolonged injustice can not stand.

---

I must disagree with you. Justice cannot be achieved by misinformed people (if you don't want to call them emotional or irrational).

Quote:

---

A vast majority of the people believe that elective abortion beyond the first trimester is an abomination. I have no idea what the laws in Indonesia are, but I do know what they are in Sweden, UK and other Western European states. As far as I know, the United States and Canada are the only Western countries to participate in this abomination, and neither does so by a clear mandate of law or through a will of the majority of their people. In both cases, it is an unstable and untenable trick being played by a special interest group. Abortion is the law of the land in the US. Abortion on demand in week 38 will not stand, mark my words.

---

But why is it an abomination? Maybe I lost some of your arguments (doubtful) but until now you didn't give us any argument to say, yes the fetus is a person. I must remind you also that almost al western world that I know, protect the fetus not as a person, but as a will-to-be person, is not the same.

Quote:

---

Should women be free to make a decision about their body? Yes. As repugnant and irresponsible as I find abortion to be, I can see no legal grounds for denying a woman's right to choose prior to the viability of her fetus. Should these same women have a right to dismember and vaccuum a living, self-sustaining entity, because they never got around to it in the first 37 weeks? All but you and Soul Forged seem to think not. You're not getting any converts and frankly, this is getting quite tiring. If you feel so strongly about dismembering 9 month old fetuses, why don't you move to America and become an abortionist yourself? You certainly seem to have a desire for it and to put it bluntly, your political skills seem to be lacking.

---

Because this is not political (I've done the same in the other two topics "About Punishment" and "The drugs and our inherent freedoms"),but mostly it's about dogma. I should remind you also that many a jurist supports our stance (the person only can and must be protected when separated from the mather, and has visual signs and organical signs of being another person). You're letting your emotions take over your arguments here. Have you ever bothered to read some of the arguments that jurists put in one side or the other? I can assure you, that the possition that protects the fetus like a person or willtobe, is lacking of real arguments, it's more christianity than anything, yes christianity!! Not medical science but religion...

Quote:

---

I can assure you, that the possition that protects the fetus like a person or willtobe, is lacking of real arguments, it's more christianity than anything, yes christianity!! Not medical science but religion...

---

It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Quote:

---

I should remind you also that many a jurist supports our stance (the person only can and must be protected when separated from the mather,

---

Not here they dont.

Soulforged, unless your position is that the laws against murder are based solely on religious grounds, all you're doing is attempting to demonize people who disagree with you (those damn christo-fascists have struck again).

The rest of us are engaged in a debate as to when life begins. Once you believe it's a human being, killing it must be murder. Therefore, the debate for everyone except for you and Bmolsson appears to be when does the fetus qualify as a human being.

The justification for considering a fetus of 38 weeks to be a human being has nothing to do with religious dogma. If it did, the answer would be 'conception, debate is over'. Many people, religious and areligious alike, put the qualification at the point of viability. For medical reasons. We look at 'what are the physical differences between a 38 week old fetus in the womb and a 35 week old baby that was born prematurely?" If anything, the 38 week old is more developed. Is it your point that if parents have a premature baby and change their mind while the child is in the incubator, they have the right to kill it? Because I assure you, babies at 30 weeks outside the womb are more dependant on the incubator than babies at 39 weeks are on their mothers.

So, it's not a religious argument. Everyone but you and Bmolsson and Planned Parenthood (who have a vested interest in this, by the way) reject this dubious claim that it's not a human being until the umbilical cord is detached. Medical ethicists have put the test at viability. I would have to agree with them, and that's not religious superstition (or any other cute terms you can come up with). Do you have any justification for saying that a baby attached to an umbilical cord IS NOT a human being, other than 'because you said so?'

One more time, because your last paragraph is so far out there... you do realize that we're talking about elective abortions in the third trimester, correct? I have never seen a legal opinion in favor of this. I would love to see the opinions of these enlightened jurists you keep referring to. Maybe a link or a quote? Call me emotional (oh wait, you did) but I have this silly need to actually see facts before I assume them to be in evidence. Remember, your claim is that there's a bunch of jurists out there that support your claim that elective abortion in the third trimester is fine and only emotion and religious dogma can be attributed as reasons for opposing it. So have at it big guy, produce some jurisprudence where judges advocate elective abortion in the third trimester. This I have to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Soulforged, unless your position is that the laws against murder are based solely on religious grounds, all you're doing is attempting to demonize people who disagree with you (those damn christo-fascists have struck again).

---

Murder? Who's talking about murder here? I thought this was about abortion... ~:confused:

Quote:

---

The rest of us are engaged in a debate as to when life begins. Once you believe it's a human being, killing it must be murder. Therefore, the debate for everyone except for you and Bmolsson appears to be when does the fetus qualify as a human being.

---

No this is not about when life begins, but when the human is a person (wich implies rights). The fetus never qualifies as an human being, until it's separated from the host body, so this answers your next question.

Quote:

---

So, it's not a religious argument. Everyone but you and Bmolsson and Planned Parenthood (who have a vested interest in this, by the way) reject this dubious claim that it's not a human being until the umbilical cord is detached. Medical ethicists have put the test at viability. I would have to agree with them, and that's not religious superstition (or any other cute terms you can come up with). Do you have any justification for saying that a baby attached to an umbilical cord IS NOT a human being, other than 'because you said so?'

---

Yes legal arguments. You might want ot read your law, and see what's the difference between human life and human person, something that talks about personality might help you understand my position, even if you don't agree with it. And about the religious argument I'll translate you some of the link below: "No parece plausible, en temas donde las valorizaciones sociales están indisolublemente vinculadas a principios morales y religiosos fuertemente incorporados en la vida de la sociedad, formular un código ético rígido, dependiente de una normativa que proporcione directivas morales definitivas para todas las situaciones que puedan plantearse"-it means: "It doesn't appears plausible, in subjects where the social values are strongly linked to moral and religious principles, strongly incorparated to the social life..."- we come from a Christian Catholic Apostolic Roman country so the arguments have a base on that mostly, imposing the value of the "soul" that has nothing to do with science. In any case it's discussable, I'm not saying that it isn't but you and no body in this post has said anything of value on your favour. And just to you don't say I didn't say you, look above because I clearly said the the arguments are "mostly" religious, is obvious that they give some medical arguments because this will be to much.

Quote:

---

One more time, because your last paragraph is so far out there... you do realize that we're talking about elective abortions in the third trimester, correct? I have never seen a legal opinion in favor of this. I would love to see the opinions of these enlightened jurists you keep referring to. Maybe a link or a quote? Call me emotional (oh wait, you did) but I have this silly need to actually see facts before I assume them to be in evidence. Remember, your claim is that there's a bunch of jurists out there that support your claim that elective abortion in the third trimester is fine and only emotion and religious dogma can be attributed as reasons for opposing it. So have at it big guy, produce some jurisprudence where judges advocate elective abortion in the third trimester. This I have to see.

---

I'll have to investigate more to remember who were exactly the ones that supported this possition, but for now I can give you a conpatriot, Orgaz: this is the source. This even gives you what I say about the definition of person, even the ones on your side, yes...But I'll translate some of this for you:"To this thesis of the codifier Orgaz opposes arguing that it's a signigicative mistake to confuse human life, with human person accepting that the person begins in the moment of conception, but the person begins his existence with the birth, because since that moment of separation it reflects an autonomal individual life, fundamental requisit for we to talk about personality." Later:"Returning to the thesis of Orgaz. The human life begins in the conception and it's life is protected while it represents a future eventuality (falcultative, wich I don't agree), but the person of visible existence" -called in civil law "individual person", "natural person" or "human person"- "only exists since the birth, because there it reflects an individual form of life..." this second part talks about the sum of the contrary position and that of Orgaz, because the last adds some rational cannons to other subjects (notion of birth, and moment of existence, and others). There you've one, though I really don't know why should I give you more, you didn't show me wich are the legal arguments from the side of the antiabortionists. ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Should women be free to make a decision about their body? Yes. As repugnant and irresponsible as I find abortion to be, I can see no legal grounds for denying a woman's right to choose prior to the viability of her fetus.

---

So we agree on something.... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You certainly seem to have a desire for it and to put it bluntly, your political skills seem to be lacking.

---

Never said I have any political skills. I just happen to have a very simple and straight forward opinion on an individuals rights. Maybe I am not liberal enough for you...... ~:cheers:

Well with all the respect Don, it appears that the mouse has eaten your tongue... ~;)

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Well with all the respect Don, it appears that the mouse has eaten your tongue...

---

Yes his probably still trying to figure out what the hell your talking about.

Gawain, He's trying to say that despite the fact that he cannot cite a single precendent other than "I think some guy named Orgaz agrees with me" is the only quote he can come up, somehow the legal establishment of the world agrees with him that elective abortion should be allowed through the 39th week and he's calling me out to provide case studies where that's not the case. The whole thing is kinda funny, because I actually speak Spanish well enough to understand that it's an opinion piece by an achademic, not an actual judgement or even a brief by the court.

Soulforged, I wasn't ducking you, I was travelling.

Lets see, your position was that elective abortion in the 39th week is practicable, enlightened, and allowed by the legal jurisdictions of most nations. In fact, you took it one step further to say that anybody who disagrees is making a nonsense argument based on some emotional rant about what they think their religion requires. Which is funny.

(Sorry for the Wikipedia links guys, but I'm in Seattle and seriously jet-lagging. I trust their accuracy on case-law though, it's usually the essays that are shifty).

France is Constitutionally secular. Yet, in France, abortion policy is controlled by the Veil law, which says elective abortions are not allowed after week 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Veil

Well, we all know France isn't that secular, they still allow Catholics to practice their religion after all. Let's take a look around the rest of Europe:

In Sweden, abortion policy is controlled by the Abortion Act of 1974. Here, elective abortions cease at 12 weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden

Germany didn't allow elective abortion, until reunification. Then they allowed it in the first trimester only, after counselling and a 3 day waiting period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

The Netherlands didn't approve of elective abortions until 1981, but when they finally got around to it, they placed the limit at viablitiy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...he_Netherlands

In fact, in a quick swing through Europe, I cannot find any countries that allow elective abortion after the end of the 2nd trimester at best (Netherlands would be the latest at 24 weeks).

Now, I'm exhausted. Europe is the most socially liberal place on the planet, and each and every state (EVEN SWEDEN!) have come out and said they think abortion after week 26, unless for the health of the mother, is murder.

If you insist, tomorrow I will go through Asia and Africa's policies, but I'm warning you, don't hold your breath. They tend to be more rigid about these things.

OH WAIT!!! There is one place you can receive an elective abortion in the 39th week. Sadly, there is no legal basis for it, only a ruling by an unelected mid-level judge that claims to trump state and federal legislative power. Unfortunately, the jude's superiors, the nation's highest court, have thus far refused to weigh in on the matter, leaving the law in an "anything goes because there is no law" limbo. This would be the United States. Try as I might, I cannot find a single politician or judge actually agree with you. They just keep striking down any laws that don't on the shaky grounds of "this doesn't feel right". Gee, who's making the emotional arguments here?

Possiblemente, usted puede providar un deciso de un resolucion legal y no solo un tesis la vez proxima, eh?

Quote:

---

This means that you have classified a pregnant woman to have less rights than a man or a not pregnant woman. I believe that is wrong.

---

I admit that i've seen some OK arguments ( for early ones at any rate) for abortion, but this is probably the weakest i've ever seen. a woman with five children has far fewer rights then a woman with none. Does that give her the right to "Abort" Them? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Gawain, He's trying to say that despite the fact that he cannot cite a single precendent other than "I think some guy named Orgaz agrees with me" is the only quote he can come up, somehow the legal establishment of the world agrees with him that elective abortion should be allowed through the 39th week and he's calling me out to provide case studies where that's not the case. The whole thing is kinda funny, because I actually speak Spanish well enough to understand the case study and nowhere in there does the question of time limits on elective abortion, in favor of widening or narrowing occur.

---

Do you think that the jurisprudence is the only source of the law? Do you think that doctrine has no voice here? Even more when there's little jurisprudence to look at from my side, seeing the revolutionary of the possition. Again I presented you at least one author supporting my possition, one scientific work (ie doctrine), you didn't give me anything...Why should I give you more when I've far more important subjects concerning my studies. But please present some.

Quote:

---

Lets see, your position was that elective abortion in the 39th week is practicable, enlightened, and allowed by the legal jurisdictions of most nations. In fact, you took it one step further to say that anybody who disagrees is making a nonsense argument based on some emotional rant about what they think their religion requires. Which is funny.

---

If you find the expression "emotional rant" in any of my posts then you're truly a visionary. I never said that anybody who disagrees makes an emotional appeal, I even know the medical reasons. Now if you want to put words in my mouth then let's do, let's say anything about anybody. Besides you threw the rock first, upseted about previous posts, you called me big guy and asked for proof in an inproper way, I just answered the same way.

Quote:

---

France is Constitutionally secular. Yet, in France, abortion policy is controlled by the Veil law, which says elective abortions are not allowed after week 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Veil

---

I know that.

Quote:

---

Well, we all know France isn't that secular, they still allow Catholics to practice their religion after all. Let's take a look around the rest of Europe:

In Sweden, abortion policy is controlled by the Abortion Act of 1974. Here, elective abortions cease at 12 weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden

Germany didn't allow elective abortion, until reunification. Then they allowed it in the first trimester only, after counselling and a 3 day waiting period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

The Netherlands didn't approve of elective abortions until 1981, but when they finally got around to it, they placed the limit at viablitiy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...he_Netherlands

In fact, in a quick swing through Europe, I cannot find any countries that allow elective abortion after the end of the 2nd trimester at best (Netherlands would be the latest at 24 weeks).

---

So? Did my point has anything to do with that?

Quote:

---

Now, I'm exhausted. Europe is the most socially liberal place on the planet, and each and every state (EVEN SWEDEN!) have come out and said they think abortion after week 26, unless for the health of the mother, is murder.

---

Yes mine too. The problem is that you don't see beyond law and jurisprudence.

Quote:

---

If you insist, tomorrow I will go through Asia and Africa's policies, but I'm warning you, don't hold your breath. They tend to be more rigid about these things.

---

Sure I'll no hold my breath, but why to lose yours? Don't bother because this sais nothing.

Quote:

---

OH WAIT!!! There is one place you can receive an elective abortion in the 39th week. Sadly, there is no legal basis for it, only a ruling by an unelected mid-level judge that claims to trump state and federal legislative power. Unfortunately, the jude's superiors, the nation's highest court, have thus far refused to weigh in on the matter, leaving the law in an "anything goes because there is no law" limbo. This would be the United States. Try as I might, I cannot find a single politician or judge actually agree with you. They just keep striking down any laws that don't on the shaky grounds of "this doesn't feel right". Gee, who's making the emotional arguments here?

---

Nobody, I never said emotional I said clearly that the doctrine by your side gives some medical references, but more importantly, because of the social weight, religious arguments. Again do you have anything more than mere jurisprudence? You've to notice that the jurisprudence tends to favour a certain line and varies little compared to the doctrine. So until now you just gave me the obvious: no country supports this (except USA, wich I didn't knew, and I thank you for the data), wow what a reveletion, really? WOOOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

I admit that i've seen some OK arguments ( for early ones at any rate) for abortion, but this is probably the weakest i've ever seen. a woman with five children has far fewer rights then a woman with none. Does that give her the right to "Abort" Them? ~D

---

You can't abort children only fetuses, so there wouldn't be any problems there I believe...

Furthermore, I do believe that parenthood doesn't remove any of your individual rights, but then I don't know about your country..... :bow:

Wow. You ask me for links proving that ending elective abortion prior to the third trimester is anything but an emotional/religious argument. I provide them to you and you say "Well, that's just the law. Give me some theory?"

Okay , but this is the absolute last post I have to make on the matter. You're not arguing consistently and are frequently changing what you say. I find no interest in continuing the discussion further. So, make all the cracks you want after this (I'm sure you will), I'm not answering you further.

Different biological views explained (note, there is a long history section on what the defintion of human life has been taken to mean in the past. Scroll down past that, the different defintions are well indicated). http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

In this article, the author acknowledges that the defintion for the beginning of human life is something that evades us. As a professor of Neurobiology & Anatomy for the University of Utah, she argues that the best approach is to take the definition for the end of life and reverse it. That limits the time for elective aboriton even further, to when brain waves first appear on an EEG. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...04/ai_n9192621 Hmm, yeah, this one just smacks of religious dogma... ~:dizzy2:

Here, a psychiatrist and philospher, Joseph Morales posts an argument involving the ability to reproduce oneself (not sexually, I mean the ability for autopoiesis, to regrow cells and tissue). http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm. Notice he doesn't invoke the bible once. He does point out that beyond neurological activity and autopoiesis, the next big developmental step is the development of conciousness. This would be the one you would have to use to justify 3rd trimester abortion, but he clearly states that as conciousness isn't usually developed until about 6 to 8 months after birth, you'd have to allow for infanticide if you chose to use it.

So here we have three people. Scott Gilbert, who lists a bunch of different definitions for life in his Developmental Biology textbook. He lists conception, neurological activity, ecological (self-sustenance) and self-conciousness (which allows for infanticide). Note that from a biological point of view, there is no difference between a fetus attached to an umbilical cord and one that is not.

Then we have a physician who studies end-of-life issues who argues we should define the beginning of life the same way we define the end of life, presence or absence of brainwaves in the cerebrum.

Finally, we have a philosopher who thinks that autopiesis (the ability to regenerate one's cells & tissues) should be the criteria.

All of these definitions of life indicate that by 24 weeks, the fetus is alive and a human being (therefore, elective abortion should halt). Nowhere did anybody make an emotional argument or quote biblical scripture to you.

Now, I have a question for you.... I'm going to delve into utilitarianism for a moment....I'm not looking for an answer, this is something for the 2 of you to mull over on your own...

Why are you and Bmolsson so vehement about a woman's right to choose into the third trimester? If she has not availed herself of 'her right to choose' by 24 weeks of pregnancy, what are we protecting in the last 15, other than a nice fat paycheck for the abortionist? Honestly, I do not understand how we are supposed to respect the choice of a woman to kill her 3rd trimester fetus when for 24/26 weeks had CHOSEN to carry the baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Nobody, I never said emotional I said clearly that the doctrine by your side gives some medical references, but more importantly, because of the social weight, religious arguments. Again do you have anything more than mere jurisprudence? You've to notice that the jurisprudence tends to favour a certain line and varies little compared to the doctrine. So until now you just gave me the obvious: no country supports this (except USA, wich I didn't knew, and I thank you for the data), wow what a reveletion, really? WOOOW.

---

Just so you understand specifically where I'm saying you've changed your tune... above, you say that my argument is based on religious arguments.

Here, on the earlier page, you say that I'm letting my emotions run away with me and many a jurist has found that a fetus CAN ONLY be protected when separated from the mother. You conclude by saying that my argument is all based on religion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged two days ago

Because this is not political (I've done the same in the other two topics "About Punishment" and "The drugs and our inherent freedoms"),but mostly it's about dogma. I should remind you also that many a jurist supports our stance (the person only can and must be protected when separated from the mather, and has visual signs and organical signs of being another person). You're letting your emotions take over your arguments here. Have you ever bothered to read some of the arguments that jurists put in one side or the other? I can assure you, that the possition that protects the fetus like a person or willtobe, is lacking of real arguments, it's more christianity than anything, yes christianity!! Not medical science but religion...

---

Here, you refer to me as misinfomed and irrational:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged two days ago

I must disagree with you. Justice cannot be achieved by misinformed people (if you don't want to call them emotional or irrational).

---

And yet today, you're claiming you never said that my arguments were emotional and based on religion, that you even know the medical reasoning. It's this sort of duplicity that ends arguments with me very quickly. I do not care to discuss topics with somebody who will say whatever is convenient at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

You can't abort children only fetuses, so there wouldn't be any problems there I believe...

Furthermore, I do believe that parenthood doesn't remove any of your individual rights, but then I don't know about your country..... :bow:

---

whats the difference? they can both feel pain, think(To a certain extent IIRC), and survive with out the mother(Note that this is as it is leaving the mother in this case).

Ask any one with an infant if they had more freedom before or after it came along ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Wow. You ask me for links proving that ending elective abortion prior to the third trimester is anything but an emotional/religious argument. I provide them to you and you say "Well, that's just the law. Give me some theory?"

---

Again doctrine is part of the law, at least from where I come from. Jurisprudence doesn't serve to much for this matter.

Quote:

---

Okay , but this is the absolute last post I have to make on the matter. You're not arguing consistently and are frequently changing what you say. I find no interest in continuing the discussion further. So, make all the cracks you want after this (I'm sure you will), I'm not answering you further.

---

Don't worry I don't hold my breath. In any case I never argued in any other way, you say that, but I never did that.

Quote:

---

Different biological views explained (note, there is a long history section on what the defintion of human life has been taken to mean in the past. Scroll down past that, the different defintions are well indicated). http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

---

I think you've a serious problem of comprhension. Did I ever argued over the beggining of the human life? I always argued about the begging of the person, wich to me is the only one with rights, and not the will to be.

Quote:

---

In this article, the author acknowledges that the defintion for the beginning of human life is something that evades us. As a professor of Neurobiology & Anatomy for the University of Utah, she argues that the best approach is to take the definition for the end of life and reverse it. That limits the time for elective aboriton even further, to when brain waves first appear on an EEG. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...04/ai_n9192621 Hmm, yeah, this one just smacks of religious dogma... ~:dizzy2:

---

Yes you've problems of comprehenssion. Again I say you. This are medical arguments, the arguments given by jurists are tendent to present religious points of view. Try to read and understand, if you don't understand my english then I can write to you in spanish.

Quote:

---

Here, a psychiatrist and philospher, Joseph Morales posts an argument involving the ability to reproduce oneself (not sexually, I mean the ability for autopoiesis, to regrow cells and tissue). [url]

---

Well another one...

Quote:

---

Notice he doesn't invoke the bible once. He does point out that beyond neurological activity and autopoiesis, the next big developmental step is the development of conciousness. This would be the one you would have to use to justify 3rd trimester abortion, but he clearly states that as conciousness isn't usually developed until about 6 to 8 months after birth, you'd have to allow for infanticide if you chose to use it.

---

You keep on missing the point, i think that this is on purpose...

Quote:

---

All of these definitions of life indicate that by 24 weeks, the fetus is alive and a human being (therefore, elective abortion should halt). Nowhere did anybody make an emotional argument or quote biblical scripture to you.

---

You did it when you said to me how bloodthirsty I'm. Now you just threw a bunch of nothingness. Again I ask you, where's the arguments to say that the fetus is a person (that has personality), I presented some on your favour...Yes I even helped you, but you try to avoid my assistence...jesus...this is one with an strong head...

Quote:

---

Why are you and Bmolsson so vehement about a woman's right to choose into the third trimester? If she has not availed herself of 'her right to choose' by 24 weeks of pregnancy, what are we protecting in the last 15, other than a nice fat paycheck for the abortionist? Honestly, I do not understand how we are supposed to respect the choice of a woman to kill her 3rd trimester fetus when for 24/26 weeks had CHOSEN to carry the baby.

---

If it's her dessition to make then we cannot ask what is the reason to make it. If the fetus is not a person, and for instance it doesn't has rights, then why should we bother? I'll give you a hint: Lincoln said something about this, about freedom, wich I don't agree, but is one of the most strong arguments on your side. And I repeat to you, effects provoqued by other sciences don't create rights, law create rights, if we're arguing about rights we must look for the person, not the human. I really don't know why I'm even answering to you, I readed all your posts, you ignored mine, and now you say that you'll not bother to make another post because I'm the one that has no sense? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

whats the difference? they can both feel pain, think(To a certain extent IIRC), and survive with out the mother(Note that this is as it is leaving the mother in this case).

Ask any one with an infant if they had more freedom before or after it came along

---

The difference is that what you're proposing is called homicide, not abortion.

But how is it different? My point is that they are different in name only.

Unless of course you have evidence that supports the argument that a fetus that is going to be born in afew minutes is NOT a human being.

The mother should have the right to Abortion to the extent that it would not be destroying something that is alive. After the fetus becomes alive, it's right to live becomes greater then the mothers right to "Do what she feels like".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

But how is it different? My point is that they are different in name only.

---

Not only in name. At least here abortion is an atenuated figure respect of homicide (the first has a margin of punishment of 1 year to 10, the second of 8 to 25 years) this means that there's an actual difference on the considered value of the fetus against a person.

Quote:

---

Unless of course you have evidence that supports the argument that a fetus that is going to be born in afew minutes is NOT a human being.

---

Now though I made a mistale in one of my posts and said it was a thing, the fetus is an human being from the moment of conception (thanks to the treaty of Costa Rica). In any case it's wrong because it may be misinterpreted. It's a thing because it doesn't has the rights of a person (even in actual legislations) but the rights of a will to be person (an eventuallity). That's what I meant by thing (though in reallity it would be a middle categorization between thing and person), so my point is not that he's or not is an human being, but if he can or can't be considered worthy of protection like a real person.

Quote:

---

The mother should have the right to Abortion to the extent that it would not be destroying something that is alive. After the fetus becomes alive, it's right to live becomes greater then the mothers right to "Do what she feels like".

---

Again my point here is that the relevancy is on personality, and not humanity. The born person has personality, the fetus doesn't has personality.

Quote:

---

Again my point here is that the relevancy is on personality, and not humanity. The born person has personality, the fetus doesn't has personality.

---

Another ridiculous statement. So when they cut the unbelical chord the baby suddenly develops a personality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

whats the difference? they can both feel pain, think(To a certain extent IIRC), and survive with out the mother(Note that this is as it is leaving the mother in this case).

---

It's very easy. Inside mother, mothers rights important, outside mother, childs rights important. A fetus is not a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Ask any one with an infant if they had more freedom before or after it came along ~D

---

They can get a nanny if they need more freedom.....

No, the relevancy is this.

If a fetus has no personality, but a new born does. Then when and howdoes the new born get the personality?

Maybe Science faries give the little new born its personality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zharakov

No, the relevancy is this.

If a fetus has no personality, but a new born does. Then when and howdoes the new born get the personality?

Maybe Science faries give the little new born its personality...

---

It's not a question of personality. Neither a fetus nor a new born have any personality to talk about. It's all about that when a fetus is in its mother, its a part of the mothers body and under the mothers full control and discretion.....

I was talking to Soulforged...

But does not the baybe punch and kick on its own free will?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zharakov

But does not the baybe punch and kick on its own free will?

---

Why don't you tell me ? You where a baby once. Why did you punch and kick as a baby ? Was it a protest against the high unemployment in Russia ? The oppression of the farmers ? The use of nukes in the cold war ?

Or was it just reflexes ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Another ridiculous statement. So when they cut the unbelical chord the baby suddenly develops a personality?

---

So my statement is ridiculous? It could be, but i asure that you don't even know why...Look Gawain I think that you've serious problems to differenciate law from the rest of sciences. This is a discussion of law. There's a moment for every creation of rights. The person here for example is a person when he borns alive, this doesn't means cutting the umbilical cord, but he has to breath at least. In France he has to be viable. Now before making another rediculous statement, maybe you should look at yourself (i think that there's a Christian frase for that...).

Quote:

---

No, the relevancy is this.
If a fetus has no personality, but a new born does. Then when and howdoes the new born get the personality?
Maybe Science faries give the little new born its personality...

---

No you see Zharakov, giving rights creates a lot of effects on society, so it's important to determine the moment when the person is person, because a person has full irrebocable, inprescriptible and inalianable rights. Now for what I know (and this is the 50º time I repeat it) no legislation considers the fetus a person (an human being yes, a person not) until it's born and some others require viability too. The key is not arbitrary, here it will be individual separation, in France it will be this plus viability. And I think that the faries come from superstition (ie religion) not from science, but in this changing world who knows?...

When trolls team up, they're 10 times as powerful....

Guys, don't waste your time. Soulforged and Blmosson are just trying to get a rise out of you. Neither of them believe the foolish pratter they're on about, I didn't get that until this weekend.

Quote:

---

When trolls team up, they're 10 times as powerful....

Guys, don't waste your time. Soulforged and Blmosson are just trying to get a rise out of you. Neither of them believe the foolish pratter they're on about, I didn't get that until this weekend.

---

OK, let me get this straight

Soulforged

It's OK to destroy other humans if old laws say it is.


bmolsson

The mother should have the right to "abort" a living child because if she couldn't, she would have fewer rights.

:surrender:

Don Corleone is right. Do you think that you would teach me how to see this kind of thing earlier? :help: To be honest, if you hadn't posted that, i might have argued about this for weeks :embarassed:

Is this topic going to stay open or is it degenerated to a mud slinging match?

Don't ignore, answer.

Quote:

---

So my statement is ridiculous?

---

This one?

Quote:

---

The born person has personality, the fetus doesn't has personality.

---

Well yes it is.

Quote:

---

It could be, but i asure that you don't even know why.

---

Im sure I do. Its you who cant seem to grasp it.

Quote:

---

...Look Gawain I think that you've serious problems to differenciate law from the rest of sciences. This is a discussion of law.

---

And the law is based on science. What you dont seem to realise is that only in the US is it legal to kill a fetus at such a late stage. Everywhere else its against the law. Why do you think that is?

Quote:

---

The person here for example is a person when he borns alive, this doesn't means cutting the umbilical cord, but he has to breath at least.

---

So you retract your prior statement? Didnt you claim that as long as the baby is atached to the mother(unbelical chord) its not a seperate person and the mother can do what she wants with it. It seems most countries laws dont go along with you position.

Quote:

---

Now before making another rediculous statement, maybe you should look at yourself (i think that there's a Christian frase for that...).

---

I made none to start with and no that is not a Christain phrase.

So suppose the baby is outside the actual womb, but still attached to the mother by the chord...it's ok for the mother to make a last minute change of mind and say "don't cut the chord...cut the jugular instead" ?
I met a religious guy once who believed that a body aquires a soul when it exits the womb and takes the first "breath of life". That argument holds water...kind of, if you remember he bases it on his convictions and admits it. I fail to see the point of your argument.

Justice isn't just about law, true. Jurisprudence is important too. The laws (as in, rules) are the basis, the text that all jurists and judges fall back on. They're the black lines on a white paper colouring plate, jurisprudence has to "colour it in" and give the rules practical meaning by establishing a single, binding interpretation. The opinion of one jurist means squat if it's not adopted into jurisprudence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

When trolls team up, they're 10 times as powerful....

Guys, don't waste your time. Soulforged and Blmosson are just trying to get a rise out of you. Neither of them believe the foolish pratter they're on about, I didn't get that until this weekend.

---

LOL- I think that you're the one holding your breath for the next statement. ~D And I really think the problem is that you don't understand the discussion.

Quote:

---

Well yes it is.
Im sure I do. Its you who cant seem to grasp it.

---

Well Gawain, with all the respect, I'll disrespect you again. If I'm wrong maybe you should point me out why? It would help me on my law carrier. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

And the law is based on science. What you dont seem to realise is that only in the US is it legal to kill a fetus at such a late stage. Everywhere else its against the law. Why do you think that is?

---

Because your country disrespects the division of powers? Not sure what do you want to point with this...Another thing, law is science.

Quote:

---

So you retract your prior statement? Didnt you claim that as long as the baby is atached to the mother(unbelical chord) its not a seperate person and the mother can do what she wants with it. It seems most countries laws dont go along with you position.

---

Don't turn my words. I just said that at least it should be separated. If the actual legislation wants to put another condition then good for them. But you don't know crap of others legislations this statement prooves it. Look to most of the continental european legislations, to the ones here in the south. You'll see, Sir, that the personality is adquired by law, and it's after the birth. In France it requires a viable fetus too. Care to proove me wrong?

Quote:

---

I made none to start with and no that is not a Christain phrase.

---

Yes there's. It goes like this: "Don't look at the straw in somebody else's eye, first look at the beam on yours". (or something like that)

Quote:

---

So suppose the baby is outside the actual womb, but still attached to the mother by the chord...it's ok for the mother to make a last minute change of mind and say "don't cut the chord...cut the jugular instead" ?
I met a religious guy once who believed that a body aquires a soul when it exits the womb and takes the first "breath of life". That argument holds water...kind of, if you remember he bases it on his convictions and admits it. I fail to see the point of your argument.

---

Now I don't think so. There's relevants and irrelevants points on law, you just pointed out an irrelevant one. And about the religious statement, finally someone offers me some real statement...Even if it's religious this is the one I was looking for. You see the point of my argument is that you cannot turn everything in law into a metaphysical concept, and even less one thing that happens to be the freedom of the mother. So I point that the fetus should have personallity to be protected, adquired at least when it comes out of the womb. But at least you're getting closer than anybody else before.

Quote:

---

Justice isn't just about law, true. Jurisprudence is important too. The laws (as in, rules) are the basis, the text that all jurists and judges fall back on. They're the black lines on a white paper colouring plate, jurisprudence has to "colour it in" and give the rules practical meaning by establishing a single, binding interpretation. The opinion of one jurist means squat if it's not adopted into jurisprudence.

---

Wrong, it means much if other jurist add to that possition. Jurisprudence doesn't mean a squat if you consider that you want to achieve a change, not look to the past.