Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[giblets]

That doesn't change the fact that IF IT IS MURDER THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE!

That is all a matter of opinion. Some people think eating chicken nuggets is murder. It is still my choice to eat them or not.

[Dinner]

No, it doesn't. They still have 46 distinct chromosomes, of the same species as but not in any sense identical to mother or father. The presence or absence of cognitive power has nothing whatever to do with their humanity.

Yeah, and the polyp removed from some guys colon has 46 distinct chromosomes as does the skin cells which go down the drain every time each of us showers. Guess what? They're still not a human being. A reasonable person would accept that the argument they are human tissue doesn't mean they're a human being. It simply takes more to be a human and an actual brain is a good place to start because if you don't have any brain what so ever then you are 100% verifiably not a living human.

Edit: Heck even a tumor has distinctly different DNA as they're the results of mutations. I'm going to have to ask for a better definition than that for what constitutes a living breathing person before I accept removing a ball of cells is murder. Especially since my feces has more human cells in it.

[Dinner]

This is what I mean by pro-abortion people not really being pro-choice.

OK, I've heard some contriversial arguments and some dumb arguments but this one has to take the cake. So by exercising their right to choice they become anti-choice? Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and go directly to jail.

I've been suspicious of this for a while now but I don't think it's a coincidence that Ben gets banned and a little while later you show up spouting Ben like lines and using the same spurious logic. Hell, you've even been using my old login which got changed before you supposedly registered. Hello, Ben's DL.

[regexcellent]

1) I joined before you switched your name.
2) I was lurking a long time before then
3) Ben doesn't live in Rochester.

[regexcellent]

One more thing: I'm not trying to convince you of the correctness of the anti-abortion argument. I'm only trying to convince you that it has logical grounding, just like the pro-abortion argument.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What the hell are you trying to argue, Laz? That because we don't punish abortion as murder, it shouldn't be considered that way?

This is an exploration of whether those calling abortion "murder" actually believe themselves, let alone anyone else.

You encounter a lot of people in these discussions equating abortion with pre-meditated murder, but when pressed on the subject many appear to be reluctant to apply the appropriate punitive sanctions for it. That's an odd state of affairs, don't you think? It's a little chink in their argument (collective or otherwise) that I enjoy slotting a cold chisel into and battering away merrily at.

So, yes. First-trimester abortions. Life sentence or execution?

[Hauldren Collider]

Oerdin has a poor track record on recognizing DLs. He thought I was a Drake DL initially, and then he thought MY DL (Herman Cain) was a Drake DL.

Reg is also nothing at all like ben

[Dinner]

Drake is usually more interesting than you so finding a moderately interesting DL like Herman Cain naturally made me think you were not behind it. You covered your usual bland personality well.

[Elok]

What makes 46 chromosomes a more significant milestone than a harpsichord lesson?

It's not a milestone. A milestone is something achieved. The chromosomes are a facet of the embryo's unchanging identity, a part of it's nature. And the fact that they are distinct from both mother and father indicates that it is a separate entity from them (please don't bring up the preposterous "tumor" argument like I think Dinner just did--a tumor is a body cell with a few minor changes to its DNA causing it to grow uncontrollably in a chaotic fashion, as opposed to the rapid but highly organized growth a fetus undergoes in a chamber specifically intended for that purpose; also, while I'm addressing Dinner's business, there are pretty clear and obvious differences between it and a parasite, a growth, haploid cells like sperm or random flakes of skin).

All of this is much more clear to me than the idea that a few thousand newly-made neurons, test-firing static well below the threshold required for consciousness, will magically confer human worth where none existed before. What's it supposed to be thinking about anyway, in such a colossally unstimulating environment?

[giblets]

What are the anti-abortionists hoping to accomplish? Let's say Roe v. Wade gets overturned (slightly more likely than Nazis returning from the moon) and Virginia bans abortion. Big ****ing deal, women will just travel to Maryland to get their abortions.

[DaShi]

It's not a milestone. A milestone is something achieved. The chromosomes are a facet of the embryo's unchanging identity, a part of it's nature. And the fact that they are distinct from both mother and father indicates that it is a separate entity from them (please don't bring up the preposterous "tumor" argument like I think Dinner just did--a tumor is a body cell with a few minor changes to its DNA causing it to grow uncontrollably in a chaotic fashion, as opposed to the rapid but highly organized growth a fetus undergoes in a chamber specifically intended for that purpose; also, while I'm addressing Dinner's business, there are pretty clear and obvious differences between it and a parasite, a growth, haploid cells like sperm or random flakes of skin).

All of this is much more clear to me than the idea that a few thousand newly-made neurons, test-firing static well below the threshold required for consciousness, will magically confer human worth where none existed before. What's it supposed to be thinking about anyway, in such a colossally unstimulating environment?

This still allows for anyone who punches someone else to be accused of murder. Even accidently pushing someone could lead to a charge of murder. If cells are killed by someone who doesn't share the same exact same DNA, then it's murder by that definition.

Again, all these arbitrary definitions contribute nothing. Shifting ones are even worse. They are not well thought out and don't provide any real insight into the issue.

[notyoueither]

Not under all moral codes, but provided consent is given, I'm fine with it. I don't see how this is relevant, TBH. I didn't say "you can't kill it ever," I just said it's the same entity, which is manifestly true. One form grows into another in a smooth transition.

We effectively euthanise some people who have no brain activity. We have been doing that prior to euthanasia being legal in some parts of Europe.

Because? You're killing the same organism either way. It's just a different stage of development. Any thoughts it may be thinking in its shiny new brain are a purely hypothetical postulate on your part and, as I said to Gribbler, are highly unlikely to be more complex than a barnyard animal's in any case.

I'm looking for the bright line between unfertilised egg and newborn.

I'm certain that an entity that is capable of life outside of the womb should be legally protected. I do not agree that a fertilised egg should be.

The absense of a brain puts an entity a long way the wrong side of the bright line for providing legal and moral protection I am looking for.

[notyoueither]

We have no way of knowing, one way or another, what exactly is going on in the mind of an unborn child, or for that matter of a newborn--they have too little control over their bodies to communicate or reveal anything about what's going on in there. In all likelihood, what is going on at any given point in time in utero is not what you or I would recognize as thought, or at least any thought that couldn't be thought just as well or better by a cow. A pig or an octopus or a common crow is far more of a "person" than any month-old child by that metric. You're basing your idea of their humanity on a projection.

And, at any rate, why should we derive our worth from thoughts and feelings? My son is a wad of conflicting instincts and urges who has only recently shown any evidence at all of higher thought. His feelings for the first month were largely confined to contentment and various degrees of rage. I still love him, because he is my child, a distinct and unique member of my species, which he began to be from the moment sperm fused with egg.

We can and do observe that the entity begins to react to external stimulus at some point while in the womb.

[Krill]

I didn't specify jail, though given the economic situation of many of these women a fine probably wouldn't mean much. Anyway, if the father urged her to commit the crime, or was complicit in any other way, he's in trouble too, assuming it can be proven. If it wasn't his idea and he had no idea it even happened, why should he be culpable?

You are saying the destruction of the embryo would require a fine, yet killing a child (etc) is a prison or even capital offense.

So...why is abortion wrong again? Because I don't see anything but logical inconsistencies.

[Elok]

You are saying the destruction of the embryo would require a fine, yet killing a child (etc) is a prison or even capital offense.

So...why is abortion wrong again? Because I don't see anything but logical inconsistencies.

1. I don't believe in capital punishment
2. There are different kinds of murder/manslaughter. Given the lack of malice, the desperation of some of these women, and the years of bull**** propaganda that what they do is somehow not murder, I figured mercy would be in order. Still, you're right, incarceration would seem to be mandatory for consistency's sake.