This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

New anti-abortion bill passed in Kansas declares life begins at fertilization

#51mgtonvac55Posted 4/7/2013 1:39:17 AM
From: BrandonNC316 | #049
And even if it weren't, "murder" is commonly understood to be the unjustified killing of someone


Right, and a fetus isn't a "someone" from the moment sperm meets egg. This is the entire argument: when does a person begin to exist? That ever intrusive thing we call reality and its co-conspirator scientific fact suggest that life is all about the brain. Without a functioning brain, we're not alive. We become living people once the brain develops enough that consciousness begins. Given all that we know about life, the development of a fetus, and the human brain, this assertion is grounded in reality and has plenty of evidence to support it.

The evidence to support an assertion that a fetus is living before the brain develops enough so that consciousness begins is... ???
---
New York Yankees 1-4
#52wally(Moderator)Posted 4/7/2013 5:18:22 AM
BrandonNC316 posted...
Abortion is illegal in many countries. And even if it weren't, "murder" is commonly understood to be the unjustified killing of someone, as can be exemplified through frequent use of the word in reference to the policies of totalitarian regimes wherein certain persons are murdered by the state on the basis of caprice, whim, and/or prejudice (even though, by being official policies of the state, they're inherently legal).

The Supreme Court could say that displaying the color blue violates the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, and they could similarly cite the nebulous and vague nature of the constitution's provisions in order to justify it. That doesn't mean one shouldn't criticize them for making such an unsubstantiated assertion.


The definition of murder requires laws being broken. We can call it murder when Generic Dictator A kills a bunch of people because that's a breach in international law. Calling abortion "murder" in the United States is trying to score cheap points for the sake of an agenda. It's a completely inaccurate description.
---
Home is behind, the world ahead. And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight
#53paulo_yamatoPosted 4/7/2013 5:20:06 AM
Sativa_Rose posted...
No one has legal control of their bodies in the US. No idea how that myth started. People can be arrested for the substances present in their bodies.

Ms. Porn Star is right. If you are intoxicated or on drugs, you can be arrested.

American Democracy FTW.
---
You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. -Adolf Hitler
#54TreGoodaPosted 4/7/2013 5:20:14 AM
peach freak posted...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/06/abortion-kansas-life-fertilization/2058515/

So imagine Roe v. Wade never existed. In Kansas, with the definition of the beginning of life now being at fertilization, would that mean that a woman would have absolutely no legal control over her body the minute the man zips up his pants in bed? And if the fertilized egg is flushed out of the system, could a woman in Kansas be held accountable of murder?

Isn't this blatantly unconstitutional anyone?

And other things the bill does:

In addition to the bans on tax breaks and sex-selection abortions, the bill prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in more detail what information doctors must provide to patients seeking abortions.

The measure's language that life begins "at fertilization" had some abortion-rights supporters worrying that it could be used to legally harass providers. Abortion opponents call it a statement of principle and not an outright ban on terminating pregnancies.


"No legal control over her body" is a bit of an exaggeration.
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
#55CyborgSage00x0Posted 4/7/2013 11:51:05 PM
Brandon seems to have been taken to task, but allow me to throw my hat in.

Abortion is illegal in many countries.


This is a lie. The number of countries that have abortion completely outlawed is literally 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

Of those 7, all are in the deeply religious South/Central Americas, and the Vatican. There are plenty of countries that ban it except in extreme cases (rape, incest, etc.), but there's almost a 100% overlap between those countries being backwater, religious hellholes.

I REALLY think the last thing America should be gunning for is to emulate Africa.


And even if it weren't, "murder" is commonly understood to be the unjustified killing of someone, as can be exemplified through frequent use of the word in reference to the policies of totalitarian regimes wherein certain persons are murdered by the state on the basis of caprice, whim, and/or prejudice (even though, by being official policies of the state, they're inherently legal).


Yeah, except policy=/=law. If a bunch of police officers busted into a home with no warrant, no reason, and executed a whole family, because that was the policy of Political Group A, that'd still be illegal... doesn't matter if in the USA or elsewhere.There's literally no country with a law that says "the State may kill you for any or no reason at anytime." The lone exception to this might be palces like N. Korea, where the population lacks pretty much any sort of rights to begin with.

On top of abortion being called murder being incorrect on legal grounds, it's also practically incorrect, because a fetus isn't a person. I don't care how much anyone WANTS a fetus to be the same as a living, breathing, person, it simply isn't. Thus, it cannot be murdered, or even killed, because it never had a life to begin with. What it had was potential. That's why abortions are legal up until 22-24 weeks, or around the time a fetus could survive outside the womb, thus becoming a "person." A clump of cells simply isn't a person legally or realistically until this time.

It's potential, but not a person.

The Supreme Court could say that displaying the color blue violates the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, and they could similarly cite the nebulous and vague nature of the constitution's provisions in order to justify it. That doesn't mean one shouldn't criticize them for making such an unsubstantiated assertion.


Pro-tip: If you have to resort to absurdity, then your argument has already lost.
---
Currently playing: Borderlands 2, LoL, Super Mario 3DS, Kid Icarus: Uprising, Pokemon White 2, NSMB3DS.