Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:39 PM)Loom Wrote:  You do realize in that case the foetus was 8-months along and nearly fully developed , not a cluster of self-replicating cells?

You do realize virtually NO pregnancies are terminated that late because the mother simply did not want it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic...olence_Act

Quote:The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

Your claim that zygotes aren't given moral protection has been unambigiously refuted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being.

Except that is not what a zygote is. Animals, fungi, and plants all produce zygotes for reproduction.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:39 PM)Loom Wrote:  You do realize in that case the foetus was 8-months along and nearly fully developed , not a cluster of self-replicating cells?

You do realize virtually NO pregnancies are terminated that late because the mother simply did not want it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic...olence_Act

Quote:The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

Your claim that zygotes aren't given moral protection has been unambigiously refuted.

Your claim that they are given moral protection has been unambiguously refuted by the fact that abortion is legal. The Peterson case is a special case. In general, zygotes and fetuses are not given such protection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
19-08-2016, 02:50 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being.

Except that is not what a zygote is. Animals, fungi, and plants all produce zygotes for reproduction.

I have provided links which were ignored that show zygotes are consider organisms.

You are just passing your opinion off as gospel truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2016 02:56 PM by Loom.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:39 PM)Loom Wrote:  You do realize in that case the foetus was 8-months along and nearly fully developed , not a cluster of self-replicating cells?

You do realize virtually NO pregnancies are terminated that late because the mother simply did not want it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic...olence_Act

Quote:The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

Your claim that zygotes aren't given moral protection has been unambigiously refuted.

I fail to see where I 'claim' that zygotes are not extended legal protections, and I also fail to see where that act refers to zygotes as being recognized as potential homicide victims.

Not to mention, "...the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
19-08-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:48 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Vic...olence_Act


Your claim that zygotes aren't given moral protection has been unambigiously refuted.

Your claim that they are given moral protection has been unambiguously refuted by the fact that abortion is legal. The Peterson case is a special case. In general, zygotes and fetuses are not given such protection.

Did you even bother to read the link that shows the are given moral protection?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2016 04:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Except that is not what a zygote is. Animals, fungi, and plants all produce zygotes for reproduction.

I have provided links which were ignored that show zygotes are consider organisms.

I never said they weren't organisms. Your assertion that they are of the species homo sapiens is just plain wrong.

(19-08-2016 02:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are just passing your opinion off as gospel truth.

First off, I have no opinion on the matter. Second, a quick google search exposed the ignorance of your claim. Zygotes are not just for human reproduction but pretty much for every living thing. This literally took me less than 30 seconds of googling to refute your claim "A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-08-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:48 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Your claim that they are given moral protection has been unambiguously refuted by the fact that abortion is legal. The Peterson case is a special case. In general, zygotes and fetuses are not given such protection.

Did you even bother to read the link that shows the are given moral protection?

No, I didn't. Who is it that gives them (and all of them) moral protection? Certainly not the US legal code -- otherwise abortion would be absolutely illegal. If you are going to cite legal precedent (the Scott Peterson case) in defense of your position, I can cite legal precedent (Roe v Wade and thousands, if not millions, of legal abortions) in defense of mine. Zygotes are not "unambiguously" granted moral protection. This is a fact, not an opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
19-08-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 03:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Did you even bother to read the link that shows the are given moral protection?

No, I didn't. Who is it that gives them (and all of them) moral protection? Certainly not the US legal code -- otherwise abortion would be absolutely illegal. If you are going to cite legal precedent (the Scott Peterson case) in defense of your position, I can cite legal precedent (Roe v Wade and thousands, if not millions, of legal abortions) in defense of mine. Zygotes are not "unambiguously" granted moral protection. This is a fact, not an opinion.

You should read the link, because you have made yourself look absolutely foolish by continuing to make a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(19-08-2016 03:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 03:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, I didn't. Who is it that gives them (and all of them) moral protection? Certainly not the US legal code -- otherwise abortion would be absolutely illegal. If you are going to cite legal precedent (the Scott Peterson case) in defense of your position, I can cite legal precedent (Roe v Wade and thousands, if not millions, of legal abortions) in defense of mine. Zygotes are not "unambiguously" granted moral protection. This is a fact, not an opinion.

You should read the link, because you have made yourself look absolutely foolish by continuing to make a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

Here's a claim that is equivalent to yours: Rape victims have unambiguous moral protection, unless the rapist is a man. Those cases are excepted. That sounds really stupid, doesn't it? But it's not any stupider than your claim. If zygotes have "unambiguous" moral protection, why isn't every woman and every doctor who has ever been involved in an abortion in prison for murder? There's nothing silly about my claim. It's a plain fact. You can't claim a general rule and then say, "oh by the way, 99.9% of all instances of this are excepted from the rule". It's not a general rule then. So stop claiming that it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: