A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

Thread summary to-date:

The opening post has presented the unconjecturable reality that science has presented that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, and, because that person then exists and thus qualifies, is thereby endowed at that time with the foundational right to life.

No one posting in this thread has made a serious rational attempt to refute that reality with appeal to science for a refutation, probably because they recognize that there is no scientific refutation to this unconjecturable scientific fact.

Science is, without question, the obvious sole authority of rational modern humanity for determining the answer to the scientific question of when does a human being begin to live. There simply is no other authority in the matter to accurately determine the facts of this truth.

Thus the matter of a conception's right to life -- a conception, a newly created person, a unique individual human being, endowed simply by being created, from humanity's collective perspective, with the unalienable right to life at the moment of that person's conception -- has been settled in the affirmative.

The newly conceived person possesses the foundational right to life, and that is no longer a matter for rational conjecture.

From here on, additional discussion with respect to the topic of this thread is academic.

The only thing left to discuss, more appropriately in a separate thread, are the reasons some people think it is okay to deprive that person of their foundational right to life, why they think that way, and what should now be done to protect the newly conceived person's right to life.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

what should now be done to protect the newly conceived person's right to life.

Do you propose the bombing of abortion clinics, mandatory death sentences for any woman who has an abortion, death by dismemberment for any doctor who perfoms abortions, removal of the word abortion from the dictionary, and farrowing cages to keep all pregnant women in so that they cannot possibly self-abort?

While you're at it you might want to take away women's right to vote and own property too so that you can control them better. Shoot--they might actually out-vote you on the idea of abortion--wouldn't that be a disaster!

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you propose the bombing of abortion clinics, mandatory death sentences for any woman who has an abortion, death by dismemberment for any doctor who perfoms abortions, removal of the word abortion from the dictionary, and farrowing cages to keep all pregnant women in so that they cannot possibly self-abort?

While you're at it you might want to take away women's right to vote and own property too so that you can control them better. Shoot--they might actually out-vote you on the idea of abortion--wouldn't that be a disaster!

Or we could just make it illegal to kill living human beings without due process of law.

 

[Chip]

Do you propose the bombing of abortion clinics,

No.

I propose creating laws to make murderous abortion illegal.

Then abortuaries will naturally go out of business because the abortions allowed under law, those that are life-and-death self-defense of the mother's life, would be performed only in hospitals under legal supervision with the guidance of hospital attorneys.

mandatory death sentences for any woman who has an abortion,

No.

I already replied to you about that, saying humane incarceration was the correct penalty for murderous abortion.

And not just for the woman who commits abortion but also for her male accomplice who co-conpired with or compelled her to have an abortion.

But I doubt there will be many of these so-called "back alley" abortions, because no one would want to perform the abortion and risk what would certainly be a very long-term incarceration.

And no one will be performing a coat-hanger abortion on themselves, because, again, they wouldn't want to risk incarceration and that deterent will be sufficient to keep the less emotionally developed people from also needlessly harming themselves via coat-hanger abortions.

The presence of law banning murderous abortions, complete with incarceration penalty, will be sufficient to end all types of illegal abortions.

People will simply accept the consequences of sex and bring the pre-natal person to term, keeping their offspring or putting their offspring up for adoption.

death by dismemberment for any doctor who perfoms abortions,

No.

Your histrionics are flaring up again, Mare.

I already told you clearly and concisely in a previous post that only humane incarceration would be the penalty for any and all committing murderous abortion.

removal of the word abortion from the dictionary, and farrowing cages to keep all pregnant women in so that they cannot possibly self-abort?

Histrionically irrational.

Try to keep calm and rationally within the topic, Mare.

Your histrionic hyperbole is not worthy of a response.

While you're at it you might want to take away women's right to vote and own property too so that you can control them better. Shoot--they might actually out-vote you on the idea of abortion--wouldn't that be a disaster!

Again, your histrionic hyperbole is unwarranted.

Try to remain rational in your discussion efforts, Mare.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Or we could just make it illegal to kill living human beings without due process of law.

It won't work, it never has. Even Caucescu couldn't force women despite his decree of a death sentence for aborting a child. Do you remember what Romania was like when he was finally killed? Thousands of babies living in their own feces, ill-fed, un-loved, and thousands of families being raised by single fathers whose wives had died or been killed. Not many of us wish to go back to the Dark Ages like that. If you are not willing to use draconian force including sequestering pregnant women in facilities you will not be able to stop it. And no matter what you do, the well-off people will still get abortions, and the weight of your law will fall on the poorest segments of the population. And will you then say as my brother says, "That women's deaths and suffering are God's punishment on them?" And on their families too.

I'm curious though, since it's going to have to be premeditated murder, or murder 1, will a mother who kills her baby be spared if she has other children? Or will they be declared wards of the State like in Romania? Will a doctor who saves the life of a woman who would otherwise die from a botched abortion be killed too? Wouldn't saving the life of a killer be a crime? Or would it be a blessing, so that once the woman was recovered you could THEN kill her? How will this work? Would a woman who took RU-486 be executed just like any other baby killer? Rape of course would not be an excuse for having an abortion because it's not the baby's fault, if it was your wife would you adopt the child, raise it, and pay for it--because it's not the baby's fault?

I don't think that's going to happen, all around the world there are too many examples of men running and ruining women's lives, there are too many people who see the truth that two wrongs don't make a right, coercing women into being baby-machines will end up killing the women and the babies.

But you should not in any way let my reservations about your intentions, integrity, intelligence, nor my suspicions of your misogyny stand in the way of your attempts to enslave women to your way of thinking. People have always tried to force others to bend to their beliefs--why should you be different?

I will oppose you and your agenda no matter what you call me or how you denigrate me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I already replied to you about that, saying humane incarceration was the correct penalty for murderous abortion.

Will "humane incarceration" include the woman's other children? Her husband?

Can you give me even one example of a place where making abortions illegal prevented them? Nuns in convents had abortions despite the full weight of the Roman Catholic Church. Get a grip.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

C'mon, men, pony up here. You are the ones who want to run the show, so answer my questions.

Chippo is going to be building more prisons, Dr. Who has not weighed in yet on how he'd handle the punishment. We all know about Pale, he's in the Catholic ball-park and would bring back buring people at the stake if he could.

Somebody should be able to show me a working model of how your system will work, I'm sure that there are dozens of countries around the world where they have outlawed abortions. Northern Ireland comes to mind, doesn't it?

 

[Chip]

Will "humane incarceration" include the woman's other children?

Don't be absurd -- of course not.

Like anyone with children who commits any crime requiring incarceration, provisions for the children's care will have to be made while the parent is in prison.

That situation happens all the time, and we as a society know how to best deal with that sad situation when it occurs.

But your point is well taken: people with children would be even better served to remember that if you commit the crime, you'll do the time.

Her husband?

Only if he co-conspired with her to commit murderous abortion or he compelled her to commit murderous abortion.

If he is innocent of those wrongdoings, he will not be indicted/convicted.

Can you give me even one example of a place where making abortions illegal prevented them?

Irrelevant.

At no prior time in human history when abortions were made illegal did we possess the scientific proof that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That breakthrough scientific revelation changes everything.

The very fact that the newly conceived is a person endowed thereby with the unalienable right to life will now be taught and engrained in the public's mind along with the law banning murderous abortion.

That changes everything compared to the past.

In the past, a dictator may have said that his religion opposes abortion, and for no other reason he forced his will on the people who, without the scientific knowledge about murderous abortion, were understandably in their ignorance upset.

Today that will not be a problem.

The science will make people realize that the newly conceived person would be murdered by unlawful abortion.

Because the overwhelming vast majority finds murder to be horrific, they will understand why the new law prohibiting murderous abortion exists.

Understanding means everything.

They will understand the law, and so they will support it.

Sure, there will be the oppositional defiant disorder sufferers who will rant histrionically against any kind of valid authority, but they will just be a handful, and not to be taken seriously anyway, except seriously to prison if they break the murderous abortion prevention law.

The overwhelming vast majority will understand and they will rationally accept the progressive new law.

Nuns in convents had abortions despite the full weight of the Roman Catholic Church.

People living in totalitarian communes where they will be ostracized or stoned for becoming pregnant need to accept the conditions of their "membership" and make damn sure they don't get pregnant or they need to leave.

Regardless, none of that excuses murderous abortion ... and, of course, the new scientific understanding and under threat of incarceration will prevent clandestine oriented abortions.

Get a grip.

Your projection, as always, is good information for you, Mare.

Your previous histrionic hyperbole is evidence that you would indeed do well to get a grip on accepting science's declaration and its understandable forthcoming repercussions.

 

[top gun]

palerider;81849]They have quite a history of exactly that.

I'll take that crazy emotional UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT decision over your anti-woman clinic creeper ways and be quite comfortable.

The court has reversed itself over 200 times since its first session. Many of those reversals happened after far more than 36 years proving that not only are they very fallable, but can also be very stubborn in admitting their fallability.

Bla bla bla same horse hockey you've been swearing by for the whole 3 years I've heard you rant one this subject. Before you know it it will be a 45 year old precedent and you'll still be standing out in front of women's clinic in your trench coat yelling in the rain.

You're soooo beaten it's killin' you! Hey I personally hope you spend the rest of your life throwing good money after bad and just scream your lungs out. Nothing will change... women have their right.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Don't be absurd -- of course not. Like anyone with children who commits any crime requiring incarceration, provisions for the children's care will have to be made while the parent is in prison.

That situation happens all the time, and we as a society know how to best deal with that sad situation when it occurs.

But your point is well taken: people with children would be even better served to remember that if you commit the crime, you'll do the time.

How long a prison term do you see for a woman who murders a baby? Tens years? Her children will grow up with no mother, but I'm sure that won't have any impact on them or society. So more prisons and more children in the care of the State. The Republicans will scream about that one. We're gonna need more orphanages, we don't have enough foster care for the children we have now. I have a friend who works in Child Welfare for the State and they are totally overwhelmed with the kids they already have. Taxes are going to go up and I'm willing to be that the quality of care will still be substandard. Of course it's the children who will suffer and not you, so I guess it's still jake, huh?

Irrelevant.

No, it's not, you are proposing to do something that has never been accomplished before and I think that an examination of WHY it has always failed before is completely relevant.

At no prior time in human history when abortions were made illegal did we possess the scientific proof that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Now that IS irrelevant, when abortions were banned before they weren't banned on scientific grounds but rather religious ones, but so what? Do you think the ban was any less strictly enforced because of that? Do you REALLY think people will believe science more strongly than religion? You don't, why would you think other people would?

The very fact that the newly conceived is a person endowed thereby with the unalienable right to life will now be taught and engrained in the public's mind along with the law banning murderous abortion.

That changes everything compared to the past.

In the past, a dictator may have said that his religion opposes abortion, and for no other reason he forced his will on the people who, without the scientific knowledge about murderous abortion, were understandably in their ignorance upset.

Today that will not be a problem.

The science will make people realize that the newly conceived person would be murdered by unlawful abortion.

People know that now, if science will convince them why do we need your draconian laws, more prisons, and more children made wards of the State. If what you say in this paragraph is true, then you don't need to pass laws about this, all that is required is education--something I've been calling for since I started posting on sites about abortion.

Because the overwhelming vast majority finds murder to be horrific, they will understand why the new law prohibiting murderous abortion exists.

Understanding means everything.

They will understand the law, and so they will support it.

Sure, there will be the oppositional defiant disorder sufferers who will rant histrionically against any kind of valid authority, but they will just be a handful, and not to be taken seriously anyway, except seriously to prison if they break the murderous abortion prevention law.

The overwhelming vast majority will understand and they will rationally accept the progressive new law.

You know what's weird, I thought the same kind of thing about science and the information about transsexuality, but you won't buy it, you won't even look at it. What makes you think that other people are all better and smarter than you are?

People living in totalitarian communes where they will be ostracized or stoned for becoming pregnant need to accept the conditions of their "membership" and make damn sure they don't get pregnant or they need to leave.

Regardless, none of that excuses murderous abortion ... and, of course, the new scientific understanding and under threat of incarceration will prevent clandestine oriented abortions.

Now you are advocating totalitarian communes? What?

Your projection, as always, is good information for you, Mare.
Your previous histrionic hyperbole is evidence that you would indeed do well to get a grip on accepting science's declaration and its understandable forthcoming repercussions.

It ain't the science, it's the owning of other's bodies.

 

[Chip]

I'll take that crazy emotional UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT decision over your anti-woman clinic creeper ways and be quite comfortable.



Bla bla bla same horse hockey you've been swearing by for the whole 3 years I've heard you rant one this subject. Before you know it it will be a 45 year old precedent and you'll still be standing out in front of women's clinic in your trench coat yelling in the rain.

You're soooo beaten it's killin' you! Hey I personally hope you spend the rest of your life throwing good money after bad and just scream your lungs out. Nothing will change... women have their right.

You make a great denial-based court jester for the pro-abortion crowd, Top Gun -- full of flamboyant codependent histrionics and void of ontological substance ...

... But the recent scientific revelation that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception has put in motion the activities that will change everything.

You can scoff buffoonishly all you like now.

But you are no match for scientific revelation and the natural changes that follow from that revelation.

Others like you scoffed buffoonishly when science revealed that the Earth was round, not flat.

Others like you scoffed buffoonishly when science revealed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not vice versa.

Others like you socffed buffoonishly when science declared that people of color are human beings, not otherwise and not, thereby, property.

But they too were no match for scientific revelation.

All of these scoffing buffoons soon found themselves forced to comply with the repercussions of science's revelations.

You, Top Gun, will be no exception.

Best would be to begin adjusting to the truth that murderous abortion is horrific and will soon become illegal.

Then you'll not only be seen as less of a buffoon, but you might actually help save lives and prevent women from being incarcerated.

The choice is yours, Top Gun.

You can accept the scientific reality and its natural and understandable repercussions now like a mature adult ...

... Or you can continue to immaturely scoff buffoonishly now ... and then rant histrionically like an enraged fool when murderous abortion soon becomes illegal.

Tick tock.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You can scoff buffoonishly..

But you are the one scoffing buffonishly about the science around transsexuality, you are the one pushing religion instead of science. That would seem to make you not only a buffoon but a hypocrite as well.

Answer my questions, men, if you think you can run the world better, then we expect some answers. What is "humane incarceration" and how does it differ from a standard prison? Would men get the same "humane incarceration"? We know that the children would get the very best of "humane incarceration" as guests of the State. How many years of "humane incarceration" would you require for a woman who murdered her baby? Why did you specify "humane"? Are you saying that murderers now are not given humane incarceration? If so, why would a baby murdering woman deserve better treatment that any useless drug dealing murderer?

 

[Chip]

How long a prison term do you see for a woman who murders a baby? Tens years?

How long a prison term did Scott Peterson get for murdering his pre-natal offspring, Conner?

He was convicted on a count of murder for murdering his wife Laci, and he was also convicted on a count of murder for murdering his pre-natal offspring, Connor. There was a separate prison term assigned for each count.

There are precedents already set in the matter.

From my perspective, the age of the person murdered has no bearing on the sentence.

Thus the incarceration punishment for murdering a pre-natal should be the same as for murdering a post-natal.

Her children will grow up with no mother, but I'm sure that won't have any impact on them or society. So more prisons and more children in the care of the State. The Republicans will scream about that one. We're gonna need more orphanages, we don't have enough foster care for the children we have now. I have a friend who works in Child Welfare for the State and they are totally overwhelmed with the kids they already have. Taxes are going to go up and I'm willing to be that the quality of care will still be substandard. Of course it's the children who will suffer and not you, so I guess it's still jake, huh?

Irrelevant histrionics.

People who murder go to prison.

The solution is to not commit murder, in this case, murderous abortion.

It really is that simple.

You can't seem to extract yourself out of a world where no science existed in support of the newly conceived's personhood and right to life and place yourself in a world where science has made that declaration.

Once the science-based law goes into effect, people will obey that law for obvious reasons.

Though your oppositional defiant disorded mind projects disobedient revolution in response to the new law, your doomsday fantasy will simply not reflect the acceptance reality of nearly everyone.

No, it's not, you are proposing to do something that has never been accomplished before and I think that an examination of WHY it has always failed before is completely relevant.

It is irrelevant to cite where laws against abortion ran up against resistance in the past because those scenarios were not backed by science, so there is simply no analagous relevant comparison that can be situationally made.

I made that clear to you ... yet even after your next paragraph makes it clear you grasped that, you still posted this paragraph.

You're obviously losing your mind to denial, Mare.

Now that [the scientific revelation] IS irrelevant, when abortions were banned before they weren't banned on scientific grounds but rather religious ones,

Yes -- abortions were banned on religious, dictatorial, idiosyncratic, whatever, grounds without relevant appeal to science.

The scientifically revealed truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception and is thereby endowed with the foundational right to life changes everything, as that truth makes a universal justified valid authority appeal to modern humanity that is in and of itself completely persuasive.

but so what?

The natural completely persuasive appeal that science has will be universally respected, whereas religions, dictators, politician's idiosyncratic ideas, all are simply not universally accepted.

The universally accepted nature of science means all the difference this time.

Do you think the ban was any less strictly enforced because of that?

Compartively irrelevant.

When people don't accept the validation of the authority behind the law, there are violations.

When people do accept the validation of the authority behind the law, there are very little violations.

That makes all the difference.

People will simply stop commiting murderous abortion.

Do you REALLY think people will believe science more strongly than religion?

Oh, absolutely -- absolutely they will.

Science has universal appeal to modern humanity.

Religions with differing tenets and doctrines and all, there's no universal appeal, no valid authority in religion for making a case that everyone will want to obey.

And again, we're talking about murder here, Mare, murder which science has confirmed can occur because of the personhood of the newly conceived.

People will believe science when it comes to determining the condition of being alive because people today respect science, science which belongs to everyone.

These same people would revolt if someone else's religion were the basis for the law.

It really is that simple, and true.

You don't, why would you think other people would?

Erroneous, and has throughout been obvious that your statement is erroneous, as I'm the one supporting science and making it clear that religion has no place in this discussion.

You're getting lazy with your lies, Mare.

People know that now,

Those who know that a person begins to live at conception because science says so are indeed in the majority.

But some of them will still commit murderous abortion today because they determine to do so based on other than respect for the newly concevied person's right to life.

But there are still a lot of people who are ignorant of this relevant scientific revelation. These people need education, and, they are the ones who will really need the law to enforce their life-respecting behavior.

 

[Chip]

if science will convince them why do we need your draconian laws,

Erroneous.

A law exists today outlawing the sociological behavior of murder of post-natals.

The law needed to be in effect because without the threat of penalty, which is why the law exists, to proscribe penalty for the sociological violation, moral relativistic utilitarians would simply do whatever they wanted, commiting murder and other atrocities.

Laws against murder are not "draconian", as you histrionically allege.

Laws are there to remind the lowest common denominator of society that they must behave themselves.

Extending the law against murder to include the murder of pre-natals will clearly remind the LCD, as well as others who may situationally imagine they are above respecting the right to life of all human beings, that there are penalties for such haughtiness.

The law and its penalty prevents violation ... which prevents people from being murdered.

It works, and it's a good thing.

more prisons, and more children made wards of the State.

Erroneous doomsday fantasy.

I haven't asked for more prisons. There weren't be more people made wards of the state.

That's strictly your ODD-based fantasy, Mare.

People will obey the scientifically revealed backed law.

Even the lowest common denominator among us will obey it.

The payoff of abortion is simply far too low compared to incarceration.

The law will be voluntarily obeyed by all but a tiny exception.

There's no need to build new prisons.

There's no need to provide wards for children.

But, even in your social doomsday scenario, the right thing to do is to pass and uphold the law banning the murder of pre-natals, no matter what.

I'm pretty sure that, given the if-then consequences that are sure to pass because the law is backed by science, you'll find very little violation.

If what you say in this paragraph is true, then you don't need to pass laws about this, all that is required is education--something I've been calling for since I started posting on sites about abortion.

Ah, but you miss the point about the difference between education without penalty for wrongdoing and education with penalty for wrongdoing.

In the former, the requested behavior is presented as optional.

In the later, when law and penalty accompanies request and education, the requested behavior is presented accurately as mandatory.

The right to life of pre-natal people must be respected. That is mandatory.

When making a change-over such as this, it is important from the get-go to remind people that the set of those who can be murdered has significantly increased, and therefore the law and penalty gets people's attention, reminding them to do the right thing by pre-natal people, or else.

The law makes doing the right thing mandatory, not optional.

The law is required, as all similar laws were in the past.

This is so obvious, the only thing that rationally explains why you didn't realize this for yourself is that you've yet to accept the scientific reality of the personhood of the newly conceived to thereby give their right to life the gravity it deserves.

You know what's weird, I thought the same kind of thing about science and the information about transsexuality, but you won't buy it, you won't even look at it.

Erroneous and irrelevant.

I accepted your scientific presentation on the matter of transsexuality ... and I verified with links of my own choosing.

Once you presented the science of it to me, I followed up, and I didn't challenge you on the science of it after that ... and indeed, I never challenged you on the science of it before. You obviously have me confused with someone else.

But that's irrelevant.

The science in this matter is air-tight, you've accepted it (you're implying), and now it's time to move on to it's logical repercussions.

What makes you think that other people are all better and smarter than you are?

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Your if-then conclusion is false for a number of reasons, but foundationally because your if-premise is false.

Now you are advocating totalitarian communes? What?

Erroneous.

Re-read, this time for comprehension, Mare ... though you likely understood it the first time, and you've simply employed here a lie-based cheap shot.

You can do better, Mare.

It ain't the science,

Good -- it's important that the obvious scientific reality is grasped by even pro-abortionists.

it's the owning of other's bodies.

Well then, since you grasp the science, and since you are bothered by people owning other people's bodies, then you must logically conclude that the mother also doesn't own her pre-natal offspring's body either. ...

If everyone had respect for the right to life of everyone, no matter where everyone lives, the world would be the place you probably want.

But not everyone does.

So laws are necessary to protect people from moral relativistic utilitarians who could care less about the very life of others.

 

[Chip]

But you are the one scoffing buffonishly about the science around transsexuality,

Erroneous.

You are fabricating stories now Mare ... as you have nothing left.

you are the one pushing religion instead of science.

Another obvious fabrication, Mare.

You can do better than to commit such a bald-faced lie.

It's time for you to call it a day, Mare, as anyone who has read through my postings in this thread realizes that I clearly support science and reject religion in this matter.

That you would resort to outright lies in an attempt to "argue your point", shows to all who have been reading this thread that you have nothing of substance in your argument.

That would seem to make you not only a buffoon but a hypocrite as well.

You do realize that everyone reading this thread just watched you make a buffoon and a hypocrite of yourself.

So, once again, you are projecting.

You must really be embarrassed ...

... Either that or, because you're a moral relativistic utilitarian, you have no grasp of or respect for the truth.

Answer my questions, men, if you think you can run the world better, then we expect some answers.

Again with your "angelic women" vs. "evil men" dualism.

You really need to get some help for that, Mare.

Do you really have to fight so hard and reject men to accept yourself as a woman?

Really, give it a rest.

What is "humane incarceration" and how does it differ from a standard prison? Would men get the same "humane incarceration"? We know that the children would get the very best of "humane incarceration" as guests of the State. How many years of "humane incarceration" would you require for a woman who murdered her baby?

I've already answered these questions multiple times.

Re-read for comprehension.

If you want opinions from others, ask them via a direct reply.

Why did you specify "humane"?

For two reasons.

One, to let you know that there won't be any dismembering of murderers, an irrational fear of yours you previously histrionically presented in paranoia.

And two, simply to state my dissatisfaction with the state of punishment and rehabiliation in today's prisons. Reform is greatly mandated, out of respect for the general human right of security of person.

Are you saying that murderers now are not given humane incarceration?

Yes I am, murders as well as most every prisoner.

There's a lot of "cruel and unusual punishment" that goes on in prison with a blind eye turned.

That is wrong.

Reform is needed.

If so, why would a baby murdering woman deserve better treatment that any useless drug dealing murderer?

No.

Neither of the two deserves inhuman "cruel and unusual punishment" in prison.