If a person attacks a pregnant woman and a fetus dies, they can be charged with murder.
If a doctor removes a fetus and it dies (abortion) there are no consequences.
From a legal stand point this needs to be cleared up.
Everything else is just noise.

From a legal stand point this needs to be cleared up. — Rxspence

Her house, her rules. Cleared up.

The first and only principle involved is whether the pre-born are humans. — Gregory

Human what?

Abortion advocates have trouble defending their positions without resorting to sophism. — Gregory

No they don't. There is a world of difference between life and the right thereto. Her house, her rules. No sophism.

If a person attacks a pregnant woman and a fetus dies, they can be charged with murder.
If a doctor removes a fetus and it dies (abortion) there are no consequences. — Rxspence

It's interesting that you mention the woman in your first example, but not in the second. Do you care to explain why that's the case?

Life must be assumed to have rights. There are no counter rights of the mother. When this is not accepted morality slips into nihilism

No sophism. — James Riley

But then

Her house, her rules. — James Riley

So there is the sophism. The one and only issue is whether the pre-born should be considered human. I can't prove I have rights nor that you have rights. It's about what we are willing to respect. You are willing to kill the pre-born even if there might be human rights there. Abortion supporters don't care if there might be rights involved. They want some kind of false liberation in order to be "free". I feel free, I feel sexually liberated but I don't say we should not respect the unborn. It's ridiculous that you are willing to end a beating heart just because you can't find a logical proof that it is human. There is no logical proof for anything about rights in that way. We come from a family tree of hominids. It's about what we should respect as honorable responsible people. Pro-choice people are like people in free fall trying to grab on to anything they can to keep it going

Address the facts
Attacking the messenger means you loose!

Being from Colorado, a common carving on bathrooms walls: "Here I sit, buns a flexin'; givin' birth to another Texan." — James Riley

And some get blocked for stating facts.
This site is disgusting!

So there is the sophism. — Gregory

That is not a sophism. Look it up.

The one and only issue is whether the pre-born should be considered human. — Gregory

No, that is not the one and only issue. The one and only issue is when the right to life vests. That is a legal question. The courts rule on matters of law. The legislature makes the law.

It's about what we are willing to respect. — Gregory

Yes, and by "we", see above.

You are willing to kill the pre-born even if there might be human rights there. — Gregory

Well, I suppose if a woman asked me to, and if I had the skill set, then yes, I'd be willing. Her choice.

Abortion supporters don't care if there might be rights involved. — Gregory

Sure they do. See above.

They want some kind of false liberation in order to be "free". — Gregory

No, they don't. They want you to mind your own business.

It's ridiculous that you are willing to end a beating heart just because you can't find a logical proof that it is human. — Gregory

Please don't put words in my mouth. I stipulate that life begins at conception, if not before, and that anyone, anywhere, at any time has sovereign jurisdiction over any life that resides within their body.

There is no logical proof for anything about rights in that way. — Gregory

If you are arguing that the law is illogical, then take it up if you are so concerned about it. I, personally, think she should be able to kill it any time that it is within her, but the law says otherwise. Some sophistic BS about sentience, viability, heart beats and other nonsense. If I really cared, I'd take it up, but it's not my call. It's a woman's call. I will support her decision regarding anything inside of her and whether she wants to litigate something.

We come from a family tree of hominids. It's about what we should respect as honorable responsible people. — Gregory

I agree. As honorable, responsible people, we should respect the sovereign jurisdiction of a woman over any life that resides within her (aka mind our own business).

Pro-choice people are like people in free fall trying to grab on to anything they can to keep it going — Gregory

Sounds like the busy bodies minding other people's business.

First you say life, then you limit that to human life, then you don't fight the state's right to kill on the back end, but you do fight when the state decides vesting on the front end. Then you distinguish based on innocence, while we kill the innocent all the time on the back end. Talk about sophistry. Jeesh!

Life must be assumed to have rights. — Gregory

No assumption must be made. But even if it is, rights are not absolute. We subordinate them all the time.

There are no counter rights of the mother. — Gregory

Wait, what? I thought you were arguing that the baby's right to life was a counter to the rights of the mother? I must have missed something.

When this is not accepted morality slips into nihilism — Gregory

Life need not be meaningless and yet one life can be subordinated to another life, or a right held by another life.

Life must be assumed to have rights. — Gregory

What does this even mean?

You do use sophistry. The mother has no right over something that is not her body. Child's body, it's rights.

The one and only issue is whether the pre-born should be considered human. — Gregory

Second time asking. Human what?

It means rights start at conception. Birth doesn't start the right to life, nor development. That's obvious

Life must be assumed to have rights.
— Gregory

What does this even mean? — tim wood

It means that capital punishment, slaughtering animals, etc, should be illegal.

So sperm and egg are disposable, but one second after conception they - it - are people, fully enfranchised beings? Insofar you would desire to impose this standard on others it's not enough for it to be your personal belief. You have a case to make. We know your opinion; Make the case.

If a person attacks a pregnant woman and a fetus dies, they can be charged with murder.
If a doctor removes a fetus and it dies (abortion) there are no consequences. — Rxspence

Notably, in the latter example all parties directly involved are in agreement, and not so much in the former example.

It means that capital punishment, slaughtering animals, etc. should be illegal. — praxis

Even using bug spray or insecticides.

Because it grows into a formed person. The formation has started at conception. Are you for saying that it's not a person before birth but is after? That's arbitrary. Saying it starts at conception is not arbitrary. It grants rights to whole process, not a slow growth of rights. The mother is no issue in the discussion, but only what rights should be assumes to exist in a body the body that is not the mother's. The mother has rights over her body, not someone else's

I began this thread to criticize the Supremes for their chicken-hearted though politically expedient decision to refuse to stay the effectiveness of an outrageously drafted and seriously deficient law, and to express fear that political considerations will induce the Justices to avoid taking up important issues in the future.

For those of you who would prefer to practice sanctimony, I'm an easy-going fellow, so have at it if you must but you might consider doing more than merely making declarations.

It grants rights to whole process, not a slow growth of rights. — Gregory

Curiously, there’s strong evidence that when abortion is prohibited poverty and crime significantly increases years later, so in effect granting rights too early can eventually result in severely diminished rights later in life, as when incarcerated.

That's your case? It is a person, but it has rights because it will "grow into a formed person"? And the mother has no rights? And just what is "someone else's" body that you claim she has no rights over? And you whine about sophism - when you clearly have not troubled yourself even with the slightest obligation to make sense? You allow the mother rights over her own body, but assign to "someone else's body" rights over hers? This isn't sense but nonsense, not even arising to the level of irrational.

You're just hollow noise.

One more try. Attempt to make a single rational statement. Just one. Can you do it, or not?

The ends do not justify the means

The ends do not justify the means — Gregory

You are truly ignorant, with the arrogance of the stupid. First, that's a non-sequitur, and second, it's "the ends do not justify some means."

But you do recognize that this situation is unusual, don't you? Pregnancy is the only situation in which one person's body is entirely contained within another's and for some time entirely dependent upon that "outer" person to remain alive. If the State wants to protect or even to destroy that "inner" person, it can only do so by going through the "outer" person.

There is no other situation like this, and it is not impossible that our usual rules for dealing with persons are not quite up to the task here.

The implication is that it’s not really about the sanctity of life, because if it were the concern would not immediately disappear after delivery.

Can you prove from *logic* a one hour old baby has rights? Nop. It's a continuum on the logical end so you respect all life on the moral side. The mother has rights over her body but that has no relationship to the argument over abortion. The sophistry is saying the mother has a right over a body that is not her own. It's not my fault you don't get this. I've explained this on other occasions to you on this forum

I've already states the rights of the mother are over her body, not someone else's. Living inside someone doesn't mean less rights.

The sophistry is saying the mother has a right over a body that is not her own. — Gregory

First, when dies it become a body, Second, If you grant a mother's rights ever her own body, which you deny above - which is it? Does she or doesn't she? If she does, what prevents her from controlling as to her won body? And if she doesn't, then how does any other body get rights?

Now, you're making this argument, but like many like you, you appear unable to wield the tools of reason. Lets try for really simple:

A woman - or man - have rights as to their own bodies. Yes? No?