Oil depletion allowance

[BT]

Either we respect human life , or we have qualified respect for human life as we find it convienent.

Is that not the case?

Would you shoot a soldier wearing the wrong colored uniform?

Would you shoot an intruder who you felt would do harm to your family?

Are you for the death penalty?

Would you truly have wished OBL turned himself into the hague?

Perhaps we could look at pregnacy as a partnership between mother and fetus. The fetus is a minority partner until viability at which point they are fully vested and have equal rights.

The question then becomes is how do you enforce the viability delineation.

And perhaps that is where lawmakers should be focusing their efforts.

[Plane]

You are makeing a good point , respect for human life has to have reasonable limitation elese impossible paradoxes have to be delt with.


But there is a corrosive effect of reguarding a pregnancy as a disease and a baby before birth as no more consequential than a toumor, there is not a reality in deliniation between before and after birth, it is an innocent human being both before and after , when we are killing so many and so free of qualm, what causes us to reguard them as precious at all untill they start earning money and voting?

Your suggestion of considering the child as a junior partner at least acnoledges the humanity of it, I want that even if there is little protection resulting.

[Xavier_Onassis]

.is that not now a person, as defined by law?
===========================================
No.
It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.


Of course, idiots can pass anything into law they wish. They can pass a law declaring that pi is 3.0, or that there are 13 inches in a foot. But that does not change reality.

[sirs]

.is that not now a person, as defined by law?===========================================
No.
It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.

Not according to the law.  Are you advocating we ignore the law, if it doesn't currently meet your ideological agenda?  Your "perceived" reality?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The law cannot turn a fetus into a person. It cannot even turn an orangutan into a Republican.

[sirs]

The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.

As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that

[BT]

The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.

As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that

Technically the law allowed abortions up to viability, i don't know if the law bestowed personhood at that point or simply drew a dividing line as to when the mothers rights were less dominant.


Interesting enough the Koran draws the line in the sand at 4 months at which point Allah imbues the fetus with a soul.

[sirs]

The law cannot turn a fetus into a person.

As Bt referenced, the law has done precisely that

Technically the law allowed abortions up to viability....

The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable.

And viability starts at 21+weeks....ergo, a person

[BT]

And viability starts at 21+weeks....ergo, a person

Viability simply means the fetus can survive outside the womb. perhaps you can cite where the courts have determined that equals personhood.

[sirs]

You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable."

ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks

[BT]

You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable."

ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks

Perhaps i misspoke. What the courts said was this:

In 1973, Harry Blackmun wrote the court opinion for Roe v. Wade, saying "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted, which prohibits an abortion if "either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."[27]

Then there is this:
Some Christian theologians hold that ensoulment occurs when an infant takes its first breath of air. They cite, among other passages, Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."[21]

Which would go along with the intent of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

[Plane]

It is not a person. Period. One must be born to be a person.

What is the reason , or logic or science behind this statement?

[sirs]

You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable."

ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks

Perhaps i misspoke.

Perhaps you did, though the word(s) couldn't be much clearer.  viability.  Not sure what's so hard about it, or the law pertaining to it

[BT]

You did......
"The problem is defining when a fetus becomes a person.

The courts say when the fetus is viable."

ergo, when it can survive outside the womb, which can be as early as 21weeks

Perhaps i misspoke.

Perhaps you did, though the word(s) couldn't be much clearer.  viability.  Not sure what's so hard about it, or the law pertaining to it

Apparentky what i did was put words in Scotus's mouth. What they did with their viability statement was delineate as to when an abortion was permissible under Roe vs Wade and when it was not. I equated viability with personhood, they didn't. And thus my error.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One more time:

A woman has a right to have a child or not to have a child. All the decisions regarding this are up to her, not me and not you and not the government.