Well, it does always have added facets, I don't think we ever heard your opinion on the post birth abortion, I am interested to see how that fits into the debate. Also in the guise of this discussion, why would her religion have a damn thing to do with her qualifications? There can be no religious test for office, that has been brought up a gazzilion times in the last 4 years, and the demonrats just keep at it.

Murder:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...

2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

The who debate is summed up here in definition 1. What is the meaning of "unlawfully" ? It can be moral, or religious, or legal law. This has been the whole argument for the last 100 years, whose law? Gods, satans or mans? Like it or not, there are a lot of people who believe in the Judeo Christian (and hence American foundational law) that "Thou shall not kill". Of course that does all fall apart with exceptions for food protection, survival, etc. So we get into this endless circle of arguments. But killing a baby post birth, and calling it lawful (New York) is an abomination and murder that I would hope anyone can debate at that point it is a human being.

Ah, Thor, there is a social parasite as well.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...

Also let me provide some of Ayn's thoughts:

https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rand...

Not to say that she "get's to be right" because she is Ayn Rand. However, it is another argument relatively well-supported.

Like I said...#3 needs defense. Arguments do not stand on hollow statements. Defend that a fetus is human life. Start with 16 cells, please.

If abortion is murder, then how does rape justify murder of a third party innocent of the rape?

If a fetal transplant is not forced, then carrying to term and abortion are the other options. If you force transplant or full-term, then it is force. Using force against a person requires SIGNIFICANT justification. You can start by explaining how 16 cells is a human that is murdered if they are destroyed, and if justifies FORCING a woman against her will.

16 cells. I'm waiting, and I still bet it comes down to religion.

First off, I am not a religious person and religion plays no part in my positions.
!. It is her body she has to protect. Rape is an exception as she has no ability to protect herself.
2. Fetal transplant is not forced, one of several options, and probably less impact-full, physical and emotional, than abortion to the woman.
3. A fetus is human and alive, To abort is murder!

You are going to have to defend these assertions:
1. Woman's responsibility to ensure protection (vs man's). What about rape?
2. Fetal transplant, forced on the woman because?
3. Demonstrate that abortion is murder.

3 days after ovulation, the embryo ball is ~16 cells. 16 cells is NOT a human. It is not until two weeks later there is any semblance of a heart or brain. This is still not a human.

We are going to argue and argue, and then we are going to find out...you have a religious basis for arguing conception is the beginning of life, and we are going to agree to disagree. However, a religious basis for beginning of life has NO PLACE in legislation, just like not eating pork or women wearing stupid clothes.

However, I'm so happy you offered the definition of parasite. Now we all know that people camping on welfare and nursing government jobs are no parasites. Whew! I always thought they were.

I know you position, we shouldn't repeat this discussion we've had 20 times.

Clearly a human fetus is NOT a parasite! Look it up in a dictionary. A parasite is defined as from a different species! The real issue here is a woman's Gross Personal Irresponsibility by consenting to sex while not insuring that she is protected from a pregnancy by using any of over 20 methods. In the case where she does get pregnant but does not want the child she should arrange for a fetal transplant to a woman who desires a child but cannot become pregnant or give birth and put the child up for adoption. Abortion is MURDER!

No, I am not. I am saying that Thors position is one I do not agree with. He views all unborn as parasites, and I subscribe to the point where it is a human. Because I am not all knowing, I cannot say where it begins. Because I am not a woman, I would not say yea or nay to an abortion. I would legislate anything after first trimester as murder, especially the abomination of post birth abortion as practiced in NY. Anything to save a mothers life, or to ensure the baby's health is permitted already, but even then it has the same problems, only the individual and her partner can decide. Because of the intensely personal nature of the topic, I am glad I do not legislate, because any legislation on the subject beyond the post birth ban is fraught with issues , because the initial premise of whose responsibility is it, and how do they get enough information to make a critical decision. For instance, how can a 19yo girl who screams Trump is a Racist when it is demonstrably not true, be trusted to decide on an abortion?

Hey Nick! Are you saying 'all abortion is wrong?' What about a lady who contracts German measles while pregnant (very early in pregnancy). Doctor recommends abortion. Devastated lady! My BFF. Never got over it. Another friend, Colonel in the Air Force...his wife same thing. He, however, had two older sons both became doctors and they promised always to care for their blind, deaf, and dumb sister.

Thor, I hate to differ, but it goes beyond religion, to morals. I am not a religious person, and I believe the use of abortion as birth control is wrong. Now, I would not impose that on others, as i also believe in personal responsibility, so they can decide to do it or not and bear the consequences. BUT, that said, I believe any abortion past the first trimester should be treated as murder, and I would support a law to that extent. Even my wife, who is not liberal but does support a womans right to choose, agrees wit that definition. Demonrats have created the fiction of "religion". If it is about religion, then Joe Biden must be against it, because he claims to be an active Catholic. So, he is a hypocrite.

Human being? More like a parasite.

The assertion that 2, 8 or any reasonable 2^n number of cells is a human life is indefensible. It is not self aware (My dog has more to give up). It can not survive without 100% support from another human. Two cells are a human, nope. Not a chance.

The only way forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted birth makes ethical sense is a contract. Where she is paid for her efforts (time, inconvenience, health damage, lost wages, etc.) AND another agreed to take custody and fully support the child. Even then, it should be her choice. She is the only “Contributor” affected.

(since there is no basis against it that is not religious) Not So! A fetus is a living human and abortion is murder! Has nothing to do with religion!

True.

The problem is that one side of SCOTUS is interpreting the Constitution. The other side is Legislating from the bench. The Constitution as a "living document" is fundamentally flawed. If all the justices were just trying to be fair, impartial and reading the law as written, abortion would be legal (since there is no basis against it that is not religious), and many ridiculous present and planned firearm laws would be struck down by the Second Amendment. Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?

Yes, but... the abortion thing is all about religion. There is no other basis for the issue.

SCOTUS Legislating is THE problem, on both sides. On one side there is almost only abortion. On the other there is ... everything else!

As long as it starts with Congress, not SCOTUS!

Would very much like to see a cognitive competency test for all federal elected and appointed officials each year. We need to rid our government of the dim bulbs.

Again (just like repealing the Second Amendment or the Electoral College), this change would require a constitutional amendment, which of course would require a 3/4 majority of the States to ratify. Term limits are therefore not likely.

Democrats believe the end justifies the means! And that is the current problem!

ALL national level positions should have term limits. Eliminate political royalty.

It goes deeper than this, since they own specific Judges and courts. Look at the Flynn case for a clear example of how far they will trample the individual for their agenda.

Ever think they were taken over? Compromised? Ever heard of John Brennan and his supercomputer? Blackmail? This is very deep, hence the "deep state" label.

The funny thing is that they claim that this doesn't have to be passed as a Constitutional Amendment... Let's see this one end up with the Supreme Court - as the Plaintiffs! Man, can you imagine what a legal kerfuffle that would be!

Good luck to that! We are so far down the rabbit hole of corruption in government, we may never see justice or integrity ever again! The founders knew exactly what would happen if there was to become a aristocratic elite (such as infests Washington today). I can cite chapter and verse where the Justice system has been packed with incompetents who couldn't dispense real justice if their sorry lives depended on it! Its all politics! The 3rd district court for example is worse than the 9th district even was. Total inability to perform as they are expected to by honest citizens, and again it is who you pander to and not what you know or your ability to demonstrate even a little integrity. It definitely seems to be a fixed game where justice and the Constitution are the losers!