T Nation

Norma McCorvey has Died

Governments have had the option to punish subjects with death for all of human history. I don’t believe the right to life is absolute. If an active shooter in Britain won’t surrender they’ll kill him. The UK doesn’t have the death penalty.

The burden of proof for the state should be infallibly high, which it isn’t at this point.

I believe that heinous criminals who break the social contract and rape/murder have surrendered their right to life subject to a ruling by a jury of their peers.

I believe a viable human in the womb is a person (seperate dna signature from the mother). It deserves a constitutional right to life.

Now you will ask me what I define as “viable”. People could argue that all day.

What is the difference between an “absolute” right to life and a “constitutional” right to life?

One is intrinsic the other man-made.

Deliberate ignorance is unbecoming ED. A baby cannot break laws or surrender it’s right to life. A murderer can. Try to keep up.

I’m trying. So then, I infer from this that the unborn’s ‘constitutional’ right to life is, in your mind, absolute?

Is the unborn a human being?


You have a constitutional right to free speech, not an absolute one. You may not use it to slander people, incite riots or shout “fire” in an elevator.

I believe that it would be hard for an unborn person to commit a crime so heinous they forfeit their right to life.

Should that person become a serial killer later they forfeit that right (subject to trial).

That depends upon the definition of the term human being.

I think we can agree that it is impossible for the unborn to commit any act that could be construed as criminal or unethical, and that it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. Thus, hypotheticals involving crimes by the unborn have no place in a (serious) discussion.

Given this, it follows that per your formulation of the situation, the unborn have an absolute right to life, yes?

1 Like

I believe a viable human does have a right to life. I am no prenatal surgeon. But it seems like 22 weeks is the current line for “viable” or at least high chance of survival. That’s a line to use for the sake of argument anyway.

So this line of thinking would lead you to “no abortions after 22 weeks.”

Then you will of course bring up a situation like: “What if the baby is causing the mother a serious complication like fatal preclampcia? Does the baby still have an ABSOLUTE right to life then?” I say in every situation that necessitates the removal of a baby to save the mother it is safer to perform an emergency sea section than an abortion. It’s about triage more than rights at that point.

I just heard my second child’s heart beat at about the 7-week mark, which is also around the point where miscarriage rates drop below 1%. How anyone can argue that that life doesn’t deserve equal protection under the law just blows my mind.


Just for clarity in this. The “viability” you are discussing here is a new invented form, not the medical definition. A viable human starts at conception (barring some defect). A non-viable embryo wouldn’t need an abortion because it can’t go through the regular life cycle on its own. Viable means that, given the right circumstances, it can live. An adult in cardiac arrest in a hospital receiving immediate treatment is still viable. A life, adult or fetus, isn’t unviable because it cannot survive without help.


How about the scientific definition?

Actually, I wasn’t going to do that. But as this is the second time you have presumed to know what I will say next, I will leave you to the discussion with not-me you seem intent on having.

I honestly don’t know if there is a universally-accepted scientific definition, because the word being carries multiple meanings and implications.

1 Like

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion - This is a site with a simple definition and this medium has its limits, I don’t enjoy being misunderstood about my own or what someone’s intentions might be.

Have I discussed every topic on these boards to perfection, or even in real life maybe? Far, far, far from it. However I hope it will be alright if I ask you a simple question. What are the human unborn? [from this point forward I will drop the noun “human” because we both obviously know what we are talking about]


While you are firm and unwavering in the things you know to be true; you have always presented your views is a manner that has never, ever been hateful or disrespectful.

In that same spirit; I will have to respectfully decline to get into any discussion that has to do with abortion.

I join with others in hoping that Norma McCorvey has found Peace…

1 Like

You’ve got to be kidding me? The science is 100% solid. That being is 100% a human being. There is zero scientific dispute. The end. Period.
Don’t trust me look it up. I could vomit thousands of pages of proof. This is one of the most clear cut cases in scientific history.

1 Like

Again, the word being is ill-defined and hence problematic. For example, one doesn’t typically refer to a single-celled organism as a being (‘bacterial being,’ for example). The word connotes intelligence and autonomy, properties not possessed by humans early in their life cycle. So while a POC is human, I would hesitate to say that, early on at least, it is a human being.

Yes, there are two different contexts relevant to the discussion at hand where the word being could be used.

  1. An unborn child is, in fact, a human being.

  2. ED is, in fact, being a huge faggot.

Also, I would just like to get this quoted for posterity. It is nice to see where ED’s true opinions on persons of color lie.

See how easy dehumanization makes genocide? Seems like a NAZI could just as easily say “While a Jew is human, I would hesitate to say that it is a human being.”

1 Like