(07-15-2018, 08:08 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]If it takes overturning some landmark decisions to remind everyone that it is neither necessary nor proper for the Supreme Court to analyze and rule upon when part of a woman's body becomes another human life, then overturn away. If Kavanaugh makes it, I hope he swings the court back towards shrinking the reach and purview of federal government.
You're right it would be inappropriate when science has done that for them
(07-13-2018, 12:09 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2018, 10:13 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] Abortion isn't murder.
Because an unborn child isn't a human being (or a "person")?
That's what the ruling class said about blacks two centuries ago too.
Interesting that there are also those who are not viable
outside the womb, who could not survive on their own without assistance.
I suppose we should be allowed to terminate them as well if they are deemed dangerous and/or a burden.
"Choice" and all.
(07-16-2018, 02:43 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2018, 12:09 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Because an unborn child isn't a human being (or a "person")?
That's what the ruling class said about blacks two centuries ago too.
Interesting that there are also those who are not viable outside the womb, who could not survive on their own without assistance.
I suppose we should be allowed to terminate them as well if they are deemed dangerous and/or a burden.
"Choice" and all.
It's not supposition, it's State policy for our supposedly enlightened betters in countries where UHC is the norm.
(07-14-2018, 04:51 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2018, 10:30 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]It's only a consideration for the person with the fertilized egg in her womb.
Endowed by our creator, not our mother.
And you know this cannot be debated here.
(07-14-2018, 01:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2018, 12:20 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]I think there is a reasonable point of viability. Most cells have DNA, finger prints develop and pain is felt around 5 - 6 months, you are correct about blood type. I don't mean to be Draconian, I'm not a rabid proponent of baby slaughter, which abortion is not. I understand the opposition to aborting a fetus that could feasibly live outside its mother's womb, but 91.40% of abortions occur before the 14th week, another 7.2% before week 21. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I believe the fate of a fetus during that period should be up to the mother upon whose body it depends on for development. Like TJ said, I'm tired of a matter affecting such a small number so often becoming the single issue upon which a SCOTUS nominee is judged, on both sides.
Your opinion doesn't offend me. I just disagree with it.
I may have confused pain with physical stimuli. They react to light, sounds, and touch as early as 20 weeks. While it may not be pain, I don't think there's much difference to the point. Cells having DNA aren't the same as the baby having its own unique DNA from the mother. I don't think dependency on the mother is what creates a human.
You have to have a limit to abortion. I'm sure you wouldn't abort a baby still attached to the umbilical cord but outside the mother. What's the difference between that baby and one that is the same exact age but inside the womb? Both depend on the mother. If there is no real difference between the two, then what's the difference between the second baby and a baby that's a week younger? This example can go on-and-on until we get to the youngest possible example. If you don't have a limit to abortion then this example clearly doesn't apply to you, and I don't think we could ever find common grounds.
If it's the heart function you stop at, there are adults that are only alive due to a pace maker.
If it's the brain function you stop at, there are adults in a coma and wont have proper brain function for a while or ever.
The problem is that when you draw a line at anything other than inception, you end up drawing a line that can be applied to adults.
I do think there is a point where viability supercedes a woman's right to choose, but I think your comparison to adults is irrelevant. They are adults able to make their own choices. A fetus survives or is removed at the discretion of the mother. What I see here are a bunch of men proposing control over women.
(07-16-2018, 11:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2018, 02:43 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that there are also those who are not viable outside the womb, who could not survive on their own without assistance.
I suppose we should be allowed to terminate them as well if they are deemed dangerous and/or a burden.
"Choice" and all.
It's not supposition, it's State policy for our supposedly enlightened betters in countries where UHC is the norm.
Physician-assisted suicide is only legal in a handful of countries. Most countries with universal healthcare do not have legal physician-assisted suicide. In any case, I don't think abortion is really a similar type of question. People seek physician assisted suicide because they are terminally ill and miserable, not because they are dependent on another human to live. There are other significant differences. You could reasonably have a "pro choice" opinion on one but not the other. Personally I'm pro life on both but it can be logcial to feel differently.
(07-18-2018, 08:51 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]I do think there is a point where viability supercedes a woman's right to choose, but I think your comparison to adults is irrelevant. They are adults able to make their own choices. A fetus survives or is removed at the discretion of the mother. What I see here are a bunch of men proposing control over women.
The whole argument that men are trying to control a woman’s body is weak. I think I read 41% of women, according to pew, thought it should be illegal. It doesn’t matter anyway since this is an argument about if it’s murder or not. It isn’t about controlling women.
We wouldn’t allow a woman to punch someone without cause but no one uses that argument then. This isn’t about controlling women. It’s aboit protecting babies.
It's not it's about not playing god.
The right is hugely influenced by religion.
(07-18-2018, 11:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]It's not it's about not playing god.
The right is hugely influenced by religion.
Am I missing something? I don’t understand anything you said.
(07-18-2018, 08:45 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2018, 04:51 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Endowed by our creator, not our mother.
And you know this cannot be debated here.
Nonsense. I am not invoking a religious standard but a legal one. This line indicates that our rights are intrinsic to being human, not subjectively endowed by third parties. The idea that these rights can simply be put aside or ignored for one group to serve the nefarious ends of another is the essence of all human atrocities.
As for controlling women, this is also nonsense. The left doesn't actually believe that an individual woman should be able to make decisions about her healthcare, childbearing, or the wellbeing of her child. Go read "a code for babies" and tell me how libertarian it is. Or the ACA or compulsory taxation for government schools.
You cannot define a right to choose anything unless you first have a right to EXIST. How does the cause of feminism profit when a woman kills her own DAUGHTER!
(07-19-2018, 12:04 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 11:27 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]It's not it's about not playing god.
The right is hugely influenced by religion.
Am I missing something? I don’t understand anything you said.
it's nothing to do with 'protecting babies'. It's the same reason many are against euthanasia.
(07-19-2018, 04:38 AM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 12:04 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Am I missing something? I don’t understand anything you said.
it's nothing to do with 'protecting babies'. It's the same reason many are against euthanasia.
The dissonance must be painful for you.
(07-19-2018, 04:38 AM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 12:04 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Am I missing something? I don’t understand anything you said.
it's nothing to do with 'protecting babies'. It's the same reason many are against euthanasia.
I'm OK with euthanasia, so what's your point?
You're just trying to invalidate the argument without addressing the points.
(07-18-2018, 08:45 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2018, 04:51 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Endowed by our creator, not our mother.
And you know this cannot be debated here.
There's no debate, it's word for word from our founding documents.
(07-19-2018, 12:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 08:45 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]And you know this cannot be debated here.
Nonsense. I am not invoking a religious standard but a legal one. This line indicates that our rights are intrinsic to being human, not subjectively endowed by third parties. The idea that these rights can simply be put aside or ignored for one group to serve the nefarious ends of another is the essence of all human atrocities.
As for controlling women, this is also nonsense. The left doesn't actually believe that an individual woman should be able to make decisions about her healthcare, childbearing, or the wellbeing of her child. Go read "a code for babies" and tell me how libertarian it is. Or the ACA or compulsory taxation for government schools.
You cannot define a right to choose anything unless you first have a right to EXIST. How does the cause of feminism profit when a woman kills her own DAUGHTER!
(07-19-2018, 01:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 08:45 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]And you know this cannot be debated here.
There's no debate, it's word for word from our founding documents.
I understand those four words are in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not determine when life begins or when a fetus becomes a human being with protected rights.
(07-19-2018, 05:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 12:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Nonsense. I am not invoking a religious standard but a legal one. This line indicates that our rights are intrinsic to being human, not subjectively endowed by third parties. The idea that these rights can simply be put aside or ignored for one group to serve the nefarious ends of another is the essence of all human atrocities.
As for controlling women, this is also nonsense. The left doesn't actually believe that an individual woman should be able to make decisions about her healthcare, childbearing, or the wellbeing of her child. Go read "a code for babies" and tell me how libertarian it is. Or the ACA or compulsory taxation for government schools.
You cannot define a right to choose anything unless you first have a right to EXIST. How does the cause of feminism profit when a woman kills her own DAUGHTER!
(07-19-2018, 01:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]There's no debate, it's word for word from our founding documents.
I understand those four words are in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not determine when life begins or when a fetus becomes a human being with protected rights.
Ofcouese not. Biology does. As such that clause clearly points out that there is no arbitrary line of bifurcation when rights begin.
(07-19-2018, 05:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 12:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Nonsense. I am not invoking a religious standard but a legal one. This line indicates that our rights are intrinsic to being human, not subjectively endowed by third parties. The idea that these rights can simply be put aside or ignored for one group to serve the nefarious ends of another is the essence of all human atrocities.
As for controlling women, this is also nonsense. The left doesn't actually believe that an individual woman should be able to make decisions about her healthcare, childbearing, or the wellbeing of her child. Go read "a code for babies" and tell me how libertarian it is. Or the ACA or compulsory taxation for government schools.
You cannot define a right to choose anything unless you first have a right to EXIST. How does the cause of feminism profit when a woman kills her own DAUGHTER!
(07-19-2018, 01:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]There's no debate, it's word for word from our founding documents.
I understand those four words are in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not determine when life begins or when a fetus becomes a human being with protected rights.
Unless you believe that it's a person and protected by our constitution.
(07-19-2018, 06:01 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 05:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]I understand those four words are in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not determine when life begins or when a fetus becomes a human being with protected rights.
Ofcouese not. Biology does. As such that clause clearly points out that there is no arbitrary line of bifurcation when rights begin.
The Declaration of Independence was not intended to define when human life begins, and all science does is let us describe what we see and predict how it reacts to certain changes. We decide what the ethical implications are. We decide which rules, if enforced, lead to a desireable society. I agree with you, but I don't have to.
(07-20-2018, 08:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2018, 06:01 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcouese not. Biology does. As such that clause clearly points out that there is no arbitrary line of bifurcation when rights begin.
The Declaration of Independence was not intended to define when human life begins, and all science does is let us describe what we see and predict how it reacts to certain changes. We decide what the ethical implications are. We decide which rules, if enforced, lead to a desireable society. I agree with you, but I don't have to.
No no. Which rules WE DECIDE? That's actually in stark opposition to the basic concept of inalienable natural rights and constitutional republicanism.
When did we stop teaching basic civics.
(07-20-2018, 09:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-20-2018, 08:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The Declaration of Independence was not intended to define when human life begins, and all science does is let us describe what we see and predict how it reacts to certain changes. We decide what the ethical implications are. We decide which rules, if enforced, lead to a desireable society. I agree with you, but I don't have to.
No no. Which rules WE DECIDE? That's actually in stark opposition to the basic concept of inalienable natural rights and constitutional republicanism.
When did we stop teaching basic civics.
You can't take it away until you quit teaching its importance.