So a bun isnt bread, got it.

Lol, you got it. I'm glad I could help you understand. Grammar can be a bit confusing. :-)

---

Did I miss your response to this question (Which was asked a couple of times previously):


"If a pregnant women is assaulted to the point that it kills her unborn child, why would the killer be charged with the murder of said unborn child? " Why is killing the unborn child acceptable in one case but not the other? Either it is a life or it isn't.

It does seem that there would be a double standard! I haven't done much research in this particular law, but the law seems poorly thought out, if that's the verbiage of it.


This is, I'm assuming, a law within certain states, correct? The states in which this law exists, were they passed by a republican majority? I'd be curious to know that fact.


But... even with that said, I could see this issue in the same manner I see tort cases where compensation is given to the plaintiff based on future earnings that would be lost because of the negligence of the defendant.


In essence, it gets back to the concept of the pregnancy and where you determine the point in which life begins, I think.


If you think that life begins at conception, the law makes sense that it would be murder. If you believe differently than that, then the harm to the unborn child, as you put it, is harm to that potential life that did not get to develop--similar to tort law... In either case, a harm was done.


Unfortunately, it comes down to the "have" v "having" semantics me and my good friend flspts are discussing, to a certain extent.

---

It does seem that there would be a double standard! I haven't done much research in this particular law, but the law seems poorly thought out, if that's the verbiage of it.


This is, I'm assuming, a law within certain states, correct? The states in which this law exists, were they passed by a republican majority? I'd be curious to know that fact.

 

Yep, those laws are on the books in notorious right wings bastions like California, Massachusetts, Rhose Island, and New York.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/feta...-laws.aspx

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It does seem that there would be a double standard! I haven't done much research in this particular law, but the law seems poorly thought out, if that's the verbiage of it.


This is, I'm assuming, a law within certain states, correct? The states in which this law exists, were they passed by a republican majority? I'd be curious to know that fact.


But... even with that said, I could see this issue in the same manner I see tort cases where compensation is given to the plaintiff based on future earnings that would be lost because of the negligence of the defendant.


In essence, it gets back to the concept of the pregnancy and where you determine the point in which life begins, I think.


If you think that life begins at conception, the law makes sense that it would be murder. If you believe differently than that, then the harm to the unborn child, as you put it, is harm to that potential life that did not get to develop--similar to tort law... In either case, a harm was done.


Unfortunately, it comes down to the "have" v "having" semantics me and my good friend flspts are discussing, to a certain extent.

 

So we're having a discussion then? At what point will we talk about it?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think 10 weeks is the cut off... At least for me it is. anything after that, there should be a concern for the live of the mother or unborn child... But yeah, I'm with you on all these points.


One thing, most people don't want free education. That's bogus right wing tripe that the drooling gop'ers that have been brainwashed by the propaganda have heard that liberals are demanding. In fact, the point of education is for it to be affordable. You should have a 30K debt or more to get a Bachelors. So I'd switch out free education for reforming education to make it affordable again, like back in the 80's and 90's before it became out of hand, and single payer healthcare for all.


Other than that, I'd go along with 8 week cut off for abortions. At 8 weeks, the embryo has no sex, has no arms or toes, and is like the size of a peanut.

 

So, you're not ok with killing a non-person at 11 weeks? Many, you get the all around gold medal in Mental Gymnastics!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It does seem that there would be a double standard! I haven't done much research in this particular law, but the law seems poorly thought out, if that's the verbiage of it.

Classic anchorman.

---

Yep, those laws are on the books in notorious right wings bastions like California, Massachusetts, Rhose Island, and New York.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx'>http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx</a>

Well, there's no partisan-ship when it comes to laws that seem oddly worded.


Another one is the hate crime law... but that's just my opinion

---

So, you're not ok with killing a non-person at 11 weeks? Many, you get the all around gold medal in Mental Gymnastics!

It's really lame when people pick a statement out of context... I know that's jj's shtick, but I expect better from you, flsprt.


What you conveniently left out was my discussion of when life begins. I do not believe life begins at conception...


You're better than jj, don't start using his dishonest tactics to try and make your point. :-)

---

Hey listen, I understand I intimidate you. I understand, believe me. If I had to go against someone like me, let me tell you. But you don't have to be insecure. When I was a kid I thought just like you. You're a late bloomer is all. One day when you grow up the weight of material facts will push out your emotional addiction to statism. It takes time, I know you want to believe but don't be discouraged. You can be somebody!

---

It's really lame when people pick a statement out of context... I know that's jj's shtick, but I expect better from you, flsprt.


What you conveniently left out was my discussion of when life begins. I do not believe life begins at conception...


You're better than jj, don't start using his dishonest tactics to try and make your point. :-)

 

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such a line. Frankly, that's my issue with pretty much every "line" we draw when it comes to the Law. Who gets to decide what the line is? Gun ownership stripped for the mentally ill? Who decides what "illness" really means? Do or don't serve a cake to a certain person? Do or don't buy health insurance? Do or don't go to war? Right to life for children once you reach 10 weeks? Why not 11 or 9 or birth? Is abortion a civil rights violation? Lines, everyone of them, and the "who decides" is the key element to all of them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You know, it would have been cool if the framers created a basic framework of rights predicated on the very nature of being human (endowed by our creator) as opposed to some arbitrary laundry list made up by bureaucrats (enumerated rights,) ah if only.

---

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such a line. Frankly, that's my issue with pretty much every "line" we draw when it comes to the Law. Who gets to decide what the line is? Gun ownership stripped for the mentally ill? Who decides what "illness" really means? Do or don't serve a cake to a certain person? Do or don't buy health insurance? Do or don't go to war? Right to life for children once you reach 10 weeks? Why not 11 or 9 or birth? Is abortion a civil rights violation? Lines, everyone of them, and the "who decides" is the key element to all of them.

Yeah, dude, I hear ya. There are alot of arbitrary lines in law making.


What makes one thing a hate crime and not another. The whole thing with calling an attack, terrorist, or Islamic terrorism and that being the reason we are losing to Isis is absolutely absurd-- dare I say [BLEEP].


So I get that.


As with everything, a compromise seems the best fit. Nobody is totally happy, but no side is getting the absolute shaft either.


To me, saying life starts at conception is an absurd line. But as a reasonable human being, I also find 3 trimester abortions to be just soul shattering.


During the development that happens in a pregnancy, up until the 10th week or so, the embryo doesn't have a sex, doesn't have arms or fingers that have developed, is smaller than the size of a peanut, etc...


To me, it's a rational line of demarcation. I mean, yeah, if you believe that human life and the soul enters the zygote at conception, then 8-10 weeks is still a terrible idea. Well, I'm sorry if that's the case. But I think those people are in the minority of Americans.


Are you of the opinion that life begins at conception?

---

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such a line. Frankly, that's my issue with pretty much every "line" we draw when it comes to the Law. Who gets to decide what the line is? Gun ownership stripped for the mentally ill? Who decides what "illness" really means? Do or don't serve a cake to a certain person? Do or don't buy health insurance? Do or don't go to war? Right to life for children once you reach 10 weeks? Why not 11 or 9 or birth? Is abortion a civil rights violation? Lines, everyone of them, and the "who decides" is the key element to all of them.

None of this means no lines should be drawn or laws passed and enforced.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Yeah, dude, I hear ya. There are alot of arbitrary lines in law making.


What makes one thing a hate crime and not another. The whole thing with calling an attack, terrorist, or Islamic terrorism and that being the reason we are losing to Isis is absolutely absurd-- dare I say [BLEEP].


So I get that.


As with everything, a compromise seems the best fit. Nobody is totally happy, but no side is getting the absolute shaft either.


To me, saying life starts at conception is an absurd line. But as a reasonable human being, I also find 3 trimester abortions to be just soul shattering.


During the development that happens in a pregnancy, up until the 10th week or so, the embryo doesn't have a sex, doesn't have arms or fingers that have developed, is smaller than the size of a peanut, etc...


To me, it's a rational line of demarcation. I mean, yeah, if you believe that human life and the soul enters the zygote at conception, then 8-10 weeks is still a terrible idea. Well, I'm sorry if that's the case. But I think those people are in the minority of Americans.


Are you of the opinion that life begins at conception?

Scientific fact is not an opinion.

---

Yeah, dude, I hear ya. There are alot of arbitrary lines in law making.

What makes one thing a hate crime and not another. The whole thing with calling an attack, terrorist, or Islamic terrorism and that being the reason we are losing to Isis is absolutely absurd-- dare I say [BLEEP].

So I get that.

As with everything, a compromise seems the best fit. Nobody is totally happy, but no side is getting the absolute shaft either.

To me, saying life starts at conception is an absurd line. But as a reasonable human being, I also find 3 trimester abortions to be just soul shattering.

During the development that happens in a pregnancy, up until the 10th week or so, the embryo doesn't have a sex, doesn't have arms or fingers that have developed, is smaller than the size of a peanut, etc...

To me, it's a rational line of demarcation. I mean, yeah, if you believe that human life and the soul enters the zygote at conception, then 8-10 weeks is still a terrible idea. Well, I'm sorry if that's the case. But I think those people are in the minority of Americans.

Are you of the opinion that life begins at conception?

The baby has a gender at the moment of conception. So, to say otherwise is a false statement. You can try to rationalize it by using the technical terms, but that peanut you're fine with discarding has all of their genetic markers at conception. That's science and not opinion. Just because the parents don't know the gender right away doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


At conception, it is a human being regardless of viability. Life does indeed begin at conception, otherwise what is it? If it's not predetermined that it is a human being and not a tree, or a fish, or any other living entity.


You've never really answered the question about the laws on the books in nearly forty states regarding personhood other than to say the wording was poorly structured. That's a cop out response by someone trying to avoid the reality. You even tried to make it sound like some republican conspiracy, which it isn't based on the states involved. States have drawn arbitrary lines to get the legislation passed, but the bottom line is that they grant personhood to an unborn child. Tough to tap dance around that.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Hey listen, I understand I intimidate you. I understand, believe me. If I had to go against someone like me, let me tell you. But you don't have to be insecure. When I was a kid I thought just like you. You're a late bloomer is all. One day when you grow up the weight of material facts will push out your emotional addiction to statism. It takes time, I know you want to believe but don't be discouraged. You can be somebody!

I'll never join the dark side!!!


I enjoy calling you out, jj. Beside the fact that you are wrong 91% of the time, you make a good foil to my thoughts. And usually you don't go off the rails too far.


I'm not sure what caused you to lose your soul, but there's no way I'll ever follow an ideology that goes against what I've learned and believe about the constitution and the intent of our founders.


You know, there is a way to compromise and actually get close to a libertarian foundation. But only once you realize Reagan is not a god, and that the federal government is not the devil.

---

The baby has a gender at the moment of conception. 

 

Nah, it can't decide that until it's at least 15. Then it gets a TV show.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You know, it would have been cool if the framers created a basic framework of rights predicated on the very nature of being human (endowed by our creator) as opposed to some arbitrary laundry list made up by bureaucrats (enumerated rights,) ah if only.

 

Ding

 

Ding

 

Ding

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Nah, it can't decide that until it's at least 15. Then it gets a TV show.

 

Good point.  Liberals have done away with gender all together, so I guess that means it can't be used as a measuring stick.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

P.s. - I'm mixed on abortion. I personally find it terrible and wouldn't do it. However, someone very close to me had it many years ago. No matter how terrible I think abortion is,, it was necessary for that person, and the correct thing to do (without sharing any of the details of that situation; trust me, it was a dreadful sitaution which was not caused by fault of the person).


I guess my stance would be:

Against abortion except in extreme cases such as rape, incest, medical necessity of the woman.

This is how I feel but I don't think the government should tell people they can or can't do it. It's a personal choice regardless of the circumstances. I won't ever judge someone for doing it, but I don't have to agree with it either except in the extreme cases you mentioned. 

---