I wish somebody could explain to me what made Supreme Court justices into doctors, human rights activists and theologians in the first place. Read the Tenth Amendment. Abortion is not a federal problem. The correct answer in 1973 was to remand it to the individual states to decide. Instead, the justices set a precedent that they are somehow qualified to answer the question of when life begins, and here we are. The right answer today was the right answer then: remand it to the states and let the individual states figure it out for themselves. You want to talk about judicial activism? Roe v. Wade is public enemy number one.

And it will never be handled in a sensible way, because abortion is the most valuable political football for either side. The second a court does what they should have done 50 years ago, that football is punted forever.

---

If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

You impose your will every time you enforce a law upon anyone. Is the person or advocate for that law responsible for anything that results from the enforcement of that law? We made domestic violence illegal, but we don’t push for advocates for those laws to be responsible for the families that are destroyed from it, so we?

Why then is it different here? We’re not forcing something into existence. It already exist. You’ve even called them people. The mother / father put them into existence. Abortions takes them out of existence. Humans are growing, maturing, evolving, etc. their entire lives. Why do you make an exception for babies in the womb? 

Again, you don’t know if hundreds of thousands (or millions) would suffer from being born. I could simply say that one of those babies could’ve solved all of those problems you suspect would happen because they’re born. 

I’m a tax payer to a bunch of services I don’t want, won’t use, and disagree with. But the same argument that you use to say that you will undoubtedly pay for these un aborted babies is all a guess. Surely, some of those babies may suffer, and we may be financially responsible for some of the others, but if being a financial burden is all it takes to destroy a human then we need to eliminate human life then we have many other situations that would justify eliminating life even after birth. My examples may be stupid but I’m using your argument here. My sole argument is that they’re human and shouldn’t be murdered unjustifiably. 

At what point do these nonexistent “people” exist to you? I agree that the crux of the argument is if they’re alive or not. But I contend that the human body is almost always changing being inside of another person doesn’t somehow negate their chance at life. But to address your question, I’m not responsible for the choices someone else made. We already have programs in place for the things you theorize would happen after being born. You keep saying that I must have an answer to something that hasn’t happen and something we don’t know would happen. Besides, the things you say would happen have other solutions that we should address anyway. Are you responsible for the complications that result from abortions? The disfigured survivors? The dead mothers? If I’m responsible for one side then you’re responsible for the other.

---

Speak more about that.

It's faulty science that has been manipulated in a lab to come to the conclusion that the scientist and their benefactors wanted it to. Kinda like fake news.

???  What are u talking about?

---

I wish somebody could explain to me what made Supreme Court justices into doctors, human rights activists and theologians in the first place. Read the Tenth Amendment. Abortion is not a federal problem. The correct answer in 1973 was to remand it to the individual states to decide. Instead, the justices set a precedent that they are somehow qualified to answer the question of when life begins, and here we are. The right answer today was the right answer then: remand it to the states and let the individual states figure it out for themselves. You want to talk about judicial activism? Roe v. Wade is public enemy number one.

And it will never be handled in a sensible way, because abortion is the most valuable political football for either side. The second a court does what they should have done 50 years ago, that football is punted forever.

+1

---

There is a HUGE waiting list for people wanting to adopt. The problem is the bureaucratic red tape that impedes the process.

There is a huge waiting list for people wanting to adopt healthy, white babies. They are the minority in foster care. My cousin fosters kids in Ohio and as long as she has been doing it, all the kids she has taken in have either been of color or physically or mentally handicapped. They are practically begging her to take in more kids, but she has 3 little boys of her own between the ages of 7 and less than 1 year old. Her oldest is a little Hispanic boy that she fostered from the age of 3 weeks old. He was so abused in the first week of his life, that his biological father broke the orbital bone in his eye. Thank God, he is in a good place now. He's a very intelligent and happy kid who read all the Harry Potter books on his own before the age of 5. My cousin has done wonders with that child. Her other 2 are biologically hers and all three boys get along wonderfully.

---

Junk science.

Speak more about that.

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If you're imposing your will to force something into existence, then you are responsible for that thing. If you take away abortion, there will literally be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people born into miserable circumstances and someone has to take care of them until their 18. I'm pro choice and I have never wanted kids, so why should my tax dollars pay for them when I was fine with abortion and these people not existing in the first place? If you want to force them to exist, then you take care of them.
That's a stupid argument that makes no sense at all. You are just throwing absurd things out there. One is an extreme method of birth control to prevent and unwanted child that doesn't exist yet and the other is murder of a living, breathing human that already exist. If you can't see the difference, you need help. 
I said that people eliminating abortions would be directly responsible for bringing these kids into miserable conditions. It's not life if you never existed at all. You keep talking in circles, but you have never directly addressed my question. What do YOU and other people like you, plan to do about all these new people you will force into existence? I presented all the problems that would arise if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, yet you have offered no solutions what so ever. How would you address the rise in crime, poverty, suicide, cost and many other ramifications created by undoing abortion laws? It's a simple question with no good or realistic answers. I have yet to find a pro-life person that will even attempt to answer those questions, because they know they can't.

---

You impose your will every time you enforce a law upon anyone. Is the person or advocate for that law responsible for anything that results from the enforcement of that law? We made domestic violence illegal, but we don’t push for advocates for those laws to be responsible for the families that are destroyed from it, so we?

Why then is it different here? We’re not forcing something into existence. It already exist. You’ve even called them people. The mother / father put them into existence. Abortions takes them out of existence. Humans are growing, maturing, evolving, etc. their entire lives. Why do you make an exception for babies in the womb? 

Again, you don’t know if hundreds of thousands (or millions) would suffer from being born. I could simply say that one of those babies could’ve solved all of those problems you suspect would happen because they’re born. 

I’m a tax payer to a bunch of services I don’t want, won’t use, and disagree with. But the same argument that you use to say that you will undoubtedly pay for these un aborted babies is all a guess. Surely, some of those babies may suffer, and we may be financially responsible for some of the others, but if being a financial burden is all it takes to destroy a human then we need to eliminate human life then we have many other situations that would justify eliminating life even after birth. My examples may be stupid but I’m using your argument here. My sole argument is that they’re human and shouldn’t be murdered unjustifiably. 

At what point do these nonexistent “people” exist to you? I agree that the crux of the argument is if they’re alive or not. But I contend that the human body is almost always changing being inside of another person doesn’t somehow negate their chance at life. But to address your question, I’m not responsible for the choices someone else made. We already have programs in place for the things you theorize would happen after being born. You keep saying that I must have an answer to something that hasn’t happen and something we don’t know would happen. Besides, the things you say would happen have other solutions that we should address anyway. Are you responsible for the complications that result from abortions? The disfigured survivors? The dead mothers? If I’m responsible for one side then you’re responsible for the other.

No, it doesn't and until we agree on this, there is no point to even further this conversation. 

People start to exist, when they take a breathe outside of the womb. 

We do know it would happen, because we already have huge problems with overcrowded foster care systems, poor who can't get or can't afford quality health care for their children, mental health issues that go unaddressed and a myriad of other issues. It isn't just one thing. What makes you rationally think that adding a huge amount of new people into the system won't just compound the issues we already have? Two and two will always equal four. If you have a problem and keep piling onto that problem, it's just gonna get bigger and bigger. 

Right now, abortions are relatively well regulated. Risks are fairly low, but as in any surgery unexpected complications can always arise. I'm willing to accept responsibility as a taxpayer for those complications, if your side is solely willing to accept the complications that would arise from the complications in illegal abortions that are not regulated and the responsibility of all the new kids put into the system, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I think we just compromised on something! Maybe we should be elected into congress. Things might actually get accomplished.

---

Speak more about that.

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

That was beautifully explained.

---

Speak more about that.

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

Conception.  That's a physical fact.  There are roughly 13 separate criteria to determine if a system constitutes life.  Gamette cells, (egg and sperm) fail that test.  A zygote, embryo fetus etc. All meet the definition of life.  


The entire concept of "potentiality" was based on scientific ignorance as illustrated above.  

The concept of "personhood" was an excuse devised to get around the concept of universal basic human rights.  It turns out that there will always be a group or groups that will try to invalidate the human rights of another group.  Radical feminists, white southern slave owners etc.  Whatever excuse people come up with, no matter how poetic, violates the core tennant that we are endowed by our creator.  In  secular sense this means that our right to life is intrinsic to being human.  This is not something we have to earn based on subjective analysis, value of traits etc.

---

Speak more about that.

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

That depends on who you ask. And that's another compelling reason why the citizens of each state should be the final arbiters of the issue via a vote/amendment/whatever in their state and for their state. This is a topic that should not have been touched by unelected Presidential appointees in the first place.

---

I wish somebody could explain to me what made Supreme Court justices into doctors, human rights activists and theologians in the first place. Read the Tenth Amendment. Abortion is not a federal problem. The correct answer in 1973 was to remand it to the individual states to decide. Instead, the justices set a precedent that they are somehow qualified to answer the question of when life begins, and here we are. The right answer today was the right answer then: remand it to the states and let the individual states figure it out for themselves. You want to talk about judicial activism? Roe v. Wade is public enemy number one.

And it will never be handled in a sensible way, because abortion is the most valuable political football for either side. The second a court does what they should have done 50 years ago, that football is punted forever.

+1

---

I wish somebody could explain to me what made Supreme Court justices into doctors, human rights activists and theologians in the first place. Read the Tenth Amendment. Abortion is not a federal problem. The correct answer in 1973 was to remand it to the individual states to decide. Instead, the justices set a precedent that they are somehow qualified to answer the question of when life begins, and here we are. The right answer today was the right answer then: remand it to the states and let the individual states figure it out for themselves. You want to talk about judicial activism? Roe v. Wade is public enemy number one.

And it will never be handled in a sensible way, because abortion is the most valuable political football for either side. The second a court does what they should have done 50 years ago, that football is punted forever.

+1

+2

---

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

You impose your will every time you enforce a law upon anyone. Is the person or advocate for that law responsible for anything that results from the enforcement of that law? We made domestic violence illegal, but we don’t push for advocates for those laws to be responsible for the families that are destroyed from it, so we?

Why then is it different here? We’re not forcing something into existence. It already exist. You’ve even called them people. The mother / father put them into existence. Abortions takes them out of existence. Humans are growing, maturing, evolving, etc. their entire lives. Why do you make an exception for babies in the womb? 

Again, you don’t know if hundreds of thousands (or millions) would suffer from being born. I could simply say that one of those babies could’ve solved all of those problems you suspect would happen because they’re born. 

I’m a tax payer to a bunch of services I don’t want, won’t use, and disagree with. But the same argument that you use to say that you will undoubtedly pay for these un aborted babies is all a guess. Surely, some of those babies may suffer, and we may be financially responsible for some of the others, but if being a financial burden is all it takes to destroy a human then we need to eliminate human life then we have many other situations that would justify eliminating life even after birth. My examples may be stupid but I’m using your argument here. My sole argument is that they’re human and shouldn’t be murdered unjustifiably. 

At what point do these nonexistent “people” exist to you? I agree that the crux of the argument is if they’re alive or not. But I contend that the human body is almost always changing being inside of another person doesn’t somehow negate their chance at life. But to address your question, I’m not responsible for the choices someone else made. We already have programs in place for the things you theorize would happen after being born. You keep saying that I must have an answer to something that hasn’t happen and something we don’t know would happen. Besides, the things you say would happen have other solutions that we should address anyway. Are you responsible for the complications that result from abortions? The disfigured survivors? The dead mothers? If I’m responsible for one side then you’re responsible for the other.

No, it doesn't and until we agree on this, there is no point to even further this conversation. 

People start to exist, when they take a breathe outside of the womb. 

We do know it would happen, because we already have huge problems with overcrowded foster care systems, poor who can't get or can't afford quality health care for their children, mental health issues that go unaddressed and a myriad of other issues. It isn't just one thing. What makes you rationally think that adding a huge amount of new people into the system won't just compound the issues we already have? Two and two will always equal four. If you have a problem and keep piling onto that problem, it's just gonna get bigger and bigger. 

Right now, abortions are relatively well regulated. Risks are fairly low, but as in any surgery unexpected complications can always arise. I'm willing to accept responsibility as a taxpayer for those complications, if your side is solely willing to accept the complications that would arise from the complications in illegal abortions that are not regulated and the responsibility of all the new kids put into the system, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I think we just compromised on something! Maybe we should be elected into congress. Things might actually get accomplished.

---

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

That was beautifully explained.

So a 39 week pregnancy is, to you, not a human being? How about a pregnancy that goes long, say 42 weeks? Is that also not human to you?

Also Mike's take was a beautiful bunch of unscientific horse [BLEEP].

---

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

Science can't conclusively answer when life begins.  That's a metaphysical question.  Science can only tell us physical facts.  
Science tells us that each embryo has a unique combination of human (not chimp, not lizard, only human) DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Science tells us that most human embryos that are detectable on ultrasound will develop into a healthy baby ready to be born if they are simply left alone inside the mother.
These scientific facts should guide and confine our ethics and metaphysics, but, ethics and metaphysics are matters of opinion, not physical fact.

That depends on who you ask. And that's another compelling reason why the citizens of each state should be the final arbiters of the issue via a vote/amendment/whatever in their state and for their state. This is a topic that should not have been touched by unelected Presidential appointees in the first place.

I tend to agree with this.

---

So. RBG.

---

No, it doesn't and until we agree on this, there is no point to even further this conversation. 

People start to exist, when they take a breathe outside of the womb. 

We do know it would happen, because we already have huge problems with overcrowded foster care systems, poor who can't get or can't afford quality health care for their children, mental health issues that go unaddressed and a myriad of other issues. It isn't just one thing. What makes you rationally think that adding a huge amount of new people into the system won't just compound the issues we already have? Two and two will always equal four. If you have a problem and keep piling onto that problem, it's just gonna get bigger and bigger. 

Right now, abortions are relatively well regulated. Risks are fairly low, but as in any surgery unexpected complications can always arise. I'm willing to accept responsibility as a taxpayer for those complications, if your side is solely willing to accept the complications that would arise from the complications in illegal abortions that are not regulated and the responsibility of all the new kids put into the system, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I think we just compromised on something! Maybe we should be elected into congress. Things might actually get accomplished.

---

That was beautifully explained.

So a 39 week pregnancy is, to you, not a human being? How about a pregnancy that goes long, say 42 weeks? Is that also not human to you?

Also Mike's take was a beautiful bunch of unscientific horse [BLEEP].

I don't care if you're part rhino and you're 62 weeks pregnant. I don't think you exist until you take a breathe outside the womb. That could mean 36 weeks if it's a full term pregnancy or 28 weeks if it's born a preemie. It's all the same. Once it comes out and takes it's first breathe, it exist.

---

So. RBG.

I know. This thread has devolved into something other than what it was intended. I will disengage from the conversation.

---

I can’t find the individual that asked are libs born brain dead
Nope you can be assured that the libs come out of womb in perfect order one thing that will also be assured this will continue To be the norm being born perfect when the new scotus is sworn in
Nope we now know how the lib brain is Downloaded delusional garbage thus producing a dead brain

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

That was beautifully explained.

So a 39 week pregnancy is, to you, not a human being? How about a pregnancy that goes long, say 42 weeks? Is that also not human to you?

Also Mike's take was a beautiful bunch of unscientific horse [BLEEP].

Both of y'all misunderstood me.
I was agreeing with O-line that we all get to make up our own minds about what science means, but I also pointed out the scientific facts that persuade me to my opinion that abortion should be restricted much more that it is today.
O-line's opinion that breathing is the beginning of existence has some merit, but I don't think medical science supports it much.  Here's a scientific fact you may not have considered: most premature babies have a neurological instinct to breathe once they are out of the womb - even if their lungs are not fully developed and even if they're going to need medical support to live.  So should abortion be banned for any fetus mature enough to have this instinct?  Do we have a duty to investigate which stage of fetal brain development produces that instinct, so we don't prevent a baby that can breathe from taking its first breath?  
And it's not as if breathing represents independence.  Here's another scientific fact: for at least the first six months of life, babies are wholly dependent on milk being brought up to their lips.  Should it be permissible to say, the baby that is so dependent on care lacks independent existence and may therefore be killed?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If a man kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, and it killed her unborn baby (no number of weeks matter) ... That is called murder.

---

If a man kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, and it killed her unborn baby (no number of weeks matter) ... That is called murder.

BOOM!!!!

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Is it shocking that people who kill babies don't want to give people a choice to go outside and do what they want? How do we have a choice to kill a human, but can't choose to go outside of our house in a lockdown?

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---