Abortion: Mind vs Body

[ABikerSailor]

A “human” (aka human being) is defined as:
“A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens”.

Yes, a zygote at conception can be considered a “human”, but at the earliest stage of DEVELOPMENT.
Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), or
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

Given that a fetus at 5 months after conception already has all/most of its neurons, and the females have all their eggs, one can argue the fetus BODY is too mature for ethical abortion.
However, the status of the fetus MIND is another story!

Even at birth, the baby’s MIND is still not able to function with any cognition (comprehension) beyond basic hunger & comfort. Reflexes don’t count.

Apparently, the liberal's MIND is still not able to function with significant comprehension beyond basic hunger, comfort, and snowflake triggers well after birth. So, triggered reflexes do seem to count.

I hate to break it to you, but the MIND at birth is neither Liberal or Conservative. It is Libertarian.

Actually, it is none of those three, because the mind at birth has no capacity for long term memory storage, and in order to be able to make the determination of which you would rather follow, you would require some way of storing information over a long period of time (long term memory), which a person doesn't develop until 1 1/2 to 2 years old.

Without LTM (long-term memory), infants behave in an adaptive way that reflects their Libertarian desires to be happy.

But with no long term memory, they wouldn't know that is what they are doing.

And, in some cases, it has been argued that humans are born with an innate sense of empathy and altruism. We are born to instinctively cooperate and help. Some would even argue that the act of an infant breast feeding is an altruistic act for both the mother and the baby. The mother, because she is feeding the infant, and the infant, because it is relieving stress from the mother.

Another place you can see innate cooperation is on the playground, with kids at around 5 or younger. When they see another kid on the playground, they don't really care what the politics, race, creed or belief system is of the other kid, they just know they want to play and have fun.

Being bigoted and racist? Those are things that have to be taught and learned.

 

[Chuz Life]

Ok, let’s have a general discussion...

Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), and
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

The answer is In the vast majority of cases is NO.

There is no distinction to be made.

The legal definition for what a natural person is, is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being."

If the ability to think was a requirement for personhood . . . We could just decide that leftardz are not persons and then. . . .
.

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

 

[PK1]

A “human” (aka human being) is defined as:
“A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens”.

Yes, a zygote at conception can be considered a “human”, but at the earliest stage of DEVELOPMENT.
Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), or
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

Given that a fetus at 5 months after conception already has all/most of its neurons, and the females have all their eggs, one can argue the fetus BODY is too mature for ethical abortion.
However, the status of the fetus MIND is another story!

Even at birth, the baby’s MIND is still not able to function with any cognition (comprehension) beyond basic hunger & comfort. Reflexes don’t count.

Apparently, the liberal's MIND is still not able to function with significant comprehension beyond basic hunger, comfort, and snowflake triggers well after birth. So, triggered reflexes do seem to count.

I hate to break it to you, but the MIND at birth is neither Liberal or Conservative. It is Libertarian.

Actually, it is none of those three, because the mind at birth has no capacity for long term memory storage, and in order to be able to make the determination of which you would rather follow, you would require some way of storing information over a long period of time (long term memory), which a person doesn't develop until 1 1/2 to 2 years old.

Without LTM (long-term memory), infants behave in an adaptive way that reflects their Libertarian desires to be happy.

But with no long term memory, they wouldn't know that is what they are doing.

And, in some cases, it has been argued that humans are born with an innate sense of empathy and altruism. We are born to instinctively cooperate and help. Some would even argue that the act of an infant breast feeding is an altruistic act for both the mother and the baby. The mother, because she is feeding the infant, and the infant, because it is relieving stress from the mother.

Another place you can see innate cooperation is on the playground, with kids at around 5 or younger. When they see another kid on the playground, they don't really care what the politics, race, creed or belief system is of the other kid, they just know they want to play and have fun.

Being bigoted and racist? Those are things that have to be taught and learned.

Yes, it’s been argued that infants display empathic behaviors (U of Michigan psychologist M.Hoffman).
They also can fight once they’re mobile.
Phylogenetically, humans are built for all kinds of pro-social & anti-social behavior.
Learning & environmental context explain a lot.

 

[PK1]

Ok, let’s have a general discussion...

Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), and
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

The answer is In the vast majority of cases is NO.

There is no distinction to be made.

The legal definition for what a natural person is, is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being."

If the ability to think was a requirement for personhood . . . We could just decide that leftardz are not persons and then. . . .
.

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Ok, let’s have a general discussion...

Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), and
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

The answer is In the vast majority of cases is NO.

There is no distinction to be made.

The legal definition for what a natural person is, is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being."

If the ability to think was a requirement for personhood . . . We could just decide that leftardz are not persons and then. . . .
.

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

 

[PK1]

Ok, let’s have a general discussion...

Do “pro-life” (sic) conservatives differentiate between:
1) stages of physical development (BODY), and
2) maturity of the prenatal brain (MIND)?

The answer is In the vast majority of cases is NO.

There is no distinction to be made.

The legal definition for what a natural person is, is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being."

If the ability to think was a requirement for personhood . . . We could just decide that leftardz are not persons and then. . . .
.

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

 

[Chuz Life]

The answer is In the vast majority of cases is NO.

There is no distinction to be made.

The legal definition for what a natural person is, is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being."

If the ability to think was a requirement for personhood . . . We could just decide that leftardz are not persons and then. . . .
.

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.

And you fucking know it.

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

 

[PK1]

So, cons can’t think beyond black/white perceptions?
Did your mental development stop when you were born & became a “person”?

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

 

[Chuz Life]

You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Does the Constitution say that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws? Or does it say only "thinking" persons have that right?

So much for your little red herring.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

Idiot!

It doesn't matter if the law said "and only if the little bastard might have a gene for red hair!"

The proof against your idiotic claim is not in what the law SAYS. It is in what it DOESN'T say or require.

Your claim is that it isn't EVER a person or a MURDER victim. . . Unless they can THINK.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws destroy that argument. . . Even WITH the (for now) allowance they make for abortions.

Damn, you really are fucking dense.

 

[PK1]

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

Idiot!

It doesn't matter if the law said "and only if the little bastard might have a gene for red hair!"

The proof against your idiotic claim is not in what the law SAYS. It is in what it DOESN'T say or require.

Your claim is that it isn't EVER a person or a MURDER victim. . . Unless they can THINK.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws destroy that argument. . . Even WITH the (for now) allowance they make for abortions.

Damn, you really are fucking dense.

Please control your emotions; they are not rational.
For your own credibility, please cite the Federal fetal homicide law that states “murder” of the fetus if the pregnant woman does NOT intend to carry the fetus to term.

BTW, i believe in the GOLDEN RULE argument.
I would not want to be born if i was an extremely disabled physical mutant or had parents that did not or could not support my development.
Luckily for me, i was a very WANTED baby.
Likewise, if/when i lose my ability to retrieve long-term memories and my personality disappears, i will have no problem accepting the termination of my MINDLESS bio mass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution protects CITIZENS; you know ... the PEOPLE w/ SSN’s.
It says nothing about abortion.

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

Idiot!

It doesn't matter if the law said "and only if the little bastard might have a gene for red hair!"

The proof against your idiotic claim is not in what the law SAYS. It is in what it DOESN'T say or require.

Your claim is that it isn't EVER a person or a MURDER victim. . . Unless they can THINK.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws destroy that argument. . . Even WITH the (for now) allowance they make for abortions.

Damn, you really are fucking dense.

Individuals are best suited to decide such personal, private matters, not the state.

 

[PK1]

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

Idiot!

It doesn't matter if the law said "and only if the little bastard might have a gene for red hair!"

The proof against your idiotic claim is not in what the law SAYS. It is in what it DOESN'T say or require.

Your claim is that it isn't EVER a person or a MURDER victim. . . Unless they can THINK.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws destroy that argument. . . Even WITH the (for now) allowance they make for abortions.

Damn, you really are fucking dense.

Individuals are best suited to decide such personal, private matters, not the state.

Individuals (pregnant) & their families should be the ONLY decision makers, and the pregnant woman should have 51% of the final “vote”.
Don’t cons/repubs want less Gov interferring with our lives? Geez, what hypocrisy.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are wrong of course.

The Constitution secures/protects all personsin this country, be they citizens or not.

See Yick Wo vs Hopkins for one of the earliest cases that make that clear.

P.s. (3 words) fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The fetal homicide law?
The one that protects the fetus IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY?

See?

Your own thinking is shallow.

Are you really too blind by your ignorance to see that there is no requirement that the child killed be able to THINK for their killer to be charged with a murder, under a feral homicide law?

What about someone in a vegetative state? If you go shoot someone that is in a vegetative state, and you kill them. . . You will be charged with murder.
..
And you fucking know it..

Well. Maybe an idiot like you doesn't know it. That's fine. The rest of us do.

Your reading compression is shallow.
I never said that any fetal thought is related to the fetal homicide law. Read my lips ..
It’s only fetal homicide IF THE PREGNANT WOMAN INTENDS TO DELIVER THE BABY

Idiot!

It doesn't matter if the law said "and only if the little bastard might have a gene for red hair!"

The proof against your idiotic claim is not in what the law SAYS. It is in what it DOESN'T say or require.

Your claim is that it isn't EVER a person or a MURDER victim. . . Unless they can THINK.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws destroy that argument. . . Even WITH the (for now) allowance they make for abortions.

Damn, you really are fucking dense.

Individuals are best suited to decide such personal, private matters, not the state.

Bull Ring - Abortion Debate; Chuz Life vs. C_Clayton_Jones

 

[PK1]

After birth, the baby’s MIND is still not able to function with any cognition (comprehension) beyond basic hunger & comfort. Reflexes don’t count.

Therefore, the pregnant woman, with her developed MIND, and citizenship in a country that vouches for LIBERTY, is the only person that should have final say in whether she gets an abortion. Not big Gov, NOT YOU.

Planned Parenhood provides valuable services to distraught pregnant females & we all should be thankful for PLANNED, wanted children.

 

[whitehall]

What the hell are we arguing about when the democrat governor of Va.described a scenario where a newborn baby would be "made comfortable" before it is euthanized? Clearly the humanity of a unborn or even a newly born baby means nothing to the left wing eugenic nazis.

 

[PK1]

What the hell are we arguing about when the democrat governor of Va.described a scenario where a newborn baby would be "made comfortable" before it is euthanized? Clearly the humanity of a unborn or even a newly born baby means nothing to the left wing eugenic nazis.

Nazis are the cons who want to limit LIBERTY of US citizens.
Regarding the VA governor ...
It’s clear that Northam did not “state he would execute a baby after birth,” as Trump claimed he did. We all know how much Trump lies, and how gullible his supporters are.

 

[PK1]

Individuals (pregnant) & their families should be the ONLY decision makers, and the pregnant woman should have 51% of the final “vote”.
Don’t cons/repubs want less Gov interferring with our lives?

If there are no reasonable arguments against the above statements, then we all agree ...