Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:
1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.
I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.
We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative. Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.
I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.
We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative. Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.
What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.
If you want to put forth a valid argument, then try NOT throwing up ad hominems every time someone else posts something that you have no logical, winning response to.
Epic Fail. As per the usual.
☭proletarian☭;1833993 said:It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.
I never denied that it's human. It's human by definition and any DNA lab can confirm that. I see this issue as being very similar to that of braindeath and 'pulling the plug'. If the mind is gone, the individual no longer exists. You're no longer caring for the person, merely for the body which once housed the person. Similarly, in early-stage abortion we're dealing with a human,, but no mind has emerged. There is no individual or sentience- the very thing that separates a human from a plant or a bacterium. In such a scenario we're dealing with a human animal, but not with a person.
While it's true that not being able to detect brainwaves does not necessarily mean they're not present, not being able to detect a heartbeat doesn't mean someone's heart's not beating (although such instances are rare with modern medicine). However, if the structures of the brain which gives rise to the mind have not developed, there can be no question that they are not active, for they do not even exist yet.
Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?
I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.
I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.
Should we, then, keep a body alive on life support forever? should we replace organs as they fail until we have little flesh at all and keep the machiones running for no intelligible reason? You reach a point where it's just absurd and I've seen no other meaningful measure than what I've forwarded (although I am by no means the only one to propose it). Your words may sound good, but they're not really meaningful and your ideals are neither pragmatic or useful in the real world.
I object to it because I don't consider higher brain function to be a relevant cut-off. We give more respect to the life of an endangered titmouse than we do to the life of the youngest of our own species. I think it's dangerous to start setting limits based on things like intelligence and brain function, because then it becomes necessary to explain just how much intelligence and how much brain function is required, and to explain why it's not okay to kill other humans who don't meet up to an arbitrary standard of same. And sure, YOU might be able to delineate and avoid going down the slippery slope, but it opens the door to others who can't or don't want to.
I think a fetus is valuable and important for the same reason I think any human is valuable and important: because he's human and alive.
It's objective, undeniable (unless you're the sort of person who also believes dogs and humans can mate), and clear, and shuts the door definitively on people who might decide to play havoc with your arguments to allow them to bump off anyone who happens to be inconvenient to them at the moment.
Your comparison is bad. There is a big difference between someone who is brain dead and who has a small chance of recovering to full consciousness and a fetus that has an excellent chance (taking abortion out of the picture of course) of gaining consciousness. Can you really not see the difference between the two?
As an edit, should we "pull the plug" on someone that had the same chance as a fetus of gaining consciousness?
We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:
1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.
I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.
We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative. Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.
That is in reference to something I have been pointing out to JD and she has been ignoring and rehashing her old arguments again. I must say JD, you continually point out that a fetus is not an individual because it cannot survive without the mother and yet you have no counterpoint to the fact that a well developed fetus is fully capable of surviving out of the womb. Essentially you believe that a child can and should be killed if the mother does not want the inconnivance of a live birth or C-section. Honestly, do the lives of children mean that little to you?I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.
JD
What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Apparently the court DID feel viability was an issue and allowed states to make such laws as to enforce abortion bans on viable fetuses! In many states they have attempted to make those bans but the court has been firing them down due to most lacking in a provision to ensure the safety of the mother. I wonder why that provision is absent in many cases since it does at least seem there is a supermajority that believe the health of the mother is one such reason an abortion should be performed?☭proletarian☭;1835828 said:Your comparison is bad. There is a big difference between someone who is brain dead and who has a small chance of recovering to full consciousness and a fetus that has an excellent chance (taking abortion out of the picture of course) of gaining consciousness. Can you really not see the difference between the two?
As an edit, should we "pull the plug" on someone that had the same chance as a fetus of gaining consciousness?
Neither currently possesses consciousness an d I'm not familiar with anyone who was truly braindead ever regaining consciousness (the electrochemical processes of the brain, to my knowledge, have never been restarted once they stopped). Your argument is basically a variant of the 'potential life' argument and very easily leads to absurdities, such as arguing that any given ovum or sperm theoretically become part of a system that could become sentient or that a computer network could theoretically develop sentience. You end up needing to find a way to determine the probability of sentience emerging and then settling on and defending a likelihood at which to place the cut-off. Prior to the emergence of the mind, the tissue is no more a person than an arm or leg by itself.
Why would anyone argue about an ovum or sperm being a human life?
☭proletarian☭;1836330 said:Why would anyone argue about an ovum or sperm being a human life?
The 'potential life' argument actually has been forwarded many times.
We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:
1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.
I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.
We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative. Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.
What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.
