Zone1 A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, breathe on their own, feel pain, to ever become self-aware, etc. is a "person."

[Dragonlady]

That is odd, I'm no medical expert, but the article I read up on the affliction stated that this or that /usually/ happened. So it sounded like to me there is some variation in these cases to some degree, and not every one of them were copybook cases.

What I considered was that even just the brain stem and perhaps some portion of the mid-brain, considering just the physical size of it in contrast to the size of the brains of many small mammals, that if they had a case where the child survived, that there might be some small possibility of the brain rewiring itself just a little and regaining some tiny degree of improvement. But if none of them ever get that chance, we will never know if or how far.


Blow it out your ass. Don't you dare attack me in the CDZ telling me what you think I think, want or feel. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, the problem is that in a sane universe, the woman should already want to do the right thing herself, but Progressivism has corrosively masked its decay on society as "progress."

In a sane universe, the choice would be the made by the woman based on HER life and that of her family.

Claiming that ending this real suffering is “immoral” is the most immoral stance imaginable.

Forcing people to endanger themselves and suffer for your idea of morality, is fascism writ large.

 

[Chuz Life]

In a sane universe, the recognition of a child's right to the equal protection of our laws is not tantamout to "forcing" anyone to do anything.

 

[Dragonlady]

In a sane universe, the recognition of a child's right to the equal protection of our laws is not tantamout to "forcing" anyone to do anything.

A child is a fully formed human being living and breathing outside the womb.

A fetus, with no brain, is not a “child” or even a “potential child”. It will never be fully alive. It has no life and no rights to protect.

But its mother does have both life and rights, and her life, and health, must take precedence.

 

[Chuz Life]

A child is a fully formed human being living and breathing outside the womb.

A fetus, with no brain, is not a “child” or even a “potential child”. It will never be fully alive. It has no life and no rights to protect.

But its mother does have both life and rights, and her life, and health, must take precedence.

Said no fetal HOMICIDE laws.

Ever.

Nor do the medical dictionaries support your claim.

Nor does AI.

Which makes it nothing more than your personal opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, to the parents, to start with.

to the Child as well, since it's going to die gasping for air within days of birth.

The child has no brain capacity to know it is gasping. No more than a healthy child in the fetal stage of their life does, when homicidal mom and or dad decide to pay someone to kill it.

 

[JoeB131]

In a sane universe, the recognition of a child's right to the equal protection of our laws is not tantamout to "forcing" anyone to do anything.

IN a sane universe, we don't give a glob of tissue more rights than the person it is inside.

 

[JoeB131]

The child has no brain capacity to know it is gasping. No more than a healthy child in the fetal stage of their life does, when homicidal mom and or dad decide to pay someone to kill it.

Well, if it has no brain capacity, then it won't feel anything when it's aborted, will it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, if it has no brain capacity, then it won't feel anything when it's aborted, will it?

Didn't I just say that?

I did.

So, now. . . just imagine that the ability to feel pain is not a requirement for personhood.

You're welcome.

 

[Chuz Life]

IN a sane universe, we don't give a glob of tissue more rights than the person it is inside.

You have yet to present anything to support your claim that "equal protection" is tantamount to having "more rights."

Especially considering the "woman" was once a child in her mother's womb - as well.

Which further makes the point that it's equal rights. Not any-one more than another.

 

[JoeB131]

Didn't I just say that?

I did.

So, now. . . just imagine that the ability to feel pain is not a requirement for personhood.

You're welcome.

Nope, I don't have to imagine. I'm glad we live in an enlightened time when we have the capability to correct nature's mistakes.

You have yet to present anything to support your claim that "equal protection" is tantamount to having "more rights."

Especially considering the "woman" was once a child in her mother's womb - as well.

Which further makes the point that it's equal rights. Not any-one more than another.

I would say forcing a woman into servitude for nine months, including all the long-term health effects on her body, so that little Globby might make it to term, is giving Globby more rights than the woman it's inside.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would say forcing a woman into servitude for nine months, including all the long-term health effects on her body, so that little Globby might make it to term, is giving Globby more rights than the woman it's inside.

Unless the woman was raped, she compromised her rights - herself and the new child she compromised her rights with. . . has the same right to the equal protection of our laws that she and her partner has.

Also, again - the woman in you example was also once in a womb too - She benefited just as much from the equal protections as her child in the womb does today.

 

[JoeB131]

Unless the woman was raped, she compromised her rights - herself and the new child she compromised her rights with. . . has the same right to the equal protection of our laws that she and her partner has.

Yeah! Make her have that baby, that little SLUT!!!! How dare she just have sex for fun?!

Also, again - the woman in you example was also once in a womb too - She benefited just as much from the equal protections as her child in the womb does today.

Except not really. She was born because her mother chose to keep her, even though she had the legal right not to. There are no women of childbearing age today who lived during the dark days that preceded Roe. Every child is a wanted child now, and we are all better off for it.

 

[toobfreak]

There is no brain

Of course there is a brain, just not any higher brain. The brain was built from the inside out with the center essentially being a remnant of our primitive brain from millions of years ago when our ancestors were still lizards.

But believe me, I fully understand a child born with this rare disconnect between the normal growth of the brain from the brain-stem has essentially next to zero chance of gaining any even rudimentary functions without a miracle as all of the brain which supports those functions is missing.

But if I or you were on the delivery table under those circumstances, I'm betting both of us would ask for that tiny chance.

That said, it is all a moot point since the real question here is only if even a kid like this qualifies as a person, and he does.

 

[toobfreak]

Unless the woman was raped, she compromised her rights - herself and the new child she compromised her rights with. . . has the same right to the equal protection of our laws that she and her partner has.

The way I view it Chuz, is that unless there is some medical intervention or the woman was raped, etc., if you have consensual sex with a partner and neither of you have taken steps to prevent conception from intercourse (and I don't mean just wearing a rubber, etc.), then if you DO get pregnant, you have abrogated any claim for aborting the child and have entered into a situation where you should have known the risks and have basically consented to the responsibilities.

If the mother cannot be persuaded to keep the child, then at the very least, it should have a chance at adoption.

If somehow carrying the child full term does not change the mother's mind and she still wants to abort the kid, then the cost of doing so should be on her, this way, people are encouraged to act more responsibly going forward.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah! Make her have that baby, that little SLUT!!!! How dare she just have sex for fun?!



Except not really. She was born because her mother chose to keep her, even though she had the legal right not to. There are no women of childbearing age today who lived during the dark days that preceded Roe. Every child is a wanted child now, and we are all better off for it.

If she's pregnant, she already has the child.

There's no need to "make her" have a child she already has.

And, (again) children are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

Every child is a wanted child now, and we are all better off for it.

This claim needs to be supported by facts that I ******* know you don't have.

 

[toobfreak]

In a sane universe, the choice would be the made by the woman based on HER life and that of her family.

Why? Didn't she already make that choice when she knew she could get pregnant but went ahead and took that risk anyway? Why should another person (the child) be made to suffer the consequences and pay the ultimate price (give up his/her life) just so mom can sleep around like a slut without taking any responsibility? Unless she was raped, the responsibility ultimately rests on her shoulders.

Claiming that ending this real suffering is “immoral” is the most immoral stance imaginable.

What suffering? You mean suffering like being pulled out of the womb by your head after the doctor has punctured your brain and smashed your head with a pair of foreceps? What is immoral is shacking up then dumping the responsibility for an outcome you knew was possible onto someone else asking them to give up their life for your slovenly lifestyle so you can go get knocked up all over again and again and again.

Forcing people to endanger themselves and suffer for your idea of morality, is fascism writ large.

Yet you apparently don't mind forcing the child to surrender their life and suffer for your idea of selfish morality so that you can camp around like a pig. Exactly like what democrats did to slaves back in the 1800s treating them like so much disposable trash except now the players have all just been switched around.

 

[JoeB131]

If she's pregnant, she already has the child.

There's no need to "make her" have a child she already has.

And, (again) children are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

Okay,

Globby isn't a child.

Laws that nobody will obey and no one will enforce are worse than useless.

Again, look up "Prohibition" if you are still unclear on the topic.

This claim needs to be supported by facts that I ******* know you don't have.

oh, we are getting testy, aren't we?

Since unwanted kids are aborted, then every child born must be wanted.

We are all better off for it. No more orphanages with children warehoused like excess stock.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay,

Globby isn't a child.

Laws that nobody will obey and no one will enforce are worse than useless.

Again, look up "Prohibition" if you are still unclear on the topic.



oh, we are getting testy, aren't we?

Since unwanted kids are aborted, then every child born must be wanted.

We are all better off for it. No more orphanages with children warehoused like excess stock.

I understand the logic of feeble and simple minded people. . . It is often contrasted by facts and reality, however.

How many articles about murdered children (children you claim are wanted because they weren't aborted) would I need to post, in order to prove to you that - just because they weren't aborted, that doesn't mean shit about them being "wanted."

 

[JoeB131]

I understand the logic of feeble and simple minded people. . . It is often contrasted by facts and reality, however.

How many articles about murdered children (children you claim are wanted because they weren't aborted) would I need to post, in order to prove to you that - just because they weren't aborted, that doesn't mean shit about them being "wanted."

Were they killed during the pregnancy phase?

A child murderer just means someone who never should have been a parent to start with.

Which has nothing to do with a safe, sensible, and practical medical procedure to end unwanted or deformed pregnancies.