Abortion

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

Most people don't see it like that. I don't think that the fetus is a living human until it is born.

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

In the sense that a fetus doesn't yet have a soul. In fact, I think that it's better to abort some fetuses than let them be born, like the badly deformed, for example.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

Witness the "moral landscape" without God.

As opposed to all the nasty things done by god, for god or in his name?

 

[Pete7469]

Can some lib out there please, give me ONE good reason to be "Pro Abortion"? Just one?

I'm not a libturd, but the existence of libturds is a good reason for abortion.

.

 

[Hollie]

God approves of abortion otherwise spontaneous abortions in nature wouldn't happen.

Right because there's no difference between death and murder.

See how easy that is? I just change a word!! My 101 year old grandma didn't DIE last year, she was murdered!!! Wow, easy and fun to play around with words!!

So your god can make that happen but we can't? Says who? You?

How about the law. No one gets punished for natural death; it happens. You do get punished for murder. Abortion is clearly murder. Someday humans will look back on the fact that we (somehow) tolerate it now the way we look back on torture in the dark ages.

Nonsense. Legal abortion is not murder. The frantic "abortion is murder" claim is false and one I've taken issue with.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with consequences from unwanted pregnancy to include pregnancy from rape or other crime. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Expecting a leftard to provide proof to support their claims on abortion is like asking a sawhorse to show you how to herd stray cats into a synchronized swimming performance.

Your creative writing skills are astonishing however the content adds nothing to the discussion.

.

Expecting a leftard to provide proof to support their claims on abortion is like asking a sawhorse to show you how to herd stray cats into a synchronized swimming performance.

View attachment 237928

that person showing up is all they have to do ...

That's right.

I show up and leftardz run.

Like cockroaches from a kitchen light.

.

That's right.

I show up and leftardz run.

Like cockroaches from a kitchen light.

The Abortion Debate Isn’t As Partisan As Politicians Make It Seem

The Abortion Debate Isn’t Partisan As Politicians Make It Seem

The issue is not a 50/50 Democrat/Republican split, as the plurality of Americans consistently take the “pro-choice” position over the “pro-life” one. And the public, unlike political elites, is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a large bloc of Republicans who support abortion rights. There is a smaller, but still sizable, group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.

you simply enjoy being a zealot - what happened over the past 2 years - nothing - why was that zealot ...

zeal·ot
[ˈzelət]
NOUN

1. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Name for me a member on USMB who is NOT a "zealot" on any one (or more) particular issue.

.

Name for me a member on USMB who is NOT a "zealot" on any one (or more) particular issue.

you have a point ... most really are not very objective.

I show up and leftardz run.

The issue is not a 50/50 Democrat/Republican split, as the plurality of Americans consistently take the “pro-choice” position over the “pro-life” one. And the public, unlike political elites, is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a large bloc of Republicans who support abortion rights. There is a smaller, but still sizable, group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.

it has been pointed out to you before it is a broad spectrum that supports the right of adults to make their own decisions concerning reproductive rights - why should it be in the hands of someone who hates "leftardz" and uses that unjustifiably as an excuse for their criteria about an issue ...

 

[BreezeWood]

Can some lib out there please, give me ONE good reason to be "Pro Abortion"? Just one?

I'm not a libturd, but the existence of libturds is a good reason for abortion.

.

.

Can some lib out there please, give me ONE good reason to be "Pro Abortion"? Just one?

I'm not a libturd, but the existence of libturds is a good reason for abortion.

is it possible the two above are christians - who have employed hatred since the 4th century as their means of persuasion irregardless the subject matter ... undoubtedly.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your creative writing skills are astonishing however the content adds nothing to the discussion.

.

Expecting a leftard to provide proof to support their claims on abortion is like asking a sawhorse to show you how to herd stray cats into a synchronized swimming performance.

View attachment 237928

that person showing up is all they have to do ...

That's right.

I show up and leftardz run.

Like cockroaches from a kitchen light.

.

That's right.

I show up and leftardz run.

Like cockroaches from a kitchen light.

The Abortion Debate Isn’t As Partisan As Politicians Make It Seem

The Abortion Debate Isn’t Partisan As Politicians Make It Seem

The issue is not a 50/50 Democrat/Republican split, as the plurality of Americans consistently take the “pro-choice” position over the “pro-life” one. And the public, unlike political elites, is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a large bloc of Republicans who support abortion rights. There is a smaller, but still sizable, group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.

you simply enjoy being a zealot - what happened over the past 2 years - nothing - why was that zealot ...

zeal·ot
[ˈzelət]
NOUN

1. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Name for me a member on USMB who is NOT a "zealot" on any one (or more) particular issue.

.

Name for me a member on USMB who is NOT a "zealot" on any one (or more) particular issue.

you have a point ... most really are not very objective.

I show up and leftardz run.

The issue is not a 50/50 Democrat/Republican split, as the plurality of Americans consistently take the “pro-choice” position over the “pro-life” one. And the public, unlike political elites, is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a large bloc of Republicans who support abortion rights. There is a smaller, but still sizable, group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.

it has been pointed out to you before it is a broad spectrum that supports the right of adults to make their own decisions concerning reproductive rights - why should it be in the hands of someone who hates "leftardz" and uses that unjustifiably as an excuse for their criteria about an issue ...

How cute and convienient.

That, You actually think it has anything to do with me personally.

 

[BreezeWood]

How cute and convienient.

That, You actually think it has anything to do with me personally.

- do you mean Roe v Wade ...

 

[Chuz Life]

How cute and convienient.

That, You actually think it has anything to do with me personally.

- do you mean Roe v Wade ...

Dafuq?

You said. " why should it be in the hands of someone who hates "leftardz" and uses that unjustifiably as an excuse for their criteria about an issue ..."

And that is what I responded to.

Do you not do English?

Lulz

 

[ding]

You literally accept one and reject the other on faith.

Actually, there seems to be some evidence for re-incarnation, I take nothing on faith, I've already gotten burned doing that.

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you have any proof of their authenticity?

So your claim is that they are all lying? There are thousands of accounts like that, and they can check out what they say. And if it's documented that that person has never been to that part of the world... And what about a toddler who knows math or piano... How do they fake that?

All I asked is if you had any proof that their claims are authentic? Do you?

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

Most people don't see it like that. I don't think that the fetus is a living human until it is born.

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

In the sense that a fetus doesn't yet have a soul. In fact, I think that it's better to abort some fetuses than let them be born, like the badly deformed, for example.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

 

[ding]

You literally accept one and reject the other on faith.

Actually, there seems to be some evidence for re-incarnation, I take nothing on faith, I've already gotten burned doing that.

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

I don’t believe ET’s created space and time. At the heart of the debate is whether spirit, which has no material form created space and time from nothing. Introducing ET’s doesn’t change the debate.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

Most people don't see it like that. I don't think that the fetus is a living human until it is born.

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life" between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

In the sense that a fetus doesn't yet have a soul. In fact, I think that it's better to abort some fetuses than let them be born, like the badly deformed, for example.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid concept.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again that is a totally irrelevant question. The question is when has a new genetically distinct human being come into existence.

 

[Taz]

Actually, there seems to be some evidence for re-incarnation, I take nothing on faith, I've already gotten burned doing that.

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you have any proof of their authenticity?

So your claim is that they are all lying? There are thousands of accounts like that, and they can check out what they say. And if it's documented that that person has never been to that part of the world... And what about a toddler who knows math or piano... How do they fake that?

All I asked is if you had any proof that their claims are authentic? Do you?

You’d have to look up how they did the studies. But from what I could tell, they seem legit.

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

Most people don't see it like that. I don't think that the fetus is a living human until it is born.

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

In the sense that a fetus doesn't yet have a soul. In fact, I think that it's better to abort some fetuses than let them be born, like the badly deformed, for example.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

 

[ding]

You literally accept one and reject the other on faith.

Actually, there seems to be some evidence for re-incarnation, I take nothing on faith, I've already gotten burned doing that.

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

Most people don't see it like that. I don't think that the fetus is a living human until it is born.

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

In the sense that a fetus doesn't yet have a soul. In fact, I think that it's better to abort some fetuses than let them be born, like the badly deformed, for example.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

 

[ding]

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you have any proof of their authenticity?

So your claim is that they are all lying? There are thousands of accounts like that, and they can check out what they say. And if it's documented that that person has never been to that part of the world... And what about a toddler who knows math or piano... How do they fake that?

All I asked is if you had any proof that their claims are authentic? Do you?

You’d have to look up how they did the studies. But from what I could tell, they seem legit.

Studies? You can’t study that.

 

[Taz]

Actually, there seems to be some evidence for re-incarnation, I take nothing on faith, I've already gotten burned doing that.

Your standards are inconsistent.

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you know what the Hindu’s believe?

That extra-terrestrials are our real gods.

They believe that we are free to pursue fame, fortune, power and pleasure through multiple lives and do. But none of those things satisfy us because we were made for more.

So they believe in reincarnation. And aliens. Good for them.

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ Taz, et al,

Yes, It is a hard concept.

Yeah, I agree to a point.

(DIRECT QUESTION UP FRONT)

What biological-machine function turns on the qualities of a "Human Being" (humanity) that without them ⟴ you are not a "human being?"

(COMMENT)

This is based on what? I say that not to be argumentative, but to understand what constitutes a "human" from other species. That is "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "life."

Do the "black box" experiment. Put a newborn human in a black box, and then put a newborn chimpanzee in a black box right beside it. Then describe the essential characteristic deferences in "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → "human life." between the two. Is the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness" part of that determination?

I do not disagree with your final assessment; I just don't understand how you arrive at those conclusions.

(COMMENT)

" Soul! " What is a "soul?" Legally and Medically, what are a sound and valid definition of a "soul." I suggest that a "soul" is a faith-based concept; not a scientifically or medically valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't understand your chimp in a box thing. But here, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Nobody remembers being in the womb, so no consciousness yet, which some people equate with the soul. So until consciousness, not a real human yet.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Black Box is the case where you cannot tell the difference (in terms of "sentience," → "consciousness" → and → the ability to "self-reflect" or "awareness") between a newborn human and a newborn chimp. We simply cannot explain the qualitities and characteristics of "life."

(REMEMBER)

The issue of a human having a "soul" (something that is supernatural) is a "faith-based concept."

Most Respectfully,
R

What is not a hard concept is when human life begins.

Which is when according to you?

At conception. And it isn’t according to me. It is according to DNA.

That’s not human life, that’s a tiny embryo or fetus.

 

[Taz]

There are tons of stories about people describing a neighbourhood that they've never been to half way across the world. And the person who would know all these things died the day the new person was born. Fascinating stuff. Or kids who are born knowing how to play the piano expertly... Sure, not rock solid proof, but way more than you can prove about your god of the book.

Do you have any proof of their authenticity?

So your claim is that they are all lying? There are thousands of accounts like that, and they can check out what they say. And if it's documented that that person has never been to that part of the world... And what about a toddler who knows math or piano... How do they fake that?

All I asked is if you had any proof that their claims are authentic? Do you?

You’d have to look up how they did the studies. But from what I could tell, they seem legit.

Studies? You can’t study that.

Look it up if you’re interested.