Magical times where Pro-Life and Anti-abortion efforts intersect

[Chuz Life]

Humans are just another species of animal.

You googled that, didn't you.

What makes us unique and priceless is not our DNA or our bipedalism or anything but our brains.

Biologically, you are wrong again. Even individual rats are "unique" as per their individual DNA. As for being "priceless?" Dafuq is that all about?

As for human brains? I don't think you have thought that one completely through. Especially given that (thanks for our brains) "empathy" is one of the things that humans are capable of that most other animals are not capable of.

In fact, we "humans" are empathetic enough and objectively minded enough that we "humans" have already made the determination that while it is true that human beings in general do have much higher functioning brains than lesser animals do. . . We "humans" have also already legally declared that SOME human beings are still human beings / persons. . . even when they have severely damaged brains, or even no real functioning brains at all. (Google the anencephaly, sometime)

You don't have a working brain, you're just another piece of protoplasm with no more right to exist than any other piece of protoplasm. If you don't know you're alive, you're not (does not apply to sleep or comas). IMHO.

Yeah. . .

Well, Thankfully, Your humble opinion has already been defeated numerous times in our legal courts.

You may interpret the Constitution any way you choose but you must know you are in the minority in this country and the trend line is not in your favor.

We shall see how the SCOTUS decides to interpret the Constitution after RBG assumes room temperature.

 

[alang1216]

What makes us unique and priceless is not our DNA or our bipedalism or anything but our brains.

As for human brains? I don't think you have thought that one completely through. Especially given that (thanks for our brains) "empathy" is one of the things that humans are capable of that most other animals are not capable of.

Thanks, that is exactly my point. Our empathy comes from our brains not our DNA. It is one of the few attributes we have that make us unique in the world, possibly the universe. No brain means no empathy means not a person worthy of legal rights. Science may say human, the law may say worthy of rights, l say different. Only once a brain develops (or heals) does that human becomes a person, IMHO.

 

[Chuz Life]

What makes us unique and priceless is not our DNA or our bipedalism or anything but our brains.

As for human brains? I don't think you have thought that one completely through. Especially given that (thanks for our brains) "empathy" is one of the things that humans are capable of that most other animals are not capable of.

Thanks, that is exactly my point. Our empathy comes from our brains not our DNA. It is one of the few attributes we have that make us unique in the world, possibly the universe. No brain means no empathy means not a person worthy of legal rights. Science may say human, the law may say worthy of rights, l say different. Only once a brain develops (or heals) does that human becomes a person, IMHO.

Thanks for being such a great foil again.

The law matters more than your fucked up opinions. Or mine too, as far as that goes and the LAW does not require human beings to have fully functioning brains in order for them to be recognized as persons.

But hey' thanks for being honest with your "opinions." No surprises there.

 

[alang1216]

Thanks for being such a great foil again.

The law matters more than your fucked up opinions. Or mine too, as far as that goes and the LAW does not require human beings to have fully functioning brains in order for them to be recognized as persons.

But hey' thanks for being honest with your "opinions." No surprises there.

Curses, foiled again!

I think you're right, the LAW does not require human beings to have fully functioning brains in order for them to be recognized as persons, however the law recognizes that when the brain no longer functions, your organs can be harvested.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . .however the law recognizes that when the brain no longer functions, your organs can be harvested.

Conditionally, that is.

Correct?

According to the Constitution, should doctors be able to remove the organs of a patient that has even half the prognosis for continued life and development that a typical child in the womb has?

 

[alang1216]

. . .however the law recognizes that when the brain no longer functions, your organs can be harvested.

Conditionally, that is.

Correct?

According to the Constitution, should doctors be able to remove the organs of a patient that has even half the prognosis for continued life and development that a typical child in the womb has?

Again it comes down to, not what it is but what it could be.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . .however the law recognizes that when the brain no longer functions, your organs can be harvested.

Conditionally, that is.

Correct?

According to the Constitution, should doctors be able to remove the organs of a patient that has even half the prognosis for continued life and development that a typical child in the womb has?

Again it comes down to, not what it is but what it could be.

Right and what "it" is, is a human child.

Even our nations fetal HOMICIDE laws define and recognize them as such.

So much so, that those laws have to (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute legal(sic) abortions.

Which begs this question: Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

 

[alang1216]

. . .however the law recognizes that when the brain no longer functions, your organs can be harvested.

Conditionally, that is.

Correct?

According to the Constitution, should doctors be able to remove the organs of a patient that has even half the prognosis for continued life and development that a typical child in the womb has?

Again it comes down to, not what it is but what it could be.

Right and what "it" is, is a human child.

Even our nations fetal HOMICIDE laws define and recognize them as such.

So much so, that those laws have to (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute legal(sic) abortions.

Which begs this question: Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

Laws are made by men, not the other way round. Since abortion is not in the Constitution only SCOTUS can answer your question. The court has changed dramatically so you may get the result you want but there are no guarantees. The court has previously decided that sometimes a human being is a person and sometimes not, or only 3/5 of one.

 

[Chuz Life]

Laws are made by men, not the other way round.

So, you and I agree that men (persons) are not made by laws?

That's a breakthrough right there!

Since abortion is not in the Constitution only SCOTUS can answer your question.

Abortion doesn't need to be in the Constitution, so long as the premise that "All persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws" IS in the Constitution.

"All" is a pretty damn inclusive word. isn't it.

The court has changed dramatically so you may get the result you want but there are no guarantees.

I only want the facts and the truth to be fairly represented in our laws.

Anytime you want to debate those facts and truths, I am ready.

The court has previously decided that sometimes a human being is a person and sometimes not, or only 3/5 of one.

Which again begs the question: Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

 

[Vastator]

Yeah. Like this ban is going to save PPE. More lies from abbot and company. Of course this bitch would try to take advantage of an emergency.

I just read some of the CA5 decision this morning. It was slow coming over on the internet. These two morons completely skipped over the issue of time-sensitivity.

Now they are going sending hundreds of people on long-distance road trips to free states during a pandemic when they are supposed to stay home. The alternative is a rise in late-term abortions. The clinics in New Mexico will have to work overtime due to the influx of patients from Texas.

The only funny thing in this is that the majority decision approved the right of state governments to shut down religious services during emergencies, regardless of Constitutional rights, so these jackasses who insist on holding them because of their First Amendment rights and babble about "freedom" have just lost their argument in the states subject to CA5.

Dayum! Now women are really gonna have to go the “extra mile” in effort to murder their child, and remove from themselves the consequence of bad decisions... How sad...

 

[Vastator]

I have DNA in every cell of my body. Why is one strand of DNA any different from any other?

Your DNA is what proves you to be human, dingus. When you check the DNA of a fetus, it doesn't come back as eggplant. It reads as human - just like YOU.

Since the DNA of every single cell in my body proves I'm human, I can't kill any of those cells? Even the cancerous ones?

You said there may be rational arguments for the right to kill fertilized human eggs. So aren't we just trying to draw an arbitrary line between when abortion is OK and and when it is not? How do you feel about the morning after pill?

You are actually free to kill any of your cells, even your entire self. However you do not have the right to kill others cells, or selves...

 

[alang1216]

Since abortion is not in the Constitution only SCOTUS can answer your question.

Abortion doesn't need to be in the Constitution, so long as the premise that "All persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws" IS in the Constitution.

"All" is a pretty damn inclusive word. isn't it.

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

The court has previously decided that sometimes a human being is a person and sometimes not, or only 3/5 of one.

Which again begs the question: Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

 

[Chuz Life]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

 

[alang1216]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I have no reason to doubt you since I have no idea what the legal definition(s) is or are, I only know what mine is. Simply stated, all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

The answer to the second question is yes, you have a right to disagree and even an obligation to speak out.

Fallibility is less obvious since they are interpreting the Constitution and, since interpretations are essentially opinions and not factual, they are neither right nor wrong. You and I hold different values but I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

 

[Chuz Life]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I have no reason to doubt you since I have no idea what the legal definition(s) is or are, I only know what mine is. Simply stated, all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

The answer to the second question is yes, you have a right to disagree and even an obligation to speak out.

Fallibility is less obvious since they are interpreting the Constitution and, since interpretations are essentially opinions and not factual, they are neither right nor wrong. You and I hold different values but I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

Cop


Out.

 

[alang1216]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I have no reason to doubt you since I have no idea what the legal definition(s) is or are, I only know what mine is. Simply stated, all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

The answer to the second question is yes, you have a right to disagree and even an obligation to speak out.

Fallibility is less obvious since they are interpreting the Constitution and, since interpretations are essentially opinions and not factual, they are neither right nor wrong. You and I hold different values but I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

Cop


Out.

I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree. You are entitled your opinions as am I. Sorry you don't like them but the problem may lie with you and not with me.

 

[Dana7360]

Since abortions are on pause due to COVID-19, if we take look at number of abortions performed in US per day, some ~1700, COVID-19 is actually saving lives.

Not all abortions are stopped because of this virus.

Only in a few states.

Abortion has not been stopped in my state. My state allows all medical business to stay open during this crisis. It's essential according to the governor of my state.

So no, the virus isn't saving lives.

It's killing people.

For people who claim to be pro life, you show you aren't when you people scream that closing churches is illegal and unconstitutional then pack that church with people on Sunday.

Kansas is up to 4 virus clusters resulting from people going to church so far. How many more? We will find out in about a week or so.

How many will die? How is that pro life? It's not. It's what anti abortion people honestly are. They are pro death.

 

[Chuz Life]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I have no reason to doubt you since I have no idea what the legal definition(s) is or are, I only know what mine is. Simply stated, all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

The answer to the second question is yes, you have a right to disagree and even an obligation to speak out.

Fallibility is less obvious since they are interpreting the Constitution and, since interpretations are essentially opinions and not factual, they are neither right nor wrong. You and I hold different values but I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

Cop


Out.

I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree. You are entitled your opinions as am I. Sorry you don't like them but the problem may lie with you and not with me.

Another copout.

Got anything else?

I have no problem with you having a different opinion.

However, when you won't even acknowledge a fact or engage in an actual conversation on something like a legal definition? You have the problem. Not me.

 

[Chuz Life]

Since abortions are on pause due to COVID-19, if we take look at number of abortions performed in US per day, some ~1700, COVID-19 is actually saving lives.

Not all abortions are stopped because of this virus.

Only in a few states.

Abortion has not been stopped in my state. My state allows all medical business to stay open during this crisis. It's essential according to the governor of my state.

So no, the virus isn't saving lives.

It's killing people.

For people who claim to be pro life, you show you aren't when you people scream that closing churches is illegal and unconstitutional then pack that church with people on Sunday.

Kansas is up to 4 virus clusters resulting from people going to church so far. How many more? We will find out in about a week or so.

How many will die? How is that pro life? It's not. It's what anti abortion people honestly are. They are pro death.

Perhaps you should contemplate on the possibility that there is a difference between a person who is "pro life" and one who opposes abortions reasons other than religion, sanctity of life etc.

 

[alang1216]

Alas, 'persons' is not defined so who or what is included is debatable.

Okay, so Keeping the "ALL" inclusive principle that IS clearly stated in the Constitution, let's debate what a "person" is.

The legal definition of a "natural person" is "a human being."

Do you disagree with or have a problem with that legal definition?

I have no reason to doubt you since I have no idea what the legal definition(s) is or are, I only know what mine is. Simply stated, all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

I'll leave your question for people who know the law and Constitution better than I do. I will note that, as I understand the law, the SCOTUS has already decided that not every 'person' is guaranteed rights under the Constitution, including the right to life.

Is the Supreme Court Infallible?

Don't you have a right to not only disagree with the SCOTUS but to also speak freely about where or why they are wrong?

The answer to the second question is yes, you have a right to disagree and even an obligation to speak out.

Fallibility is less obvious since they are interpreting the Constitution and, since interpretations are essentially opinions and not factual, they are neither right nor wrong. You and I hold different values but I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree.

Cop


Out.

I'd never say you are wrong, only that I disagree. You are entitled your opinions as am I. Sorry you don't like them but the problem may lie with you and not with me.

Another copout.

Got anything else?

I have no problem with you having a different opinion.

However, when you won't even acknowledge a fact or engage in an actual conversation on something like a legal definition? You have the problem. Not me.

What are you looking for, a legal definition, my personal definition, or what I'd want to see as the legal definition?