Mississippi about to turn up the stupid?

[freedombecki]

Hello, Ms. Egg? How are you today? I would like to sell you a wonderful future!!! Just join my team, and we will tax your parents, and you can pay for it later. Ms. Egg??? Ms. Egg??? Are you there Ms. Egg?

Helloooooooooow?



/sardonic humor

 

[Inthemiddle]

No a miscarriage will be the same as it always has, an accidental and unitended death of an unborn life.

And what if the miscarriage is caused by a woman not maintaining proper nutrition? What if it's caused because she puts undo stress on herself and her body reacts by miscarrying? What if it's caused by her taking birth control pills unknowing of the fact that her ovum has been fertilized, and it subsequently does not sufficiently attach to the uterine wall? By defining a zygote as a human being with all the rights thereof, all these acts would become some form of involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

For what you ask, I believe the people there believe life begins at the moment of conception so they are doing this to save innocent lives from murder in their opinion.

How would such a law violate the constitution?

Because the SCOTUS has already established that the constitution protects a person's privacy to allow them to make certain medical decisions between themselves and their doctor, and that the constitution does not bar a person from protecting their natural rights to life. The constitution does not, however, recognize a zygote as a human being or having the rights thereof. Therefore, what would become repugnant to the federal constitution would be any legislation that might, upon this measure, preempt a woman from exercising those constitutionally protected rights. In other words, if a woman cannot abort a pregnancy where her life is in danger, or where the government is left to decide whether it agrees that there was sufficient risk to the woman's life, then such would be a violation of the woman's constitutional rights to make that decision herself.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Would having sex with a pregnant woman make the man a sex offender for reveling himself to a child?

That's a very good point. This measure simply goes to far too extreme a place in the name of doing something it will not accomplish in the long run anyway.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And how did this "ovum" come to be?

Maybe you need to have a conversation with your daddy about birds, bees, and other fun stuff.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Will a miscarriage become murder? Or is that suicide?

I guess that's your way of saying you have nothing of intellectual value to add, so you can only resort to name calling.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What other life form were we supposed to be discussing?

So now we're discussing life forms as opposed to just life, generally speaking?

God is love
Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God

 

[Dragon]

And how did this "ovum" come to be?

It was produced by the mother's ovaries in a process that randomly varied her own genes to produce a genetically distinct reproductive cell.

The point however is that every step of the process involves living organisms and living cells -- the sperm and ovum, the ovaries and testes, the father and mother, the sperm and ova that combined to make them, the ovaries and testes of their parents, and so on and so on. Live doesn't have a beginning except the first emergence of living things on this planet. The embryo is not a beginning but a stage in a continuum; it emerges from life and will go on to engender more living cells by cell division (assuming it's viable, of course).

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. Any attempt to do so amounts to substituting the wrong question for the right one, for example trying to claim that an embryo at conception is a person because it is "human life."

Well, it certainly is human life, but we destroy human life all the time and don't call it murder, suicide, manslaughter, accidental death, justifiable homicide, or any other term that applies to killing a person.

Is the embryo at conception a person? That's what you need to answer. That it is "human life" is purely irrelevant.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Just because you either don't understand it or simply refuse to answer it , doesn't make it illogical.

What makes it illogical is the fact that you are committing fallacy of equivocation.

The fact that you don't understand what that is doesn't make it magically valid. You should look it up. Here, Let me google that for you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Now if the heart is to be harvested it is not neccesary that it keep beating on it's own.

Yes, it is. You really don't know what you are talking about here. A dead heart cannot be transplanted into a person, if the patient is to survive. What would be the point? It a donor's heart stops beating, the heart is not viable for transplantation.

What you're trying to do now is to back away from your earlier claims and arguments, and twist other non-relevant facts in an attempt to support your position. Your argument is that a heart beat and brain activity together is sufficient to establish the presence of a human life. That's actually not quite true. It's not quite that simple, but you're not far off either so I'll give that much to you. But from there you claim that a person must both be brain dead and their heart must stop beating on its own before that person could be legally and ethically a viable organ donor. And that is where you are wrong. A person can be brain dead, but the rest of their biological functions could be in tact, and the person's family could make the decision to "pull the plug" and to donate their organs for transplant recipients.

My main issue in all of this is that you clearly do not have a full understanding of clinical indications of life and death. Not to mention, none of it suffices to establish that a zygote is a human being.

Damn you people are dense. Normally a donor's heart is injected with potassium chloride in order to stop it beating, before being removed from the donor's body and packed in ice in order to preserve it.

I suggest you go back and read what I wrote and also the links attached.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Damn you people are dense. Normally a donor's heart is injected with potassium chloride in order to stop it beating, before being removed from the donor's body and packed in ice in order to preserve it.

I suggest you go back and read what I wrote and also the links attached.

If by dense, you mean unwilling to let you slide when you have to chance what you've said, then sure. Your initial claim was that it had to stop beating on its own power, now you're saying that it's medically stopped temporarily. Those are two entirely different things. Of course, you know that. But you seem to think that if you play bully, resort to name calling, and thump your chest, you'll convince people to treat them as if they are the same thing. As i said, you are in fact very ignorant of it all.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Here's another consideration, if a woman is pregnant with twins, but one dies in utero, does the surviving twin get detained for questioning upon delivery?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just because you either don't understand it or simply refuse to answer it , doesn't make it illogical.

What makes it illogical is the fact that you are committing fallacy of equivocation.

The fact that you don't understand what that is doesn't make it magically valid. You should look it up. Here, Let me google that for you.

I understand what your claiming, but I disagree.

It was a legitmate question based on his comment and you refused to answer it.

The comment that was made:

"who are you or anyone else to decide what one person does with that life?"

My response was:

Explain this quote:

"Who are you or anyone else to decide what one person does with that life?"

If it doesn't mean that a mother has the soul right to decide if her child should live or die, then what does it mean?

Simple question.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And how did this "ovum" come to be?

It was produced by the mother's ovaries in a process that randomly varied her own genes to produce a genetically distinct reproductive cell.

The point however is that every step of the process involves living organisms and living cells -- the sperm and ovum, the ovaries and testes, the father and mother, the sperm and ova that combined to make them, the ovaries and testes of their parents, and so on and so on. Live doesn't have a beginning except the first emergence of living things on this planet. The embryo is not a beginning but a stage in a continuum; it emerges from life and will go on to engender more living cells by cell division (assuming it's viable, of course).

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. Any attempt to do so amounts to substituting the wrong question for the right one, for example trying to claim that an embryo at conception is a person because it is "human life."

Well, it certainly is human life, but we destroy human life all the time and don't call it murder, suicide, manslaughter, accidental death, justifiable homicide, or any other term that applies to killing a person.

Is the embryo at conception a person? That's what you need to answer. That it is "human life" is purely irrelevant.

Life doesn't have a beginning?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't even make it to SCOTUS if it passes. If the law passes, it will be immediately tabled for judicial review. A lower federal court will reject it, it will go up the chain, and SCOTUS will not hear it.

Regulated abortion is a right, period. Rape, incest, and the life of the mother are absolutely correct reasons for it.

Hike on, wacks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Damn you people are dense. Normally a donor's heart is injected with potassium chloride in order to stop it beating, before being removed from the donor's body and packed in ice in order to preserve it.

I suggest you go back and read what I wrote and also the links attached.

If by dense, you mean unwilling to let you slide when you have to chance what you've said, then sure. Your initial claim was that it had to stop beating on its own power, now you're saying that it's medically stopped temporarily. Those are two entirely different things. Of course, you know that. But you seem to think that if you play bully, resort to name calling, and thump your chest, you'll convince people to treat them as if they are the same thing. As i said, you are in fact very ignorant of it all.

You 're focusing on one organ. Why?

 

[Dragon]

Life doesn't have a beginning?

Exactly. It does not.

You will find that many things that are true, especially in science, will seem "cuckoo" to those who have not studied them. This is an example.

 

[9thIDdoc]

People who are against abortion shouldn't have one.
People who do not want and/or cannot support a baby shouln't have one that's going to live on the public's dime either on the streets or prison.

 

[Nosmo King]

Mississippi has only one abortion clinic in the state. There simply isnt demand for abortion there. I dont think this referendum will be a big deal there.

Do you think the fact that there is only one clinic in Mississippi is a result of lack of demand, or could there be other, more political factors at work?

 

[Steelplate]

I'll give you more attention that you apparently deserve:

We don't know the child is a "bastard". The question was whetehr or not the time of the additional nine months would perhaps come into play at some point in being tried as an adult.

You should try being an adult yourself, by the way.

Adult? ADULT? Run through this whole thread and see who is being the "Adults" in the room. It's our Conservative brethren that only see things in black and white and hold your breath till they pass out at any differing opinion.

In short.... I knew what you were saying. I'm just saying that this is getting ridiculous.

As an Aside... i don't think any child should be tried as an adult. You put 13-18 year olds in big boy prison, you get psychological disasters... Sociopaths that don't care if they live or die because they've been ass raped, beaten within an inch of their lives, shanked and taught how to become REAL monsters when they get out.

That's not what trying a child as an adult means. It doesn't mean sentenced as an adult. It means tried without the protections afforded children, but the protections afforded as an adult. Trying a child as an adult only means that different rules are applied. Even if tried as an adult, when sentenced they are still sent to a juvenile facility.

no, they aren't. Children in Adult Prison | Equal Justice Initiative

There are 2200 kids waiting to die on Death Row, and that's just Death Row... Not the rest of the teenage prison population.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Life doesn't have a beginning?

Exactly. It does not.

You will find that many things that are true, especially in science, will seem "cuckoo" to those who have not studied them. This is an example.

It's a great example of how utterly stupid you are.

Life does not have a beginning..... good grief!!