Progressive Democrat congressman proposes bill that establishes life begins at conception

[CrusaderFrank]

Everyone who reads this, their life began at conception.

Not every zygote develops into a viable human being.

^ case in point

 

[marvin martian]

Just because father has responsibility for the pregnancy, and corresponding financial burden, does not mean a zygote has to be considered a person.

Your conclusions don't really follow the givens.

Read the first sentence in the congressman's tweet again:

This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father’s financial responsibility to his baby & their mom begins at conception.

 

[Orangecat]

does not mean a zygote has to be considered a person.

"Person" is too vague. Try "human", which it is if you believe science.

 

[BlindBoo]

Define "viable human being"?

10 toes, 10 fingers......or.....

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago.

 

[Meathead]

HUGE win for the pro-life side! He doesn't realize it, of course, because he's dumb af, but I'm happy anyway.

I hope this passes.

I am undecided on this issue. But to be pedantic, once something is conceived, it has invariably begun.

 

[Lesh]

Actually, unlike you I don't support the death penalty. I do believe a doctor who performs abortions should be banned from doing so, and a woman who hires someone to kill her child should be punished as well, but that will only happen once the practice itself is outlawed, which will hopefully be soon.

Curious here…are you able to get pregnant?

 

[Orangecat]

10 toes, 10 fingers......or.....

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago.

Lol. Who determines "50/50" chance?
I guess the developing human being is screwed if it's determined (guessed) by someone to only be 49% likely to survive?
That position has more holes in it than a f'n swiss cheese factory.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

You seem to want to divert this thread to a "death penalty" discussion.
Do you really think everyone can't see right through your childish tactics here? Lulz.

And you dic suckers seem to turn bitch whenever this question comes up....Why??

It's almost like yall are full of shit.....I say the life of a zygote is no different than the life of a 2 yr old -- we wouldn't give it a second thought if a mother had someone murder her 2 yr old....that's a death penalty case.....why are "pro-lifers" so jittery about affirming that mothers who have abortions should face the same fate?

 

[AntonToo]

"Person" is too vague. Try "human", which it is if you believe science.

Wrong. Anyone that know anything about this debate understands that it is specifically about personhood.

Only persons have constitutionally protected rights and human origin or DNA is not a person make.

AMENDMENT 14​

[1.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Donald H]

No, if you hire a hitman -- just because the hit man did the murder -- doesn't mean the person that hired that hitman gets off scot-free

So....the woman who goes to a doctor to solicit an abortion is just as guilty as the doctor...

Now...shouldn't she be put to death???

And Scot Peterson didn't check with his wife to see if she wanted her child aborted before he murdered both of them.....

Again, whenever I ask you fake morality morons this question -- you always hem and haw instead of answering the question

Your replies here on this thread are brilliant Biff. Especially the one about the 10 fetuses in a fire!
The best approach to the nonsense is sarcasm, at least until they get serious on discussing the question with the aim of finding some mutually agreeable solution to the abortion issue.

 

[Orangecat]

And you dic suckers seem to turn bitch whenever this question comes up....Why??

You seem to be preoccupied with "dic" sucking today, kid. Go do your thing, wipe off your face, and come back with a clear mind.

It's almost like yall are full of shit.....

"Yall" is not a word.

I say the life of a zygote is no different than the life of a 2 yr old -- we wouldn't give it a second thought if a mother had someone murder her 2 yr old....why are "pro-lifers" so jittery about affirming that mothers who have abortions should face the same fate?

My point went over your head. You kept blabbering about putting people to death. This isn't a death penalty discussion, chump.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

You seem to be preoccupied with "dic" sucking today, kid. Go do your thing, wipe off your face, and come back with a clear mind.

I'd deflect too if I got called out on my bullshit in the way you just did...

And the reason I call you morons dic suckers is because I know how much you idiots search for an opportunity to get out of answering a question by feigning "outrage" at the name-calling...

But a Trump sycophant can't say A THING to me about name-calling

 

[BlindBoo]

Lol. Who determines "50/50" chance?
I guess the developing human being is screwed if it's determined (guessed) by someone to only be 49% likely to survive?
That position has more holes in it than a f'n swiss cheese factory.

It was the SC that made the ruling.

After the second trimester, the fetus became viable,......because at the time a 26 week old premature infant had a 50/50 chance.

 

[Orangecat]

Wrong. Anyone that know anything about this debate understands that it is specifically about personhood.
Only persons can have rights and human origin or DNA is not a person make.

You only say that to avoid the fact that it is a human being in the first stages of development. "Personhood" means nothing, because there is no scientific definition of that silly, amorphous term.

 

[Orangecat]

It was the SC that made the ruling.
After the second trimester, the fetus became viable,......because at the time a 26 week old premature infant had a 50/50 chance.

Who decides it's 50/50, not 49/51? Second opinion, anyone? Lulz.

 

[Orangecat]

I'd deflect too if I got called out on my bullshit

That's exactly what happened to you and your "death penalty" BS.
Try smarter next time, chump.

 

[marvin martian]

Curious here…are you able to get pregnant?

You seem to be suggesting only a certain type of person can be pregnant, which your woke friends would find extremely bigoted and misogynistic.

At any rate, the question is irrelevant because we're talking about your fellow DemoKKKrat accepting the scientific fact that life, and parental responsibility for that life, begins at conception, which is a good and true thing.

 

[The Original Tree]

HUGE win for the pro-life side! He doesn't realize it, of course, because he's dumb af, but I'm happy anyway.

I hope this passes.

We should pray for this to pass, and not just hope but believe. God is for life and not against life.

 

[The Original Tree]

Everyone who reads this, their life began at conception.

Not every zygote develops into a viable human being.

Apparently your zygote did not develop.

 

[marvin martian]

Your replies here on this thread are brilliant Biff. Especially the one about the 10 fetuses in a fire!
The best approach to the nonsense is sarcasm, at least until they get serious on discussing the question with the aim of finding some mutually agreeable solution to the abortion issue.

So you also disagree with the congressman's bill?