The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[ding]

No. I don't disagree on the problem. I disagree on the solution.

God has by his own hand killed that which offends him or whenever he needs to convey a message...Your God destroyed the humans on the planet, so he killed innocent children and unborn babies..Such an empathetic loving God.Yet you have the apathetic gaul to claim you and your God love children and they should not be killed by abortion, yet it is hypocrisy at it's fines coming from a cult of murderers.....

You don't believe in God, so you don't believe that.

Would it be asking too much for you to elevate your game? I can only make fun of you for so long.

I don't believe it because I was indoctrinated and I saw the lies and deceit perpetrated by the religion...You elevate your game so as to not seem ignorant...I need no church or religion to seek and find God...Nor do I need to believe in the fairly tales God told me were from false prophets...See how that works, God gave free will and yet God doesn't interfere when you do something that maybe wrong...You should try it also...

Good for you. Thank you for proving my point that you made an argument that even you didn't believe. This is progress.

Yoar reverse psychology is showing...

It does that sometimes, but not in this case. I am more than happy for you to keep making arguments you don't believe.

 

[Moonglow]

God has by his own hand killed that which offends him or whenever he needs to convey a message...Your God destroyed the humans on the planet, so he killed innocent children and unborn babies..Such an empathetic loving God.Yet you have the apathetic gaul to claim you and your God love children and they should not be killed by abortion, yet it is hypocrisy at it's fines coming from a cult of murderers.....

You don't believe in God, so you don't believe that.

Would it be asking too much for you to elevate your game? I can only make fun of you for so long.

I don't believe it because I was indoctrinated and I saw the lies and deceit perpetrated by the religion...You elevate your game so as to not seem ignorant...I need no church or religion to seek and find God...Nor do I need to believe in the fairly tales God told me were from false prophets...See how that works, God gave free will and yet God doesn't interfere when you do something that maybe wrong...You should try it also...

Good for you. Thank you for proving my point that you made an argument that even you didn't believe. This is progress.

Yoar reverse psychology is showing...

It does that sometimes, but not in this case. I am more than happy for you to keep making arguments you don't believe.

Ahhhhh, so that's what you do to to relieve the guilt of believing in a mass murdering deity cult......

 

[ding]

You don't believe in God, so you don't believe that.

Would it be asking too much for you to elevate your game? I can only make fun of you for so long.

I don't believe it because I was indoctrinated and I saw the lies and deceit perpetrated by the religion...You elevate your game so as to not seem ignorant...I need no church or religion to seek and find God...Nor do I need to believe in the fairly tales God told me were from false prophets...See how that works, God gave free will and yet God doesn't interfere when you do something that maybe wrong...You should try it also...

Good for you. Thank you for proving my point that you made an argument that even you didn't believe. This is progress.

Yoar reverse psychology is showing...

It does that sometimes, but not in this case. I am more than happy for you to keep making arguments you don't believe.

Ahhhhh, so that's what you do to to relieve the guilt of believing in a mass murdering deity cult......

That would be you again making an argument you don't believe.

 

[Hollie]

Overly emotional much?

Pointless much? Its a pretty simple matter to address the ignorance of fundie zealots.

 

[Taz]

I explain it the same way that I explain Trump voters. Never overestimate the intelligence of the average American voter.

You are dodging the question.

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

So what's your solution?

 

[Hollie]

extremist nutters on the far right of the thumper crowd mewl

Extreme nutter? Moi?

Just because I acknowledge the humanity of a new genetically distinct human being and wish to afford it its inalienable rights of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

Are you sure you aren't the nutter?

Actually, no. You're just the typical fundie zealot who hides behind fear and ignorance. I understand you're incensed that there are limits to your attempts to impose your taliban-like proclivities on others.

You will have to learn to live with that.

 

[alang1216]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I explain it the same way that I explain Trump voters. Never overestimate the intelligence of the average American voter.

You are dodging the question.

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

Lobby your congressman to establish a "Take a fetus to lunch" day.....

 

[Chuz Life]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

Are children who are born with only a brain stem and no ability to think, see, hear, smell or taste OR FEEL PAIN considered to be human beings / persons under the 14th Amendment to you?

The courts say they ARE.

 

[alang1216]

Are children who are born with only a brain stem and no ability to think, see, hear, smell or taste OR FEEL PAIN considered to be human beings / persons under the 14th Amendment to you?

The courts say they ARE.

Courts reflect the popular culture and are subject to change. Which way they will go on this issue I have no idea.

Personally, I don't consider such an unfortunate child worthy of legal protection any more than I'd consider a severed arm or leg to be. They are all incomplete and lack a fundamental component of human beings. I'd let the parents decide what to do with the child.

 

[Chuz Life]

Are children who are born with only a brain stem and no ability to think, see, hear, smell or taste OR FEEL PAIN considered to be human beings / persons under the 14th Amendment to you?

The courts say they ARE.

Courts reflect the popular culture and are subject to change. Which way they will go on this issue I have no idea.

Personally, I don't consider such an unfortunate child worthy of legal protection any more than I'd consider a severed arm or leg to be. They are all incomplete and lack a fundamental component of human beings. I'd let the parents decide what to do with the child.

So, in your view, a child is not a child (person) until the parents both agree that they are.

Is that right?

 

[alang1216]

So, in your view, a child is not a child (person) until the parents both agree that they are.

Is that right?

That is not correct. In the case you cited the child is no different from an adult with severe brain damage in an irreversible coma. So far as I'm concerned both have already died and I'd leave it to those closest to them to determine their fate.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, in your view, a child is not a child (person) until the parents both agree that they are.

Is that right?

That is not correct. In the case you cited the child is no different from an adult with severe brain damage in an irreversible coma. So far as I'm concerned both have already died and I'd leave it to those closest to them to determine their fate.

That's hilarious.

I'll share that with my wife who was actually thought to be in a irreversible coma just ten years ago.

 

[alang1216]

That's hilarious.

I'll share that with my wife who was actually thought to be in a irreversible coma just ten years ago.

She might not understand you if she also had severe brain damage.

Since you are pro-life and claim experience in this area, what do you think is the end of life and who gets to decide?

 

[Chuz Life]

That's hilarious.

I'll share that with my wife who was actually thought to be in a irreversible coma just ten years ago.

She might not understand you if she also had severe brain damage.

Since you are pro-life and claim experience in this area, what do you think is the end of life and who gets to decide?

1. She does have brain damage. Enough so that she will never be independent again.
2. I am not "pro-life." I wish you would learn and appreciate the distinctions between "pro-lifers" and anyone else who opposes abortions.
3. Who gets to decide WHAT?

 

[alang1216]

1. She does have brain damage. Enough so that she will never be independent again.
2. I am not "pro-life." I wish you would learn and appreciate the distinctions between "pro-lifers" and anyone else who opposes abortions.
3. Who gets to decide WHAT?

1. My sympathy and best wishes to your wife.
2. Seems like a distinction without a difference. Care to explain?
3. When someone is in a coma and on life support and the family are told that person will never recover, understanding that any diagnosis can be wrong, a decision needs to be make whether to keep the person alive or allow them to die. Who gets to decide and what criteria should be used to make that decision?

 

[ding]

You are dodging the question.

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

So what's your solution?

Stop doing it.

 

[Chuz Life]

1. She does have brain damage. Enough so that she will never be independent again.
2. I am not "pro-life." I wish you would learn and appreciate the distinctions between "pro-lifers" and anyone else who opposes abortions.
3. Who gets to decide WHAT?

1. My sympathy and best wishes to your wife.
2. Seems like a distinction without a difference. Care to explain?
3. When someone is in a coma and on life support and the family are told that person will never recover, understanding that any diagnosis can be wrong, a decision needs to be make whether to keep the person alive or allow them to die. Who gets to decide and what criteria should be used to make that decision?

1. Thanks
2. I don't have enough time but one group opposes abortion because they think (mostly along religious lines) that all lives are somehow sacred. The rest of us do not share that view. Especially on the death penalty and other situations like self defense, war, etc.
3. Society decides the specific laws about it. However, it needs to be pointed out that the right that all persons have to their life and to the equal protections of our laws do not entitle them to be kept alive indefinitely by others through any and all extra-ordinary means available.

That said, a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

 

[ding]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

 

[ding]

extremist nutters on the far right of the thumper crowd mewl

Extreme nutter? Moi?

Just because I acknowledge the humanity of a new genetically distinct human being and wish to afford it its inalienable rights of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

Are you sure you aren't the nutter?

Actually, no. You're just the typical fundie zealot who hides behind fear and ignorance. I understand you're incensed that there are limits to your attempts to impose your taliban-like proclivities on others.

You will have to learn to live with that.

I think you are a nutter for dehumanizing human life.