Tx Satanists sue for their right to Ritual Abortion

So you basically admit then it's not life... if it can't stand on it's own??

I agree with you, on that....

If it can't stand on its own, then it isn't life.


A patient on life support cannot stand on its own, but it's a life.

It is a life, shared with the mother until it is born. It has its own life, but it needs help from the mother. If you remove that help, you kill it.
 
And really... does "all life matter" with "prolife" people???

Nope! That's why prolife people support candidates that cut social programs.


06.jpg
 
Well, "religious liberty" is all the rage. We have a society in which all a person has to say is that they have a "belief" of any origin or "it's my religion" and they are excused from anything they don't want to do and can't be prevented from doing anything that they do want to do; laws and regulations that supposedly apply to all cannot hinder this. I don't know anything about the Satanist faith and I don't think that I have ever met an adherent, but I do know that religious beliefs are a matter for the individual and the government is prohibited both from determining whether some belief is or is not a religion and from establishing a religion, so this should be an interesting case.

This does not have anything to do with the Democratic Party, which simply is neutral on the subject of whether an individual decides to have an abortion or not.

Calling those who disagree with one's opinion vulgar names seems to be common practice of late. I'm surprised that you're surprised at it, especially being a member of USMB. Just yesterday, I read a post in which one USMB member called another a "fucking retard."

BTW: the individual pictured is the POTUS, who is a Christian, not Greaves.

Many of us in the Church of Pinochet believe that Communism can be prevented by helicopter rides
 
Last edited:
A patient on life support cannot stand on its own, but it's a life.

It is a life, shared with the mother until it is born. It has its own life, but it needs help from the mother. If you remove that help, you kill it.
But there's differences though when it comes to patients

A person who is brain dead, typically doctors pull the plug.

A person who is not... the doctors continue life support.

Likewise... a fetus without a brain... can we really say it is a person or just a body?
 
But there's differences though when it comes to patients

A person who is brain dead, typically doctors pull the plug.

A person who is not... the doctors continue life support.

Likewise... a fetus without a brain... can we really say it is a person or just a body?
If a doctor pulls the plug on someone who is brain dead, it is because the determination is made that the situation is hopeless for the patient, the patient will not recover, and it will continue to lay comatose forever unless the plug is pulled.

On the other hand, a brain develops in the 5th week of pregnancy, and does not deteriorate, but keeps getting more advanced, more developed, more complex. It will not sit stagnate, but will only get more advanced as time goes on. Therefore, if you stop that process, you are killing something that will be able to live on its own without the help of the mother within a matter of several months. (not counting actually raising the kid)
 
Newborns are completely helpless and require enormous sacrifices from the parents to survive. Newborns are in no way viable. If you believe only the viable have rights you really should start killing infants.
A newborn doesn't need parents... it just needs someone to feed it, change its diaper, etc.... but it is still viable whereas a fetus is not.

Viability refers to the ability to survive outside the womb... without having to use an umbilical cord and rely on someone else's body for survival.

When an umbilical cord is in use... the fetus is having the host (the mother) breathe for it and eat for it.

An infant doesn't require these things... that's why it no longer has an umbilical cord.
 
If a doctor pulls the plug on someone who is brain dead, it is because the determination is made that the situation is hopeless for the patient, the patient will not recover, and it will continue to lay comatose forever unless the plug is pulled.

On the other hand, a brain develops in the 5th week of pregnancy, and does not deteriorate, but keeps getting more advanced, more developed, more complex. It will not sit stagnate, but will only get more advanced as time goes on. Therefore, if you stop that process, you are killing something that will be able to live on its own without the help of the mother within a matter of several months. (not counting actually raising the kid)
But stopping the process is not really killing it because in the early stages it's not a fully functional human.

It goes back to the earlier debate... is an egg a chicken?

No an egg is NOT a chick or chicken... but eventually it could be.
 
But stopping the process is not really killing it because in the early stages it's not a fully functional human.

It goes back to the earlier debate... is an egg a chicken?

No an egg is NOT a chick or chicken... but eventually it could be.


It's not really killing it? Really?

Look bud, you are not going to convince me no matter what argument you throw out there. I won't convince you likewise. I say we both virtually shake hands and walk off. nothing much getting accomplished here other than banging heads.
 
If we're going to talk about punishing women for abortion ... shouldn't we be punishing men too??

I think so... after all... it takes BOTH a man and a woman to make fetus!

07.jpg
 
It's not really killing it? Really?

Look bud, you are not going to convince me no matter what argument you throw out there. I won't convince you likewise. I say we both virtually shake hands and walk off. nothing much getting accomplished here other than banging heads.
Well, you're not going to convince me that we should be forcing women to have a baby just because they got pregnant.

A woman has a FUNDAMENTAL right to determine how long something grows in her uterus.
 
On the other hand, a brain develops in the 5th week of pregnancy
At the 5th week of pregnancy the fetus is only the 3 mm in size.... about the size of a sesame seed.

That's not viable nor does it doesn't have brain function.

I see no moral issue with aborting it.

BTW, fetuses cannot feel pain before 20 weeks.

No pain = no consciousness = no person at that point in its development.

If no person exists, then there's nothing wrong with abortion.
 
So you're saying Terry Schiavo should have been kept alive even though she had no brain function?

Wow... that goes against what medicine practices... when it comes to people who are brain dead.

When someone is brain dead, doctors pull the plug.

Except if they're Joe Biden
 
A newborn doesn't need parents... it just needs someone to feed it, change its diaper, etc.... but it is still viable whereas a fetus is not.

Viability refers to the ability to survive outside the womb... without having to use an umbilical cord and rely on someone else's body for survival.

When an umbilical cord is in use... the fetus is having the host (the mother) breathe for it and eat for it.

An infant doesn't require these things... that's why it no longer has an umbilical cord.
Of course you can rely on someone for survival without involving an umbilical cord. If someone is stripped of rights for being dependent than an authoritarian government would have every right to kill off those deemed dependent.

You’d have to be an idiot or truly loathsome to defend the viability argument.

 
Well, you're not going to convince me that we should be forcing women to have a baby just because they got pregnant.

A woman has a FUNDAMENTAL right to determine how long something grows in her uterus.
Wow.

You said you were opposed to late term abortions so you rejected the argument you are now making!

Try to make a little sense.
 
Of course you can rely on someone for survival without involving an umbilical cord. If someone is stripped of rights for being dependent than an authoritarian government would have every right to kill off those deemed dependent.

You’d have to be an idiot or truly loathsome to defend the viability argument.


People have always had differing views surrounding abortion dumbass. Read this:


The problem lies with the fact that you Evangelical retards want to insist your views are supreme.... and that's what's the problem.

You want to FORCE your views on other people... but that's why so many people push back and will continue to push back against you idiots.

Here's a piece of advice for you Evangelical retards:

If you don't want an abortion...don't have one, but don't tell other people what to do!!!!! :ahole-1:
 
People have always had differing views surrounding abortion dumbass. Read this:


The problem lies with the fact that you Evangelical retards want to insist your views are supreme.... and that's what's the problem.

You want to FORCE your views on other people... but that's why so many people push back and will continue to push back against you idiots.

Here's a piece of advice for you Evangelical retards:

If you don't want an abortion...don't have one, but don't tell other people what to do!!!!! :ahole-1:
You are so dumb you just ignore our discussion and engage in name calling.

I guess that means you can’t answer my objections. Why else would you run from my questions?

You yourself tell people what to do when you oppose late term abortion or favor laws against animal cruelty!

Do you think an authoritarian government has the right to murder people deemed dependent?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top