What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

“The truth cannot force its way in when
something else is occupying its space.”

-Ludwig Wittgenstein

I couldn't describe JD better

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I want JD to go and answer this question and tell me whether a theoretical extraterrestrial or non-physical intelligence would be justified in killing her because she is not a person because she cannot survive underwater or in any other environment than that for which her physiology is suited.

 

[JD_2B]

Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.

Hellooooo in there. We have an entire governmental department DEVOTED to makeing sure that parents are responsible for their children. Ever hear of child neglect laws? Yes you indeed are legally required to do what is in the best interest of your child.

And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...

So, again, no dice for you.

There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try

MY POINT EXACLTEY. You went on a paragraph long rant about how ALL the evidence was on your side as to when you defined personhood (which is a made up term in the first place). Now you are admitting that science doesn't even mention the concept. So we are both in agreement now that science really can't be used as evidence for your defintion of personhood, right?

As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person, then the matter of defining personhood must be explored. We both agree that science is one of the best means of finding the correct answers to this. If you look at my post to proletarian, you will see that there ARE answers.. You just have to open your eyes to them.

I understand what you are trying to get at with that particular study. But I think you are a little quick to conclude that has something to do with personhood. There are at least a couple other logical explanations. The premature baby for example; it should make sense that it responds more than the same baby still in the womb, not because it became more autonomous, but because it is being bombarded with more stimuli than it would be if it were still in the womb.

Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb, and also, because an infant does not have the chemicals being poured into it which apparently also keeps a fetus in a state of being asleep or non conscious, non responsive to pain stimuli.. So, yep, it seems to be a signal of personhood to me.

I argue your position on autonomy in general because again it isn't as simple as just taking a breath. There would have to be something that triggers in that instant a greater level of autonomy where once something that was once non self governing now is. I think what is observable is that autonomy is gradual. Sure a birthed child has more autonomy than it did in the womb. But a toddler has more autonomy than an infant. A 5 year old more so than a toddler and so on. Which makes saying that it is this threshold of autonomy at this point in time that counts as personhood, rather arbitrary.

I really think that claiming that it can (potential) does not in any way equate to anything being actual. Also, a 5 year old can be less autonomous than a 2 year old. There are many 5 year olds that cannot say their alphabet, read, etc, when at the same time, there are little tiny infants that can actually read and understand the meaning of written words.

Stimuli means nothing in the uterus, because the fucking thing is asleep and not conscious or responsive even of pain stimuli, so I truly do not see the point to this argument.

Did you or did you just not admit a few mere paragraphs ago that science would never say they observed personhood as being the point where a child took its first breath? How is it then that you can continue to state this as fact? A child isn't alive before it takes a breath? Add alive to the list of words you pull definition for out of your ass.

If you want to argue for rights, you have to argue for personhood. And I have to argue against it. That is just how these things go..

And your take on religion is probably a bit off as well. After all if everything in the bible can be proven )i.e adam and eve were made out of whatever god made them out of) then we ought to be able to prove God him/her/it self. This is entirely my opinion by I think a creator would think that would defeat the purpose of having people believe in him. You can not 'know' that the bible, Jesus, God, etc. are true and also have faith that they are true. Faith in something is a belief in the absence of evidence. I don't think God wants us to 'know' he exists or that there's life after death. I think he wants us to have faith in those things.

My beliefs are only manifested in the presence of evidence.. I do understand what you mean about blind faith, but I think that you have some of this towards fetuses being sentient etc, yourself.

I do not believe in life after death. The brain just releases some chemicals when someone dies clinically, and those chemicals cause them to see a wide array of visions.
Apparently the chemicals have some sort of energy to them, even after the time of death is recorded.. Also, this is important, too- just because someone has the presence of mind available at some given time to manifest a memory, or have some type of brain activity- it does not make them alive. This should be clear, by the chemical releases recorded in those types of "near death experiences", and "out of body experiences", which are truly nothing more than brain activity being disrupted from a normal thought process by magnetics.

Here is a very good explanation of this.. Skim through it, if you would, and then read the last few paragraphs verbatim, please.

Medical Support for NDE

There isn't any semantics in the contradiction you just made. You said a person in a coma is autonomous because he can write a will telling people what he wants if he should wind up in a coma. Mere sentences later you said the same person is not autonomous because, having a will or not, they are dependent on others to carry out those wishes. You're talking dependence again. Even a newborn is dependent on an awful of outside help to keep it alive. Yet you don't recognize that the argument you made justifying abortion could very well certainly justify killing a child well after it is born. FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK at the argument you made. No is responsible for keeping anyone alive. YOUR WORDS.

A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive. Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.

If the coma patient or the 10 month old child is left to their own devices, which is all that happens with pulling the plug on a coma patient, by the way- then the coma patient will either die of natural causes, or have people, under sociological expectations, "work" on him until the power is restored (say it was a power outage or something.. ). With an infant, again, it can be left to its own devices, but I agree- this is neglectful- so instead of doing that, the vast majority of people leave the infant with people who are obligated socially to find parents that are more willing to love it and nurture it.

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.

You are floundering JD. You are desperately trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions. That one should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants and that killing an innocent person should remain a legal offense. In your mad scramble to do this you define words outside of their accepted meaning to try and reconcile those two beliefs. Person, alive, human, human being, consciousness, autonomy, and the grand daddy of made up concepts personhood Science doesn't define that. Even the law doesn't define that. Stating the child has legal rights at x point in time is not the same as saying we recognize a measurable change in consciousness, autonomy or whatever word you want to try and use. That leaves you with the religious qualifiers for your made up definition of personhood. And the irony is that you cling to that for your justification for abortion but completely ignore what God would want prior to that point.

Oh tough shit. You can't even accept that a person can be fucking ADOPTED, without turning it into a game of semantical fucking GARBAGE, claiming that parenthood is some kind of physiological fucking dependence issue. You ARE a fucking pea brained idiot, after all. Gratz...

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.

The point/question is when does not having a responsibility to keep someone alive cross the line to killing an innocent person.

When YOU define personhood to include fetuses, rather than just babies, or define fetuses that should not be killed as innocent persons who can still be killed as long as they are saving mommy's life in the fucking process, you fucking hypocrite...... Laaaather rinnnnnnse and fuuuuuuuuuucking repeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat. Goddamnit you are so annoying. Stop fucking REPEATING THE SAME GODDAMNED QUESTIONS!!!!

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left?

Repeat..

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left?

Repeat..

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left?

Repeat..

Fucking Reeeeeeeeeeetarded Reeeeeeeeeepeater..

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.

Then why is it not empircally true that you can kill someone for whatever reason you choose? Why does the law require gaurdians not neglect minors?

The same CHOICES AND REASONS that it IS empirically true that YOU can kill a fetus to save mommy's life, and you goddamned know it. That is a REASON.. An EXCEPTION that YOU deem worthy. YOU chose it. She (any pregnant woman) can choose her reason too.

And you know GODDAMNED FUCKING WELL THAT I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGLECTING CHILDREN. The LAW ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS, BY FUCKING CHOICE. Stop IGNORING this shit as if it is just some kind of fucking FAIRY TALE, you fucking IDIOT.

Here it is.. Idiot of the year award..



Nite!!!

 

[Bern80]

And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...

That is not what you argued. You wanna talk about annoying and cowardly, that would be watching you trying to make excuses and pretend you didn't say exactly what you said. You are the one playing semantics. Under YOUR argument, no one has the responsibility to keep anyone alive. NO responsibility means NO responsibility. IF that's true why go through the aggravation of the adoption process. Why not just lock it in a room till it stops making any sound. You can't twist it. You can't accuse me of semantics. That is what you're arguing your right is. In that case the law indeed does disagree with you

A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive. Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.

You are the one playing semantics again dear. You are the one that can't directly respond to the reality of your argument. Dependence is dependence. You continue to only look at things through your own selfish perspective. It doesn't matter if it acknowledges it or feels it or asks for it or who does it. From the time it is conceived to well after it is born, if not cared for, the child will die. Stop dancing around this inconvenient truth. You can say what you want about who is responsible for what, warped as that opinion is, you certainly can not claim that anyone else in society is somehow more socially obligated to your child than you are. Why put your child up for foster care or adoption, as YOU stated, they have no responsibility to the infant either.

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.

Then how is it you can go to jail for child neglect?

For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with.

You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sorry, JD, but you failed again.

So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.

As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person

Which you suddenly decided three posts ago? Why do you change your claims so oft,unless they keep getting proven false- like you claim about fetal blood supply that Cecile and later I proved false?

Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb

You don't get exposed to the stimuli in America you would in a specific coffee shop in Paris. You're not making any point.

Interesting how you reject every concept of personhood yet never define it yourself. Not surprising,though, since you've said repeatedly that personhood is not important to you, since you want to kill the child anyway.

There are many 5 year olds that cannot say their alphabet, read, etc, when at the same time, there are little tiny infants that can actually read and understand the meaning of written words.

And some, like you, never master reading comprehension. What's your point?

If you want to argue for rights, you have to argue for personhood. And I have to argue against it. That is just how these things go..

False. You've yet to define 'personhood' or establish that it is a necessary condition for rights. You've also yet to show how your undefined term ('personhood') is established by the moving of the diaphragm when an organism is in an atmospheric environment.

My beliefs are only manifested in the presence of evidence..

The bible is not evidence.

I do not believe in life after death.

You have to. You already said that whatever the bible says is true. (I wonder what it says about a woman's place.)

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive

You might want to open your biology book to the chapter on pregnancy, since you obviously don't know what it is (not surprising since you get your science ed from the bible).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Don't blame her, Bern.

Anything the bible says is true, including the life of a living thing beginning with the first breath it takes (ignore the whole issue of a living thing being alive by definition and humans only taking a breath when alive).

She's retarded and the thinks the bible is a science textbook.

 

[JD_2B]

And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...

That is not what you argued. You wanna talk about annoying and cowardly, that would be watching you trying to make excuses and pretend you didn't say exactly what you said. You are the one playing semantics. Under YOUR argument, no one has the responsibility to keep anyone alive. NO responsibility means NO responsibility. IF that's true why go through the aggravation of the adoption process. Why not just lock it in a room till it stops making any sound. You can't twist it. You can't accuse me of semantics. That is what you're arguing your right is. In that case the law indeed does disagree with you

You fucking assmunch- I did not FUCKING say it that way. I said it and explained far differently, in the context of physical dependence, and you KNOW DAMN WELL what that ultimately means. YOU simply cannot wrap your tiny little pea brain around it, and come to accept it, because it is TRUTH and you HATE truth. You refuse to even listen to medical journals, you and proletarian both. Don't twist everything around, just to bicker, you ball-less little turd!!!

A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive. Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.

You are the one playing semantics again dear. You are the one that can't directly respond to the reality of your argument. Dependence is dependence. You continue to only look at things through your own selfish perspective. It doesn't matter if it acknowledges it or feels it or asks for it or who does it. From the time it is conceived to well after it is born, if not cared for, the child will die. Stop dancing around this inconvenient truth. You can say what you want about who is responsible for what, warped as that opinion is, you certainly can not claim that anyone else in society is somehow more socially obligated to your child than you are. Why put your child up for foster care or adoption, as YOU stated, they have no responsibility to the infant either.

Fuck off. Now you want to throw more ad hominems at me, saying that I am being selfish, just because physical dependence is not some kind of entitlement. Whats next? We give everyone on life support our organs, also, just to keep the inevitable "d" word from happening??? DIFFERENTIATE for yourself, the meaning of the words sociological dependence and physiological fucking dependence. If LATE TERM physiological dependence was sooooo fucking necessary, then how is it that first trimester physiological dependence is expendable you fucking little termite head?? THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. Shove your emotional fucking hyperbole up your ass. Physiological dependence =/= sociological dependence.

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.

Then how is it you can go to jail for child neglect?

For CHOOSING NOT TO PUT A CHILD IN GOOD HANDS OTHER THAN ONE'S OWN, ORRRRRRRRRR... FOR THINKING THAT ONE IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO, CORRECTLY, BUT NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.

For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with.

Ad hominem... You don't hate ME, you hate my STANCE, and you are angry because my logic and sources are MOUNTAINS better than your own. Stay on topic, asshole. Try, for ONCE, to make an argument that is not chocked full of crying and whining, please.

You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.

It WAS fun to watch you be a complete ignorant ass at first, but now it is BLATANTLY obvious that by the facts mentioned below, you are doomed to remain in the state of blissful "I do not believe that, and will not educate myself further, as a result!":

1- You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people. Your stance is entirely emotional in it's basis, and you cant GET PAST the emotions that have crippled your own logic.

2- You refuse to even READ any of the sources I gave you, which both negate your own stance, as well as build mine, immensely.

3- You keep referring to me in a personal sense as being amoral or some variation of such, based on absolutely NO personal knowledge of me or my child, and only basing it on the facts I lay out for you, as well as the thorough explanations, which you also only read half of, as a part of your ignorant way of life.

4- You play semantics games and try to turn "The tree is green and growing" into "the tree is purple with pink polka dots and has been uprooted.", showing me that you have the intellectual capacity of a sapling.

5- You REFUSE to even ARGUE your own failing stance within the debate, and have spent the past week or so, only trying not to drown, by constantly trying to just belittle and berate my PLETHORA of sources, and logical explanations, just because your overactive emotions will not allow you to accept certain truths, such as sociological dependence being a far cry from physiological dependence, which I have spelled out in more ways than Webster.

GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.

So, too, can abortion....

Stating that you clearly want to have zero liability for anything you do (including lynching people, as you implied in another thread), is not a ad hominum attack. Crying 'ad hom' when one has not been committed is known as crying. It indicates a total lack of maturity or intellectual capacity on your part.

You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people.

You refuse to provide any sources supporting your claim (provenly false) that the Autonomic Nervous System magically pops into existence with the first breath or your laughable claim (again debunked several times) that every single medical journal and medical textbook on Earth is wrong and the mother's blood actually goesinto the fetus. You've also yet to show thatyouknow what cells, tissues, and organisms are or that you understand why you can't have puppies with the family dog, You've also failed to demonstratethat the concious mind magically pops into existence with the first breath or present a shred of evidence supporting your claim that a living thing is not alive until it, despite being alive, comes to life when it receives life with that same first breath.

GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.

How many puppies are you expecting to give birth to this litter?Howamny breaths before their living tissue suddenly becomes alive?

 

[JD_2B]

Sorry, JD, but you failed again.

So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.

Legal gurdians can change, and often do. Nobody is physically responsible or unavoidably legally responsible for another human being, and this is fact. You hate that I am right, but this is still fact, and crossing your fingers does not change this.

As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person

Which you suddenly decided three posts ago? Why do you change your claims so oft,unless they keep getting proven false- like you claim about fetal blood supply that Cecile and later I proved false?

Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb

You don't get exposed to the stimuli in America you would in a specific coffee shop in Paris. You're not making any point.

In a coffee shop as opposed to a uterus. You know the point- Move on.

Interesting how you reject every concept of personhood yet never define it yourself. Not surprising,though, since you've said repeatedly that personhood is not important to you, since you want to kill the child anyway.

I have. I said multiple times, the first breath, and I gave a variety of reasons for it, many of which, you, the master troll , have either disregarded the remainder of the post, etc, and played semantics Suzy on one line, taking it completely out of context in the process. Dork.

And some, like you, never master reading comprehension. What's your point?

Troll...

False. You've yet to define 'personhood' or establish that it is a necessary condition for rights. You've also yet to show how your undefined term ('personhood') is established by the moving of the diaphragm when an organism is in an atmospheric environment.

That is untrue, and your ignorance is showing that I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air. I also did not limit it to breathing to retain sentience, so no playing semantics with me. I shouldn't even entertain your posts, because of this, I should keep your sorry ass on ignore. Look at my rep compared to yours, for verification of that one.

The bible is not evidence.

No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence.

I do not believe in life after death.

You have to. You already said that whatever the bible says is true. (I wonder what it says about a woman's place.)

The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust. Even hell fire is not a literal biblical reference. It refers to Gemorrah, a large pit of fire where they used to burn the bodies of people who were undeserving of a proper burial by using sulphur. The bodies that did not make it all the way into the fire, would drop to a ledge, causing the worms to eat it.

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive

You might want to open your biology book to the chapter on pregnancy, since you obviously don't know what it is (not surprising since you get your science ed from the bible).

A fetus is physiologically dependent, but a woman is not physiologically responsible. Big difference between a fetus needing a biological sustainment system, and a person having some requirement to BE a biological sustainment system.

 

[JD_2B]

That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.

So, too, can abortion....

Stating that you clearly want to have zero liability for anything you do (including lynching people, as you implied in another thread), is not a ad hominum attack. Crying 'ad hom' when one has not been committed is known as crying. It indicates a total lack of maturity or intellectual capacity on your part.

So, too, can pregnancy. Indicating otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding on YOUR part. =)

You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people.

You refuse to provide any sources supporting your claim (provenly false) that the Autonomic Nervous System magically pops into existence with the first breath or your laughable claim (again debunked several times) that every single medical journal and medical textbook on Earth is wrong and the mother's blood actually goesinto the fetus. You've also yet to show thatyouknow what cells, tissues, and organisms are or that you understand why you can't have puppies with the family dog, You've also failed to demonstratethat the concious mind magically pops into existence with the first breath or present a shred of evidence supporting your claim that a living thing is not alive until it, despite being alive, comes to life when it receives life with that same first breath.

I did. Mine and yours. You can't respond directly to that post I made in response to YOUR medical studies, now, can ya.

Of course not. Too intimidated?? What are you, chicken or something?

 

[JD_2B]

And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.

Autonomy does not distinguish between biological dependence, nurturing dependence or any other type of dependence. If one can not self govern, one is dependent on SOMETHING. The point that is trying to be made here is that your justification for abortion due to autonomy or lack of it can't work either because it would also force you to support killing after birth as well. Newborn's are not autonomous. They can not self govern. There is little to no difference in their level of dependence on the outside world before birth or for a good time after. You said quite clearly so you can't argue someone is putting words in your mouth, that no one is responsible for keeping anyone from dieing. If that is the case then you MUST support no legal action be taken if a legal gaurdian neglects there born child. Because the fact is an infant is dependent on someone. If it's needs are not met, it will die.

That is sociological dependence, not physiological. If it cannot take care of itself, and there is no chance of anything else being alive to be its biological OR technological sustainment system, neither of which are fail safe- it will NOT survive.

The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.

So the book we all look to to find out what words mean got it wrong? Man I thought you'd at least deny making up definitions of stuff, but you're actually making excuses for it.

Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I thought she said the baby taking its first breath, gives the baby person-hood....the breath of life....and all, including protections, that comes with such, under the law....I presume she meant?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-34.html#post1869992

You have, in no way, changed my opinions on personhood or when life begins other than the first breath...

This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow...

a person who has already breathed, and hence, is already alive...

Breathing is the BEGINNING.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be-37.html

The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-40.html#post1887157

I do not believe that abortion is killing anything Ever.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...00-fetus-found-in-gift-box-2.html#post1815568

is [the bible]the worlds first 100% accurate science book

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-41.html#post1887750

You know, because plants existed on Earth before the sun existed

Until the baby is BORN, which is when it takes its first breath after delivery....only then a certificate of live birth is given...if the baby to be does NOT take its first breath, under the law it is considered stillborn-delivered dead...I believe? And under the law, she would be correct in her assumptions on person-hood.

Personhood and life are not equivalent terms. Nor do Scotus or a bunch of Jewish cavemen trump scientific fact.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air.

Why lie about what you've said? I'm just going to post your own words and prove you a lying ****.

We've done this before.

No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence.

Plants on Earth before the sun existed

You're so retarded it's actually amusing

The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust

Fail. The life after the first death is for those who avoid the second death by accepting salvation


Not a single Christian has read the bible

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, too, can pregnancy. Indicating otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding on YOUR part. =)

And there you have it. Who wants to go back and post me and Cecile explaining birth control to JD while she made excuse after excuse for not taking the pill, using a condom, or getting a pregnancy test?

Now she has finally admitted a complete lack of understanding on her part- and shown she finally grasps that a woman getting pregnant is her own fault because she failed to take the necessary preacuations to prevent pregnancy. Of course, this flies in the face of her 'we're not responsible for our own actions because we have vaginas neofaminazi rant earlier.

 

[Bern80]

So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.

Legal gurdians can change, and often do. Nobody is physically responsible or unavoidably legally responsible for another human being, and this is fact. You hate that I am right, but this is still fact, and crossing your fingers does not change this.

Legally no it is not fact. Again you don't think about what you say before you say it. Yes gaurdianship could change, but if you have no responsibility to keep your child alive, by your argument you shouldn't even have to put it up for adoption. If you aren't responsible for it at all, then you don't have to feed it, or nurture it or even go through the process of finding another legal gaurdian for it. I am not playing semantics. YOU are trying to wiggle out of the reality of what you said. Call me fucking dumb, or pea brain or whatever imature insult you want to hurl, but when someone uses the phrase 'no responsibility' I assume they mean NO responsibility, which would include the responsibility of going through the process to haveinglegal gaurdianship changed.

As to me not providing evidence for my stance; sorry you're simply going to have to accept that I don't have to to be right. All I have to do is show how asanine your position of when it occurs is. As close as anyone has been able to pin you down as to the why personhood begins when you say it does is because that's when a child takes it's first breath. You have argued because that is when it becomes alive, which is ludicrous. Biological all that changed was the process by which it accomplished the function of getting oxygen into its system. The evidence you lack is what that function has to do with personhood (again your made up term).

Lastly, do you really want to get into a debate about ad hominems - another term you don't understand given the way you used it - when you seemingly need to add an expletive filled insult at the end of every paragraph?

 

[Bern80]

Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.

I agree. What does that have to do with the dictionary being wrong? My point is you would be hard pressed to show a measurable difference in the dependence of a child immediately before taking a breath and immediately after. One's level of dependence is a factor of one's ability to self govern.

 

[JD_2B]

Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.

I agree. What does that have to do with the dictionary being wrong? My point is you would be hard pressed to show a measurable difference in the dependence of a child immediately before taking a breath and immediately after. One's level of dependence is a factor of one's ability to self govern.

LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context.
I said that fetuses are not autonomous.

To be independent, one must have at least SOME autonomy. Being inside of a uterus, and DEPENDENT on that uterus is a far cry from an infant, who, being on the OUTSIDE, and CAPABLE of being cared for by ANYONE, whose survival is not LIMITED by whatever happens to the woman.

There IS dependence in both situations. I am not a fucking retard, I have SAID this, numerous times. The DIFFERENCE between the two types of dependence, and I will only spell this out for you one last time, is this:

Physical dependence is something you guys are trying to claim is not SOLELY biological dependence. You guys are ignoring the fact that there are a billion people in this world, on any given day, who would be more than willing to take care of a child, to feed it, to nurture it, etc. That is a SOCIOLOGICAL FACT. Thus, claiming that ALL CHILDREN are somehow EMPIRICALLY and SOLELY Physically dependent upon ONLY the mother for survival, and therefore are entitled to the mother's time, energy, etc, as a result, is an utterance of such massively illogical proportions, that it is UNBELIEVABLE to me that any of you would stoop to such an argument in the first place. It is wrong. That is a sociological dependence. The father is just as capable of caring for the child as the mother. A STRANGER to the mother and infant can take care of the infant. The mother is NOT a physical NEED of the fetus, and as such, there is no physical dependence upon her. Only a sociological one.

EVERYONE is physically dependent upon EVERYTHING to work in harmony with each other in nature. Physical dependence is a dependence, but this is not an entitlement issue. If the bee population continues to decrease in the manner it has been doing for the past 20 years (it has gone down by half), there will be a major issue for us, in food production, flower and plant life, air quality, and the overall structure of how the feeding cycle could eventually completely QUIT all because bees are apparently losing population at a massive rate. This is a physical dependence issue. We have air, and some of us appreciate it, but some of us do not.. Either way, we are not entitled to it. If everything goes kerplunk in our faces, we could be without air, food, etc.. Physical dependency can't possibly be considered a "responsibility" or a "entitlement", which is what I am seeing you all saying, as I read between the lines, when you say "dependency". A fetus is physically dependent- but that does not make the mother ultimately responsible for it's wholeness or well being. Like I said, the mother can get sick, injured, beaten up, killed, die of natural causes, have no knowledge of being pregnant or concern, even, based on having few periods, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. Physical (physiological) dependence is not an entitlement to whatever needs are required for survival. A person has a physiological dependence that the brakes on their car will function, or that her tires will hold up during her commute from point A to point B, in modern times of driving.. That does not mean that she is ENTITLED to them working right. She might not have rotated them enough, the tires might be bald, they might have too much or too little air in them, etc, etc, they might even be brand spanking new, and if she hits a shard of glass or something in the road, poof! Her life is over. I know I sound very cynical in this thread, but the fact is that there is NO fucking entitlement to shit working in our favors, EVER. We can be hopeful, we can want, dream and desire it, but that never ever ever entitles us to having some kind of a charmed, stress free life, where Murphy's Law sometimes does not come into play.

Sociological dependency is different. It is a social expectation that people act a certain way. There is not even a social expectation that a mother or father parent their children. The only expectation is that if they choose to do so, they do not abuse or neglect them. That's it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other widely accepted options available. This is where autonomy comes into play. The woman is autonomous. That can not be denied. If, for some reason, Murphy's Law comes into play during ANY time, whether she is pregnant, or not, then she IS entitled to make decisions that could either continue or end her life, harm herself, and yes- end a pregnancy.

The sociological expectation is really (objectively speaking) the only thing that currently prevents women from having abortions on demand in the later months. The entire premise of this expectation is based almost entirely on emotional rhetoric surrounding quickening, and what it "might" mean for a fetus to be "felt" by the woman when it is larger and has certain movements that are simply sensed by our touch and vision. The emotions that a person feels in correlation with a fetus' "kicks", are really strong. It suddenly becomes "logic", then, to decide right then and there, that the fetus knows it is kicking, or, to a more objective person, that it "might", and that people should "err on the side of caution", "just in case" the emotions of the person who has strong feelings towards the fetus as a result of this, are HURT, because that person is SO FRAGILE, that they cant handle it if someone else that they don't even fucking know, chooses to end their pregnancy, or the pregnancy is LOST.

Finally, again, I say to you- Get a fucking grip.

 

[JD_2B]

PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on, if you expect a response from now on. Thanks! =)

 

[JD_2B]

I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air.

Why lie about what you've said? I'm just going to post your own words and prove you a lying ****.

We've done this before.

No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence.

Plants on Earth before the sun existed

You're so retarded it's actually amusing

No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later.

Gen 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



Gen 2
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust

Fail. The life after the first death is for those who avoid the second death by accepting salvation

I know that- but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust. The life that follows is not an entitlement either. It is something we must choose. When we go back to the dust, there is no knowledge.. We are only granted having our knowledge returned, during the time we are judged by our actions.
Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave, there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

Psalm 89:48
No one can live forever; all will die.No one can escape the power of the grave.

Proverbs 15:24
The path of life leads upward for the wise;they leave the grave behind.

1 Corinthians 2:7
No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God —his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began.

James 3:17
But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and good deeds. It shows no favoritism and is always sincere.

Job 10:19
It would be as though I had never existed,going directly from the womb to the grave.

Job 17:13
What if I go to the grave and make my bed in darkness?

Job 17:16
No, my hope will go down with me to the grave.We will rest together in the dust!”

Psalm 6:5
For the dead do not remember you.Who can praise you from the grave?

Psalm 30:9
“What will you gain if I die,if I sink into the grave?Can my dust praise you?Can it tell of your faithfulness?

Psalm 88:5
They have left me among the dead,and I lie like a corpse in a grave.I am forgotten,cut off from your care.

Psalm 88:11
Can those in the grave declare your unfailing love?Can they proclaim your faithfulness in the place of destruction?

Not a single Christian has read the bible

Whether you have read it or not is not the problem. Too many people simply do not study it. Thankfully, now we have internet to cross analyze various verses between different bible translations, and see how they relate to each other.

Jeremiah 20:17
because he did not kill me at birth.Oh, that I had died in my mother’s womb,that her body had been my grave!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I am not a fucking retard.

All evidence to the contrary.