You People Who Think Separation of Church and State is Possible.......How Do You Reconcile Abortion??

[NotfooledbyW]

so prior to 24 weeks it is not a human being? not a creation of God? has zero rights?

No. The fetus at any stage of development has the same rights and protections from being harmed by others through its’s mother’s rights, The fetus however up to 24 weeks, not being a person independent of the mother to sustain life, does not have protection from being terminated by it’s mother. 24 weeks is plenty of time for woman to choose to deliver a new human being to the universe or not. The state can have an interest after 24 weeks.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

the pic you posted is the instant of conception, not 20 weeks. post a pic of an unborn human at 20 weeks, then we can discuss what it is or is not.

Why do you need a picture? Consciousness cannot be photographed. Thalamocortical connections from the sense organs to the brain cannot be photographed,

230225^aaa > Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established.​

​

The emergence of consciousness: Science and ethics - PubMed. 230225^aaa>​

​

NFBW: If you don’t have science just admit it.

 

[Redfish]

No. The fetus at any stage of development has the same rights and protections from being harmed by others through its’s mother’s rights, The fetus however up to 24 weeks, not being a person independent of the mother to sustain life, does not have protection from being terminated by it’s mother. 24 weeks is plenty of time for woman to choose to deliver a new human being to the universe or not. The state can have an interest after 24 weeks.

thats your opinion, and that's all it is. So lets put the issue to a vote of the people in a national referendum, or state by state if you prefer. Let the people decide. Why are you libs against that?

 

[Redfish]

Why do you need a picture? Consciousness cannot be photographed. Thalamocortical connections from the sense organs to the brain cannot be photographed,

230225^aaa > Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established.​

​

The emergence of consciousness: Science and ethics - PubMed. 230225^aaa>​

​

NFBW: If you don’t have science just admit it.

there is not a consensus in the medical community on any of what you posted. It is NOT science, it is opinion or belief on both sides. So lets put the issue to a national referendum and let the majority opinion prevail. ok?

 

[Blues Man]

thats your opinion, and that's all it is. So lets put the issue to a vote of the people in a national referendum, or state by state if you prefer. Let the people decide. Why are you libs against that?

because you want a fetus to have rights that supersede the mother's rights.

 

[Redfish]

because you want a fetus to have rights that supersede the mother's rights.

wrong, I fully support abortion to save the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc. I do not support abortion as a form of birth control. There are plenty of available birth control methods that work and are very affordable.

 

[Blues Man]

wrong, I fully support abortion to save the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc. I do not support abortion as a form of birth control. There are plenty of available birth control methods that work and are very affordable.

So you want to subjugate the mother's right of ownership of her own body to a fetus.

 

[Blues Man]

Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...

www.guttmacher.org

Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

because you want a fetus to have rights that supersede the mother's rights.

Whaleshit.

There is no rights conflict whatsoever in abortion.

The kid has a right to life and should be a legal person, protected against violence by law.

The mom has no right whatsoever to kill the kid, only parental obligation to provide for their kid and refrain from abuse or neglect.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy

Fucking liar.

While it OFTEN suggests they are incompetent and failed to use their 99.9x% effective thing properly because they failed to follow basic instructions, it definitely means that they assumed that whatever percentage effectiveness was somehow magically 100%, which isn’t how statistics work.

We all know contraception fails when we do the thing that makes kids - this does not mitigate our responsibility to our kid who we chose to make by having sex in a way that makes kids.

The vile scum you refer to are absolutely using abortion as birth control and they need to be put in prison until dead. Execution would be desirable.

 

[Redfish]

So you want to subjugate the mother's right of ownership of her own body to a fetus.

idiot, read my post. I said nothing like that.

but question for you. why do you want to allow the killing of unborn human beings?

 

[Redfish]

So you want to subjugate the mother's right of ownership of her own body to a fetus.

using your "logic", the mother should be able to kill her 2 year old if she/he becomes inconvenient, right?

 

[Blues Man]

idiot, read my post. I said nothing like that.

but question for you. why do you want to allow the killing of unborn human beings?

I have no issue with abortion because I know that the vast majority of all abortions take place before week 13 and at week 13 the fetus while human is not yet a person.

 

[Blues Man]

using your "logic", the mother should be able to kill her 2 year old if she/he becomes inconvenient, right?

no that's your logic.

A 2 year old is a fully functioning autonomous being and the mother's right to do what she wishes to her own body is not subjugated to the rights of the 2 year old.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I have no issue with abortion because I know that the vast majority of all abortions take place before week 13 and at week 13 the fetus while human is not yet a person.

Arbitrary and stupid.

The abortion debate is a personhood debate, and prenatal humans at even 36-40 weeks gestational age are currently denied personhood - ie the status quo is birth personhood.

Saying “not yet a person” is utterly meaningless in the context of a debate about when personhood SHOULD start. This is why it is accurate to note that so many pro-aborts don’t even BEGIN to debate the issue before they start ranting about their beliefs.

They take the very thing being argued about off the table, sometimes without even realizing they are doing it.

 

[Redfish]

no that's your logic.

A 2 year old is a fully functioning autonomous being and the mother's right to do what she wishes to her own body is not subjugated to the rights of the 2 year old.

her rights are not subjugated by carrying her child to term either. If pregnancy is going to be problematic for you, don't get pregnant. Easy. Why is the mistake of pregnancy the only mistake you libs want to forgive?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

her rights are not subjugated by carrying her child to term either.

NFBW: What about her right to life being decided before her baby has a brain and does not know that it exists? END2302271845

 

[DudleySmith]

Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution.

It does separate churches from the Federal govt. It doesn't separate them from state govts., and it doesn't separate Christianity, a religion, from either the Federal or state govts. Churches are set up by sects, two of the Federalist factions wanted the Anglican Church as our national Church. The Evangelicals opposed that, hence the adoption of the Baptist platform into the Bill Of Rights. States, some being founded as sectarian colonies, had every right to have a state favored sect, complete with taxing powers. When you see the word 'Church', they mean sects, not 'religion' per se. They weren't very specific but then there was only one religion and they all knew what was being referred to.

They were holding Christian services in the Treasury building and the Congressional building during Thomas Jefferson's' Presidency. Isn't he the Hero of the Atheists and deviants these days for his alleged 'hatred of Christianity and religion n stuff'? Why was he attending Christian Sunday services, and on Federal property in Federal buildings? He was also funding Catholic missionaries with Federal money.

 

[Blues Man]

her rights are not subjugated by carrying her child to term either. If pregnancy is going to be problematic for you, don't get pregnant. Easy. Why is the mistake of pregnancy the only mistake you libs want to forgive?

Of course they are especially if you want to force her to carry to term.

Why do you take such pride in your 2 dimensional thinking? I have told you before I hold to no political philosophy but that of pragmatism.

I just happen to believe that a person has absolute sovereignty over his own body you don't.

 

[Redfish]

Of course they are especially if you want to force her to carry to term.

Why do you take such pride in your 2 dimensional thinking? I have told you before I hold to no political philosophy but that of pragmatism.

I just happen to believe that a person has absolute sovereignty over his own body you don't.

but you want to take that same sovereignty from unborn humans. you contradict yourself.