Bull Ring A Human Fetus is a Child; Chuz Life vs JoeB131

I'm on my phone and don't have much time. JoeB131 you seem to want to drag a lot of things into this debate / discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not not a child in the fetal stage of their life is actually a child (human being / person).

Can we please stick to that one aspect without dragging all the other shit into it?

I might even agree on some if the other sidebar things you mentioned. . . But they don't have anything at all to do with whether or not a child in the fetal stage of their life is a child.

We've been over that.

Not viable. Can't survive on it's own. size of a kidney bean.

Not a person. Not a child.

On a personal level, I think a lot of women (like that Asian chick I used to know) have abortions for stupid reasons. But you know what, a world where a woman has less rights than a kidney-bean sized blob inside of her is not one that I'd feel comfortable living in.

JoeB131 do you disagree that there is a huge difference between claiming that a child in the fetal stage of their life is not a child and claiming that they shouldn't be recognized as a child?

Those are two completely different things. Aren't they?

For example, You have not presented anything that establishes that children can not be as small as a kidney bean, that a child must be viable and able to survive on its own, to be a child, etc.

Nobody disputes the fact that a "child" in the first stages of their life is very small. Nobody denies how much a "child" in the womb is reliant upon the woman carrying it.

However, those observations do not disprove the biological fact that it is a "child."
 
JoeB131 do you disagree that there is a huge difference between claiming that a child in the fetal stage of their life is not a child and claiming that they shouldn't be recognized as a child?

Yes, I disagree with the religious nutbaggery that a fetus is a child. It's not. It's a blob of unviable tissue.

For example, You have not presented anything that establishes that children can not be as small as a kidney bean, that a child must be viable and able to survive on its own, to be a child, etc.

Well, again, if they were, you'd have to arrest any woman of child bearing age for drinking if she might even be pregnant... or smoking. Or eating shitty food. Because clearly, once you've called that blob of cells in her body a 'Child", you conveyed on it more rights than the woman it is inside, even if it got there because she was raped at knife point.

Nobody disputes the fact that a "child" in the first stages of their life is very small. Nobody denies how much a "child" in the womb is reliant upon the woman carrying it.

Again, forcing a woman to have carry a blob of cells for nine months in her body because you think it's a child is inhumane.

We'd have to treat every miscarriage (about 10% of pregnancies) as potential homicide investigations. So long, Medical Privacy! We'd have to tell women they can't work in certain industries unless they are sterilized, because that blob having birth defects outweighs her right to make a living.

Shit... might as well just cut to the chase and start issuing these.

upload_2019-2-27_4-52-57.jpeg
 
I asked

JoeB131 do you disagree that there is a huge difference between claiming that a child in the fetal stage of their life is not a child and claiming that they shouldn't be recognized as a child?

And you answered. . .


Yes, I disagree with the religious nutbaggery that a fetus is a child. It's not. It's a blob of unviable tissue.

Wtf?

Did you even bother to read the question?

Which one of these is closest to your position?

1. A "child" in the fetal stage of his or her life is NOT a "child." Period.

2. A "child" in the womb should not be recognized AS a "child," because of all the complications and problems that would create.

3. Both 1 and 2
 
Last edited:
Wtf?

Did you even bother to read the question?

Which one of these is closest to your position?

1. A "child" in the fetal stage of his or her life is NOT a "child." Period.

2. A "child" in the womb should not be recognized AS a "child," because of all the complications and problems that would create.

3. Both 1 and 2

Both 1 and 2.

For obvious reasons.
 
Wtf?

Did you even bother to read the question?

Which one of these is closest to your position?

1. A "child" in the fetal stage of his or her life is NOT a "child." Period.

2. A "child" in the womb should not be recognized AS a "child," because of all the complications and problems that would create.

3. Both 1 and 2

Both 1 and 2.

For obvious reasons.

Ok.

So, rather than to try to debate both at the same time, can we try to stay focused on your claim (#1) that a "child" in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "child?"

We can debate about whether or not they should be legally recognized as a "child" (#2) some other time, if you want.

Deal?

My first few questions for you are based upon biology.

1. Do you agree that human beings are mammals?

2. More specifically, Do you agree that human beings are "placental mammals?"
 
Ok.

So, rather than to try to debate both at the same time, can we try to stay focused on your claim (#1) that a "child" in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "child?"

We can debate about whether or not they should be legally recognized as a "child" (#2) some other time, if you want.

Guy, you can debate whatever psuedo-scientific horseshit you want about mammals or heartbeats or feeling pain or whatever.... you really can.

I heard this shit from the nuns 40 years ago, and it was just as crazy then.

fetuses aren't people because they aren't viable outside of their mother's wombs.

And as long as it's HER WOMB. It's HER CHOICE.

I don't want to live in your fucking theocracy where women are property of the state.

Reading "A Handmaid's Tale" was awful enough, I don't want to live it.
 
Ok.

So, rather than to try to debate both at the same time, can we try to stay focused on your claim (#1) that a "child" in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "child?"

We can debate about whether or not they should be legally recognized as a "child" (#2) some other time, if you want.

Guy, you can debate whatever psuedo-scientific horseshit you want about mammals or heartbeats or feeling pain or whatever.... you really can.

I heard this shit from the nuns 40 years ago, and it was just as crazy then.

fetuses aren't people because they aren't viable outside of their mother's wombs.

And as long as it's HER WOMB. It's HER CHOICE.

I don't want to live in your fucking theocracy where women are property of the state.

Reading "A Handmaid's Tale" was awful enough, I don't want to live it.

JoeB131 this doesn't have a fucking thing to do with religion.

This is BIOLOGY.

You already said that you believe it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the fetal stage of their life is actually (biologically) a "child" or not. You don't believe they should be "recognized" as such.

Now, if you want to skip the biology and go ahead and admit that a child in the fetal stage of their life is (at least) biologically, a "child?" Then just say so. . . and we can then debate about whether or not they should be legally "recognized" as such.

Quit being such a whiny bitch, trying to bring religion into a debate where it doesn't belong.
 
Last edited:
JoeB131 this doesn't have a fucking thing to do with religion.

This is BIOLOGY.

Again, guy, if you take your stupidity to it's level, we are going to need to have funerals for tampons, since 1/3 of zygotes don't attach to the uterine wall and end up there. Maybe we can include a little coffin with each one.

10% of pregnancies end in miscarriages.. Take your stupid "Fetus is a child" argument, we'd have to investigate each and every one of those as a potential homicide, making the woman prove she didn't do anything to cause it.

Hey, what would that look like? Oh, wait, here's a case where they did exactly that!

Purvi Patel - Wikipedia

Purvi Patel (born c. 1982) is an Indian American whose conviction and sentence to 20 years in prison in Indiana for feticideand child neglect was overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court pointed out that the lower court's ruling had been an "abrupt departure" from the intent of the feticide law as shown by prior usage, which consisted of cases in which a pregnant woman and her unborn child were the victims of violence. The court also said that it was not possible to claim that lawmakers had intended the feticide law to be used to prosecute women trying to abort because the state abortion laws had already since the 1800s explicitly protected pregnant women from prosecution. "The state's about-face in this proceeding is unsettling, as well as untenable" under prior court precedent, Judge Terry Crone wrote in the ruling.[1]

The court said that Patel endangered the child by not seeking medical care but that prosecutors failed to prove that her failure to do so resulted in the child's death.[2]

Patel's case had caused international controversy because the overturned conviction had opened the door for any woman who expresses doubt about her pregnancy to be charged if she miscarries or has a stillbirth.[3][4] If her conviction had not been overturned, she would have been the first woman in the United States to be charged, convicted, and sentenced on a feticidecharge.[5] Her case has also been compared to the prosecution of Bei Bei Shuai under similar circumstances.[5]
 
I ask you again.

Are human beings mammals?

Specifically, are we (human beings) placental mammals? Or not?
 
Oh, wait, here's an even worse example of what would happen if we took Chuzzy's position that fetuses are people to their logical conclusion.

The scariest thought of removing Trump is we'd be stuck with Pence.

Bei Bei Shuai - Wikipedia

Bei Bei Shuai (Chinese: 帅贝贝) is a Chinese immigrant to the United States who became the subject of international public attention from 2011 to 2013[1][2][3] when the authorities of the state of Indiana charged her with murder and attempted feticideafter her suicide attempt allegedly resulted in the death of the child she was pregnant with. The British newspaper The Guardian described Shuai's case as well as those of other women who lose their unborn babies in cases of maternal drug addiction or a suicide attempt, as part of a "creeping criminalisation of pregnancy across America".[4]

Here's an even worse one.

https://www.change.org/p/the-federa...-15-year-old-rennie-gibbs-from-life-in-prison

Rennie Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so JoeB131. . . .

Do you have anything else in the way of pejoratives, platitudes, analogies or any other information to support YOUR claim that a child in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child?

When you are finished, I would like to present My own arguments for what I have based mt own conclusions on.

Then, I would like for the mods to lock this "debate" and if you want to debate it again, We can start a new debate, on the same subject, again.

Next time, maybe we can do so in a format that is more along the lines of what the creators of the Bull Ring intended.
 
Do you have anything else in the way of pejoratives, platitudes, analogies or any other information to support YOUR claim that a child in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child?

Um, no... I've made my point pretty clear that you can't give a glob of meat more rights than the woman it is inside.. because it would be stupid, cruel and unenforceable.

Then, I would like for the mods to lock this "debate" and if you want to debate it again, We can start a new debate, on the same subject, again.

Whatever, dude. You'll continue to live in your world of religious nuttiness where globs are people that God loves, loves, loves... (except for the 10% he let's die in miscarriages, or the ones that have horrible deformities, or whatever)... and I'll live in the real world where real women deal with their real problems.
 
Do you have anything else in the way of pejoratives, platitudes, analogies or any other information to support YOUR claim that a child in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child?

Um, no... I've made my point pretty clear that you can't give a glob of meat more rights than the woman it is inside.. because it would be stupid, cruel and unenforceable.

Then, I would like for the mods to lock this "debate" and if you want to debate it again, We can start a new debate, on the same subject, again.

Whatever, dude. You'll continue to live in your world of religious nuttiness where globs are people that God loves, loves, loves... (except for the 10% he let's die in miscarriages, or the ones that have horrible deformities, or whatever)... and I'll live in the real world where real women deal with their real problems.


Great.

I will provide the evidence that I base my conclusions on and I will then ask for the mods to lock the thread.


MODS


My intention is to provide multiple sources, cites and arguments with links.

I will divide the sources and arguments into the following categories and each will be on a separate post. Please do not lock the thread before I let you know that I have completed my posts. I will try to use only three (hopefully brief) posts.

1. Semantic - Words, Definitions, Meanings, Terms
2. Biology - Science
2. Legal - Current Definitions, Arguments and Recognition
 
So did you actually want to have a discussion or did you just want to monologue?

You gave your reasons why you think globs of meat should be considered people.

I've pointed out why that would not only be a practical impossibility, but would make our society a police state most of us wouldn't care to live in.
 
So did you actually want to have a discussion or did you just want to monologue?

This is not the thread for discussions.

This is the thread for debate.

You gave your basis and I do not feel the need to discuss your arguments any further. You said that you had no further arguments or evidence to present. So, I will let your arguments stand and let the readers contrast your arguments with my own.

You gave your reasons why you think globs of meat should be considered people.

That's funny.

I have not even began to do so.

I've pointed out why that would not only be a practical impossibility, but would make our society a police state most of us wouldn't care to live in.

You have given your arguments in anticipation of my own.

I have not actually presented my arguments or sources, yet. However, I will be doing so, very soon.
 
I apologize for not keeping up with this thread / exchange. I have NOT forgot about it. I am involved in an unrelated legal matter that (for now) has to be my first priority.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top