A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[OKTexas]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

So I guess my description applies to you, too bad, so sad. Deal with it. BTW dipstick, "accusers" is a plural term and it's inappropriate to apply it to a single person. Feel free to carry on in your regressive sodomite enabling ways.

Translation: I can't refute you, so I'm going to go all Grammar Nazi on you, dipstick. Take that!!!

I know I'm doing good when extremely partisan idiots on both ends are pissed off at me.

Refute what, you didn't say anything to refute, you did nothing but express an opinion and call me names. That's how children in GRAMMAR SCHOOL act.

 

[Chuz Life]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

You're disagreeing with my not having an opinion regarding "personhood" when it comes to the clinical definitions of science and biology, but you admit this is a legal designation. I am not making any argument regarding "personhood" or when/if a human becomes a "person" because it has no place in a scientific discussion of when a human being is a human being.

We already know, through science and biology, a living human organism in state of being and existence (i.e.; a human being) happens whenever a fertilized sperm & egg cell reproduce a cell. That makes it a legitimate living organism at that point. At no other point in it's existence does it become anything other than what it is... a living human being. Everything that happens to it from that point is simply developmental. It will develop organs and a nervous system, a brain, sentience, etc.

"Personhood" is a made up word so that some people can use to push their agenda. The criteria for "personhood" is not scientific, it is philosophical. You cannot tell me what physical ingredient a fetus is missing that prevents them from being "persons". You CAN give me a host of abstract and subjective criteria like "when it develops a thought..." but if we use THAT criteria, about half the USMB message board is disqualified from being "persons" on this basis alone. So we HAVE to stick to the physical, biological and scientific terminology that we can test, observe, measure and evaluate.

Thank you for the clarification. I think we are a lot closer on this than I might have led you to believe.

The only thing I disagree with you on (it seems) is where you say that the "criteria for personhood is not scientific."

I still disagree with that.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being" and human beings are defined by scientific criteria. All other beings (likewise) can be scientifically excluded from "personhood" because they are not scientifically recognized as "human beings."

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Child
(chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl′drən)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<-----------
b. An infant; a baby.

3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.


Care to show me where it says ANYTHING about "viability" (sic?)

You get that the "dictionary" you are using is a user informed site, not unlike Wikipedia.

According to every reputable dictionary - Websters, Oxford, Cambridge - this is the only definition for child:

a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughterof any age:

No mention of fetuses. Picture that. That is because a fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Divine Wind]

Refute what, you didn't say anything to refute, you did nothing but express an opinion and call me names. That's how children in GRAMMAR SCHOOL act.

Agreed you're acting like a child, and a liar too since you're the one who threw a tantrum over a simple fucking question.

.....Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Child
(chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl′drən)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<-----------
b. An infant; a baby.

3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.


Care to show me where it says ANYTHING about "viability" (sic?)

You get that the "dictionary" you are using is a user informed site, not unlike Wikipedia.

According to every reputable dictionary - Websters, Oxford, Cambridge - this is the only definition for child:

a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughterof any age:

No mention of fetuses. Picture that. That is because a fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Get back to me when any of those trump the legal definitions under our Fetal Homicide laws.... mkay fucktard?

P.S. I find it hilarious that both the Oxford and Webster's refer to a pregnancy as being "with child."

 

[Czernobog]

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Child
(chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl′drən)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<-----------
b. An infant; a baby.

3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.


Care to show me where it says ANYTHING about "viability" (sic?)

You get that the "dictionary" you are using is a user informed site, not unlike Wikipedia.

According to every reputable dictionary - Websters, Oxford, Cambridge - this is the only definition for child:

a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughterof any age:

No mention of fetuses. Picture that. That is because a fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Get back to me when any of those trump the legal definitions under our Fetal Homicide laws.... mkay fucktard?

My. Reduced to name-calling, now? You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

According to medical professionals - you know, that science you've been insisting I'm ignoring - between the 23rd to 25th week.

I disagree. You are misusing the term "viable" and applying arbitrary meaning.

viable - capable of working successfully; feasible.

That's not the medical definition of viable, and I think you know it. Thus any opinions you arrived at from your incorrect use of the medical term viable is meaningless.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

 

[Chuz Life]

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Child
(chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl′drən)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<-----------
b. An infant; a baby.

3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.


Care to show me where it says ANYTHING about "viability" (sic?)

You get that the "dictionary" you are using is a user informed site, not unlike Wikipedia.

According to every reputable dictionary - Websters, Oxford, Cambridge - this is the only definition for child:

a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughterof any age:

No mention of fetuses. Picture that. That is because a fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Get back to me when any of those trump the legal definitions under our Fetal Homicide laws.... mkay fucktard?

My. Reduced to name-calling, now? You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I said. . . you will get more respect when you earn it.

Why do you suppose the Oford dictionary uses "with CHILD" to refer to a pregnancy? Cherry Picker?

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

It is so completely intellectually dishonest that the authoritarian moralists spew about "ignoring science" right up until it no longer supports their authoritarian positions. Then suddenly they pretend that they don't know the difference between functionally viable, and socially independent.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

 

[Czernobog]

According to medical professionals - you know, that science you've been insisting I'm ignoring - between the 23rd to 25th week.

I disagree. You are misusing the term "viable" and applying arbitrary meaning.

viable - capable of working successfully; feasible.

That's not the medical definition of viable, and I think you know it. Thus any opinions you arrived at from your incorrect use of the medical term viable is meaningless.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Except viability has nothing to do with fending for one's self, and providing one's own needs. It specifically defines the ability of a fetus' biological functions to operate without the host organism - respiration, digestion, circulation, etc. And you know this. However, this conflicts with your contention that it is synonymous with an actual infant, so you want to pretend that viability is referring to something that it is not.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

Ya know what? I reread my own post, and I apologise. I posted exactly what you said I posted.

I neglected to add an important part. We believe that it is the responsibility of all citizens, who have an income to help fund the government.

Now, I'm sure you are going to point out all of the Low income workers who "aren't paying taxes". But, actually, they are. They are filing their taxes, just like the rest of us. It's just that the government has told them, "Ya know what? After reviewing your income, we don't want tour money. You need it more than we do,".

Did that help clarify my position for you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

 

[Czernobog]

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[chikenwing]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Simple use what was on the books befor R v W.

 

[Conservative65]

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

 

[Czernobog]

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's word for word what you said.

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

I addressed that. They are fulfilling their obligation. Just because the government decided they needed that money more than the government did, that does not negate their meeting their obligation as citizens.

Incidentally, I'm now kinda curious what your annual income is. Because, speaking as one of those families under 50 grand, I can tell you that 50 grand annually isn't a great deal of money. We make 30+ (how much, specifically, is irrelevant), and we are still living paycheck to paycheck...barely.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

Nonsense... Show me one example of a newly-born infant who is capable of sustaining it's life without assistance from another human. A newborn is completely dependent on it's mother (or someone) for months or years to come.

You are applying an unreasonable expectation to a developing human being. We could simply wait until the infant is born and give them an SAT exam... if they fail, we can deem they aren't viable human beings. But you see, this would be an unreasonable expectation. In time, the organism will be able to pass SAT exams... in time, the fetus will be able to carry on functions of it's vital organs. It's all a matter of time to develop.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

Nonsense... Show me one example of a newly-born infant who is capable of sustaining it's life without assistance from another human. A newborn is completely dependent on it's mother (or someone) for months or years to come.

You are applying an unreasonable expectation to a developing human being. We could simply wait until the infant is born and give them an SAT exam... if they fail, we can deem they aren't viable human beings. But you see, this would be an unreasonable expectation. In time, the organism will be able to pass SAT exams... in time, the fetus will be able to carry on functions of it's vital organs. It's all a matter of time to develop.

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Then it is, in fact, medically surviving on its own. It is viable. You just want viability to mean something other than what it means.

Tell us, again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk