Are women's rights a distraction from "important" issues?

[Davros]

what a sad place we are in. When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living. instead they want to make sure they have that way to kill off our Society. 58million potential American citizens have been sucked out of women bodies and flushed down a drain SO FAR and counting. but that isn't enough evidently
as if these progressive/democrats give a crap about you women AND the guilt you suffer afterwards.

That would have been 58 million more jobseekers, i.e. 58 million more people without jobs today.

Women should feel ZERO guilt over a 1st trimester abortion. The entity had no consciousness, no humanity. It lacked a brain developed enough to even be capable of thought, feeling, individuality.

It's people like YOU who try to create unnecessary feelings of guilt because you have certain beliefs about your god.

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

No, fuckstain. A skin cell is not A human life. Why is it that you leftists blather about your worship of "science", and yet are so abysmally ignorant of any scientific facts?

Furthermore, a "first trimester" - I presume you mean an unborn child in the first trimester of growth - does not "look like a little human towards the end". He looks like a human all the way through, because THAT'S WHAT HUMANS LOOK LIKE AT THAT AGE. What you mean is that he looks more like an ADULT human towards the end. And an unborn child in the first trimester is chockful of humanity. He's fully human; what ELSE would he be? He was produced by two humans, and like produces like. They don't create a giraffe embryo that suddenly morphs into a human at birth.

As for functional brains, it's clear from this mess of unscientific garbage that YOU have no business touting brain function as any sort of requirement for life or value. Likewise for consciousness and thought. I'm just saying . . .

Nowhere in the definition of "human being" is there "looking like an adult and having an adult brain". Ditto the definition of life.

As always the dumb ass joke that I have no brain. Twice already in this thread. By stringing together words, I prove that I am capable of thought and awareness. A first trimester fetus is not capable of either.

All of being a human being, what distinguishes us from animals, is our brain function. Now, some birth defects cause less well developed brains, but once the brain is capable of thought and awareness, it is a human being. Even the most severely handicapped human brains are capable of creating thoughts and emotions lower animals are not capable of. A first trimester fetus in contrast has no mental ability whatsoever, and hence none of the fundamental brain function necessary to be considered a human being.

That is science. You in contrast engage in nothing but emotionally charged gobbly gook and nonsense that completely disregards the scientific fact that humanity is differentiated from non humanity by our brains and hence your argument stands null and void.

 

[Chuz Life]

Really?

So, If someone found a way to connect your body to theirs in such a way that you will DIE if the connection is broken before the period of nine months. . . and they did this against your will or while you were completely unaware of what they were doing. . .

Would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

A right for government to force the person to do that? No, I wouldn't

So, if they did connect your body in that way and they then changed their mind, cut the connection and you died. . .

Should they be charged with anything?

OK, so they intentionally connected the body? Then that would be a crime. What does it have to do with abortion then?

You said that You would not have the right to the use of someone elses body. . . whether the connection was a crime or not. . . I believe that you would have a right to that connection.

Do you still disagree?

I got confused over the question, let me back up.

Intentionally connecting me to be dependent on them would be a crime whether they disconnected me or not, and it would be a more serious crime if they disconnected me, that would be murder.

If they did not connect me, just somehow we were connected, then they are not legally bound to maintain the connection, government cannot force them to do it.

Note either of those are my opinion of what the person should do, they are directly what the government's role in it is.

You are still dodging the point AND my question.

If your were connected to another's body in a CRIMINAL act. . .
and you would DIE if that connection was broken. . . Would you or would you not have the right to maintain that connection?

Could it not be argued objectively or by proxy that you do?

You have danced around the answer already, by acknowledging the fact that the criminal would be charged with an even more serious crime - if they broke the connection and you died.

So, why can't you draw the logical conclusion from that?

 

[kaz]

The abortion fight isn't over, so we have to keep it in our sights, but overall women's issues in this country aren't a primary concern. I saw the entirety of Kasich's response to the college student asking how to stay safe on campus. He was on point, and that last bit of fatherly advice is being unfairly twisted to seem unfair to women, imo.

Clearly he was blaming women for being attacked.

So when you go to Harlem, you carry your wallet in plain view. If you don't do that and you get robbed, it was your fault

Personally, I skip right to the "don't go to Harlem" part of self-preservation.

Columbia / Barnard are on the border. Going from Manhattan to Yankee Stadium on the subway you have to go through Harlem. But generally, that's my strategy too.

Though clearly getting robbed now according to the blow hard Clayton is your fault. You tried to avoid it. The blame now if it happens is on you.

You gotta wonder how someone that empty headed can be so full of himself

I actually just don't go into New York City at all, and that seems to cover it. Even when I was truck driving, I always met up with a local trucker out in the 'burbs and handed off to him.

I love New York. Lived in the City, upstate (White Plains) and Fairfield County many years. My kids love North Carolina now too, but they still ask to go back. Not just to see old friends, but just to be in the City. They still love it.

Unlike the morons like Deanie Baby and the blow hard Clayton, I don't do stupid things. Sure, if I'm stupid and get mugged, that's the muggers fault. But I'm not interested in establishing it was their fault, I don't want to be a victim at all. Dean is stupid as shit.

Don't avoid getting drunk and going to a party! If you avoid that, it's YOUR FAULT! (hysterical shrieking and running around in circles grabbing his head like his hair is on fire

 

[kaz]

A right for government to force the person to do that? No, I wouldn't

So, if they did connect your body in that way and they then changed their mind, cut the connection and you died. . .

Should they be charged with anything?

OK, so they intentionally connected the body? Then that would be a crime. What does it have to do with abortion then?

You said that You would not have the right to the use of someone elses body. . . whether the connection was a crime or not. . . I believe that you would have a right to that connection.

Do you still disagree?

I got confused over the question, let me back up.

Intentionally connecting me to be dependent on them would be a crime whether they disconnected me or not, and it would be a more serious crime if they disconnected me, that would be murder.

If they did not connect me, just somehow we were connected, then they are not legally bound to maintain the connection, government cannot force them to do it.

Note either of those are my opinion of what the person should do, they are directly what the government's role in it is.

You are still dodging the point AND my question.

If your were connected to another's body in a CRIMINAL act. . .
and you would DIE if that connection was broken. . . Would you or would you not have the right to maintain that connection?

Could it not be argued objectively or by proxy that you do?

You have danced around the answer already, by acknowledging the fact that the criminal would be charged with an even more serious crime - if they broke the connection and you died.

So, why can't you draw the logical conclusion from that?

Actually I said I got confused as to which part was the question. I already said in that scenario, connecting me was a crime.

What does that have to do with abortion? Are you saying having sex is a crime?

 

[Davros]

No one has a right to someone else's body [/discussion]

Really?

So, If someone found a way to connect your body to theirs in such a way that you will DIE if the connection is broken before the period of nine months. . . and they did this against your will or while you were completely unaware of what they were doing. . .

Would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

A right for government to force the person to do that? No, I wouldn't

So, if they did connect your body in that way and

None of that is science. It is your emotional reaction based on your religious beliefs. What is INSANE is your view that a fertilized zygote, a single cell, is a human being worthy of legal protection.

Our existing laws against Fetal Homicide are all I need as proof that you are wrong about that.

For one, I am NOT religious. I don't need (nor use) religion or God to know what the legal, biological and Constitutional arguments are against abortion.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws already define children in the womb as Human Beings - in ANY stage of their life and development.

Your denials and mischaractizations are not going to change that fact.

Like hell you aren't religious.

Fetal homicide laws that protect a fetus at any stage of development are misguided and have nothing to do with science.

Science states that the brain of a 1st trimester fetus is undeveloped, and it is capable of thought and awareness. Thought and awareness of being are necessary components of humanity. A corpse cannot be murdered despite the fact that it still looks like a human being.

If I have to see you in hell to prove to you that I am not religious.. . LOL!

So be it.

That's how NON-Religious I am.

You have completely dodged the biological fact that Human Beings do not reproduce via metamorphosis. We do not have sex and use our haploid gametes cells to create NON human organisms that only later become something that YOU can no longer deny as a human being.

Biological parenthood begins at conception. That';s the moment your biological father and mother became your biological parents and it is the moment that you (as a human biological organism) began to age.

Those and other biological facts are the reason that the opponents to our fetal homicide laws were not able to block the laws or to have them overturned.

You're not religious. Yeah, right.

Fetal homicide laws that protect the fetus at any stage of development were voted in by religious loons whose goal is the banning of abortion and all post conception birth control. Defining a lump of cells with no brain as a person or human being is ludicrous beyond belief. Religious right dominated states will vote in favor of such laws, but the moment they start encroaching on womens' rights, the courts will get involved.

You can believe anything you want to about my religious views.

I frankly don't give a fuck because it isn't about ME and it's not about YOU.

I just hope readers will scroll back and see how it is YOU that is the one dodging the biological points that I raised.

A human organism is not a human being during fetal development until it has developed brain function that can be identified as human brain function - thought, emotion, awareness. Every argument that something is a human being or a person has everything to do with that something's will, desire, thought, consciousness ... and nothing to do with whether it has parents or DNA. That is what my loyal readers will see that you have completely disregarded and ignored.

You cannot make a single argument that proves the humanity of a first trimester fetus in the same way that appeals to humanity are made in every other context. "How would you like it if ...." does not apply because the first trimester fetus has ZERO ability to "like" or "feel" anything. It is not a person. It is not a human being. No argument can disprove that because it is 100% true.

 

[RandallFlagg]

What rights don't women have?

BINGO!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

It's just like the Bullshit that is being screamed by women now - (Hillary) that "women don't receive equal pay" it's BULLSHIT. Men work (on average 12 to 18 hours MORE per week) than women do. Obviously , men make more money. Now, these clowns are demanding paid maternity leave. It's just another bullshit socialist tactic and nothing more.

 

[Davros]

That would have been 58 million more jobseekers, i.e. 58 million more people without jobs today.

Women should feel ZERO guilt over a 1st trimester abortion. The entity had no consciousness, no humanity. It lacked a brain developed enough to even be capable of thought, feeling, individuality.

It's people like YOU who try to create unnecessary feelings of guilt because you have certain beliefs about your god.

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

Of course it's human life. The DNA has already been set on the x and y. That interaction between the sperm and egg locks in the specific instruction for human life. There is no denying this.

Where did I deny that? I deny that it is a human being during first trimester. My belief is it becomes a human being sometime in the 2nd trimester based on the brain developing the capability of thought and awareness.

Your belief? If we want to know about your religion, we'll ask. This is science, Bubba. Facts don't require "belief". They just are.

The moment the fetus becomes a human being is not known, nor is it precisely knowable. For human being is a defined term, and that exact definition can only be made in terms of belief. The science is clear that it must have something to do with brain function, for a human being or person must have thoughts and awareness of some sort. The science is clear that a first trimester fetus is incapable of any of that, and is not a human being. But when exactly it happens in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is still a matter of belief, and I err on the side of caution, to the earliest it might be, which to my limited scientific knowledge on the subject is somewhere early in the 2nd trimester, when clear reflexive actions requiring cranial function begin.

 

[Davros]

what a sad place we are in. When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living. instead they want to make sure they have that way to kill off our Society. 58million potential American citizens have been sucked out of women bodies and flushed down a drain SO FAR and counting. but that isn't enough evidently
as if these progressive/democrats give a crap about you women AND the guilt you suffer afterwards.

That would have been 58 million more jobseekers, i.e. 58 million more people without jobs today.

Women should feel ZERO guilt over a 1st trimester abortion. The entity had no consciousness, no humanity. It lacked a brain developed enough to even be capable of thought, feeling, individuality.

It's people like YOU who try to create unnecessary feelings of guilt because you have certain beliefs about your god.

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

"Entity" always sounds like it was some glowing, gaseous alien life form the Starship Enterprise encountered in space.

I purposely used the word to express that it is not a human being at that stage of development. Perhaps fetus or embryo is a better choice of language.

Perhaps a better choice would be to stop trying to impose artificial and nonsensical parameters that ignore science.

"Fetus" and "embryo" do not express a lack of humanity, Noah Webster. Learn the meanings of words.

That's why I used the term entity originally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what a sad place we are in. When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living. instead they want to make sure they have that way to kill off our Society. 58million potential American citizens have been sucked out of women bodies and flushed down a drain SO FAR and counting. but that isn't enough evidently
as if these progressive/democrats give a crap about you women AND the guilt you suffer afterwards.

That would have been 58 million more jobseekers, i.e. 58 million more people without jobs today.

Women should feel ZERO guilt over a 1st trimester abortion. The entity had no consciousness, no humanity. It lacked a brain developed enough to even be capable of thought, feeling, individuality.

It's people like YOU who try to create unnecessary feelings of guilt because you have certain beliefs about your god.

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

No, fuckstain. A skin cell is not A human life. Why is it that you leftists blather about your worship of "science", and yet are so abysmally ignorant of any scientific facts?

Furthermore, a "first trimester" - I presume you mean an unborn child in the first trimester of growth - does not "look like a little human towards the end". He looks like a human all the way through, because THAT'S WHAT HUMANS LOOK LIKE AT THAT AGE. What you mean is that he looks more like an ADULT human towards the end. And an unborn child in the first trimester is chockful of humanity. He's fully human; what ELSE would he be? He was produced by two humans, and like produces like. They don't create a giraffe embryo that suddenly morphs into a human at birth.

As for functional brains, it's clear from this mess of unscientific garbage that YOU have no business touting brain function as any sort of requirement for life or value. Likewise for consciousness and thought. I'm just saying . . .

Nowhere in the definition of "human being" is there "looking like an adult and having an adult brain". Ditto the definition of life.

As always the dumb ass joke that I have no brain. Twice already in this thread. By stringing together words, I prove that I am capable of thought and awareness. A first trimester fetus is not capable of either.

All of being a human being, what distinguishes us from animals, is our brain function. Now, some birth defects cause less well developed brains, but once the brain is capable of thought and awareness, it is a human being. Even the most severely handicapped human brains are capable of creating thoughts and emotions lower animals are not capable of. A first trimester fetus in contrast has no mental ability whatsoever, and hence none of the fundamental brain function necessary to be considered a human being.

That is svience. You in contrast engage in nothing but emotionally charged gobbly gook and nonsense that completely disregards the scientific fact that humanity is differentiated from non humanity by our brains and hence your argument stands null and void.

It's not a joke, Sparky. I'm completely serious that my first-grader could present a better-reasoned, more scientific argument than you are. I'm also completely serious, behind the dripping sarcasm, that a system of valuing human beings only if they meet trumped-up, self-serving, arbitrary criteria is a slippery slope you do NOT want to start down.

And frankly, given the utter lack of relation your words have to fact, I'd be inclined to challenge the notion that they prove any capability of thought. Parrots can be taught to form words, too.

But leaving that aside for the moment, you keep prattling on about "fetuses aren't human because they can't act like adults". Adulthood is not a requirement for membership in a species, nor is it a requirement for being alive. Newborn infants can't speak or cogitate, either. You keep pulling these goalposts out of your butt and being completely oblivious to how they apply to many more phases of human existence than just fetal development.

There are many things that distinguish us from OTHER animals aside from our brain function (and other animals possess brains as well, of varying levels of cognitive power). Your belief that humanity magically appears upon acquisition of a specific level of IQ (although it can, apparently, generously be conveyed by society upon those who don't achieve that level due to handicaps, perhaps by use of a magic wand) is not science; it's just a mess of half-formed excuses to justify your selfishness.

I, on the other hand, have not said anything that is emotional and unscientific. Everything I have said is verifiable from scientific sources, and never once employs the word "belief". Humanity IS differentiated from non-humanity, but none of that has anything to do with differentiating stages of development, and it is not determined by our having brains. Humanity does not arise from non-humanity, and hence your "argument" is no argument at all, let alone nullifying and voiding anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

Of course it's human life. The DNA has already been set on the x and y. That interaction between the sperm and egg locks in the specific instruction for human life. There is no denying this.

Where did I deny that? I deny that it is a human being during first trimester. My belief is it becomes a human being sometime in the 2nd trimester based on the brain developing the capability of thought and awareness.

Your belief? If we want to know about your religion, we'll ask. This is science, Bubba. Facts don't require "belief". They just are.

The moment the fetus becomes a human being is not known, nor is it precisely knowable. For human being is a defined term, and that exact definition can only be made in terms of belief. The science is clear that it must have something to do with brain function, for a human being or person must have thoughts and awareness of some sort. The science is clear that a first trimester fetus is incapable of any of that, and is not a human being. But when exactly it happens in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is still a matter of belief, and I err on the side of caution, to the earliest it might be, which to my limited scientific knowledge on the subject is somewhere early in the 2nd trimester, when clear reflexive actions requiring cranial function begin.

Wrong. The moment is clearly knowable, and it is when the embryo comes into existence. Human being IS a defined term, and unborn children meet the definition. And no, definitions - like science - are not matters of belief. They're objective, not subjective, particularly when it comes to scientific terms. There is no "clear science" that humanity has anything to do with higher brain functions; that's your opinion. A coma patient does not stop being a human being and become some other species. What the science IS clear on is that life is a series of stages of developments, and an organism (which I think is the word you're flailing around for with all this "entity" crap) does not miraculously morph from one species to another upon achieving a specific stage.

You know how you can tell that your gasbagging isn't science? Science doesn't torture itself that way to find justifications. It just is.

You're right about one thing, though: your scientific knowledge is seriously limited.

 

[Davros]

That would have been 58 million more jobseekers, i.e. 58 million more people without jobs today.

Women should feel ZERO guilt over a 1st trimester abortion. The entity had no consciousness, no humanity. It lacked a brain developed enough to even be capable of thought, feeling, individuality.

It's people like YOU who try to create unnecessary feelings of guilt because you have certain beliefs about your god.

It wasn't an entity. It was a human life.

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

No, fuckstain. A skin cell is not A human life. Why is it that you leftists blather about your worship of "science", and yet are so abysmally ignorant of any scientific facts?

Furthermore, a "first trimester" - I presume you mean an unborn child in the first trimester of growth - does not "look like a little human towards the end". He looks like a human all the way through, because THAT'S WHAT HUMANS LOOK LIKE AT THAT AGE. What you mean is that he looks more like an ADULT human towards the end. And an unborn child in the first trimester is chockful of humanity. He's fully human; what ELSE would he be? He was produced by two humans, and like produces like. They don't create a giraffe embryo that suddenly morphs into a human at birth.

As for functional brains, it's clear from this mess of unscientific garbage that YOU have no business touting brain function as any sort of requirement for life or value. Likewise for consciousness and thought. I'm just saying . . .

Nowhere in the definition of "human being" is there "looking like an adult and having an adult brain". Ditto the definition of life.

As always the dumb ass joke that I have no brain. Twice already in this thread. By stringing together words, I prove that I am capable of thought and awareness. A first trimester fetus is not capable of either.

All of being a human being, what distinguishes us from animals, is our brain function. Now, some birth defects cause less well developed brains, but once the brain is capable of thought and awareness, it is a human being. Even the most severely handicapped human brains are capable of creating thoughts and emotions lower animals are not capable of. A first trimester fetus in contrast has no mental ability whatsoever, and hence none of the fundamental brain function necessary to be considered a human being.

That is svience. You in contrast engage in nothing but emotionally charged gobbly gook and nonsense that completely disregards the scientific fact that humanity is differentiated from non humanity by our brains and hence your argument stands null and void.

It's not a joke, Sparky. I'm completely serious that my first-grader could present a better-reasoned, more scientific argument than you are. I'm also completely serious, behind the dripping sarcasm, that a system of valuing human beings only if they meet trumped-up, self-serving, arbitrary criteria is a slippery slope you do NOT want to start down.

And frankly, given the utter lack of relation your words have to fact, I'd be inclined to challenge the notion that they prove any capability of thought. Parrots can be taught to form words, too.

But leaving that aside for the moment, you keep prattling on about "fetuses aren't human because they can't act like adults". Adulthood is not a requirement for membership in a species, nor is it a requirement for being alive. Newborn infants can't speak or cogitate, either. You keep pulling these goalposts out of your butt and being completely oblivious to how they apply to many more phases of human existence than just fetal development.

There are many things that distinguish us from OTHER animals aside from our brain function (and other animals possess brains as well, of varying levels of cognitive power). Your belief that humanity magically appears upon acquisition of a specific level of IQ (although it can, apparently, generously be conveyed by society upon those who don't achieve that level due to handicaps, perhaps by use of a magic wand) is not science; it's just a mess of half-formed excuses to justify your selfishness.

I, on the other hand, have not said anything that is emotional and unscientific. Everything I have said is verifiable from scientific sources, and never once employs the word "belief". Humanity IS differentiated from non-humanity, but none of that has anything to do with differentiating stages of development, and it is not determined by our having brains. Humanity does not arise from non-humanity, and hence your "argument" is no argument at all, let alone nullifying and voiding anything.

There is only one goalpost, it does not move, and it is not arbitrary. To be a human being, one must be capable of thought, awareness, feeling, mental capacity of some kind. I think, therefore I am.

There is no IQ threshold, there is no slippery slope. To be a human being, it must be human life, and it must be capable of the brain function necessary for thought, awareness, i.e. Descartes definition of "I am". i.e. being.

See, genius. Human being has two parts.

1) human
Yes, you all have that covered
2) being
This is the crucial part that you and you ilk seem incapable of understanding.

So, no, we're not going to be executing downs syndrome children, so relax, "sparky".

Now ... on to the science. The brain is incapable of thought until the pieces are together. It needs a thalamo-cortical complex according to this article, which develops in week 24
When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

However, I'm willing to err more on the side of caution, and require something less sophisticated than proven "consciousness". Even being more conservative, the first trimester is not when reflex actions demonstrating higher cranial function begin. That would be second trimester
What can science add to the abortion debate?

There is science. Logical and dispassionate, whereas you are only capable of arguing emotionally. This renders your argument null and void, nothing I've said does.

 

[Davros]

Human life but not a human being. A skin cell is human life. There should be no guilt about destroying either.

A first trimester looks like a little human towards the end, but inside there is no humanity. There is not a functional brain beyond involuntary functionality as all the pieces of the brain have not come together in the right place yet. There is no possibility of consciousness or thought, therefore it is not a human being, it is an entity that can be destroyed without guilt.

Of course it's human life. The DNA has already been set on the x and y. That interaction between the sperm and egg locks in the specific instruction for human life. There is no denying this.

Where did I deny that? I deny that it is a human being during first trimester. My belief is it becomes a human being sometime in the 2nd trimester based on the brain developing the capability of thought and awareness.

Your belief? If we want to know about your religion, we'll ask. This is science, Bubba. Facts don't require "belief". They just are.

The moment the fetus becomes a human being is not known, nor is it precisely knowable. For human being is a defined term, and that exact definition can only be made in terms of belief. The science is clear that it must have something to do with brain function, for a human being or person must have thoughts and awareness of some sort. The science is clear that a first trimester fetus is incapable of any of that, and is not a human being. But when exactly it happens in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is still a matter of belief, and I err on the side of caution, to the earliest it might be, which to my limited scientific knowledge on the subject is somewhere early in the 2nd trimester, when clear reflexive actions requiring cranial function begin.

Wrong. The moment is clearly knowable, and it is when the embryo comes into existence. Human being IS a defined term, and unborn children meet the definition. And no, definitions - like science - are not matters of belief. They're objective, not subjective, particularly when it comes to scientific terms. There is no "clear science" that humanity has anything to do with higher brain functions; that's your opinion. A coma patient does not stop being a human being and become some other species. What the science IS clear on is that life is a series of stages of developments, and an organism (which I think is the word you're flailing around for with all this "entity" crap) does not miraculously morph from one species to another upon achieving a specific stage.

You know how you can tell that your gasbagging isn't science? Science doesn't torture itself that way to find justifications. It just is.

You're right about one thing, though: your scientific knowledge is seriously limited.

People in comas still have brain function, still are capable of thought and awareness, still capable of "I am". Otherwise, they are brain dead i.e. dead i.e. scientifically no longer a human being.

See how your so-called scientific argument falls flat? It is not science, it is raw emotion and beating up straw men.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, if they did connect your body in that way and they then changed their mind, cut the connection and you died. . .

Should they be charged with anything?

OK, so they intentionally connected the body? Then that would be a crime. What does it have to do with abortion then?

You said that You would not have the right to the use of someone elses body. . . whether the connection was a crime or not. . . I believe that you would have a right to that connection.

Do you still disagree?

I got confused over the question, let me back up.

Intentionally connecting me to be dependent on them would be a crime whether they disconnected me or not, and it would be a more serious crime if they disconnected me, that would be murder.

If they did not connect me, just somehow we were connected, then they are not legally bound to maintain the connection, government cannot force them to do it.

Note either of those are my opinion of what the person should do, they are directly what the government's role in it is.

You are still dodging the point AND my question.

If your were connected to another's body in a CRIMINAL act. . .
and you would DIE if that connection was broken. . . Would you or would you not have the right to maintain that connection?

Could it not be argued objectively or by proxy that you do?

You have danced around the answer already, by acknowledging the fact that the criminal would be charged with an even more serious crime - if they broke the connection and you died.

So, why can't you draw the logical conclusion from that?

Actually I said I got confused as to which part was the question. I already said in that scenario, connecting me was a crime.

What does that have to do with abortion? Are you saying having sex is a crime?

NO!

Listen / READ closely.

YOU said that NO-ONE has the right to the use another person's body.

I gave you a HYPOTHETICAL situation where YOU somehow become connected to the body of another person and you will DIE if they break that connection.

NOW FOCUS. . . . in that situation, you would either have a right to remain connected to that other person's body or you would not have that right.

You have already said that if they break that connection and you DIE as a result. . . they could face serious criminal charges.

Now the onus is on YOU to explain how or why that does not TRANSLATE logically as a RIGHT that you would have had to remain connected to their body.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clearly he was blaming women for being attacked.

So when you go to Harlem, you carry your wallet in plain view. If you don't do that and you get robbed, it was your fault

Personally, I skip right to the "don't go to Harlem" part of self-preservation.

Columbia / Barnard are on the border. Going from Manhattan to Yankee Stadium on the subway you have to go through Harlem. But generally, that's my strategy too.

Though clearly getting robbed now according to the blow hard Clayton is your fault. You tried to avoid it. The blame now if it happens is on you.

You gotta wonder how someone that empty headed can be so full of himself

I actually just don't go into New York City at all, and that seems to cover it. Even when I was truck driving, I always met up with a local trucker out in the 'burbs and handed off to him.

I love New York. Lived in the City, upstate (White Plains) and Fairfield County many years. My kids love North Carolina now too, but they still ask to go back. Not just to see old friends, but just to be in the City. They still love it.

Unlike the morons like Deanie Baby and the blow hard Clayton, I don't do stupid things. Sure, if I'm stupid and get mugged, that's the muggers fault. But I'm not interested in establishing it was their fault, I don't want to be a victim at all. Dean is stupid as shit.

Don't avoid getting drunk and going to a party! If you avoid that, it's YOUR FAULT! (hysterical shrieking and running around in circles grabbing his head like his hair is on fire

I once had to do a run down the east coast from upstate New York to Florida. I didn't see a single person smile at me the whole trip until I hit Virginia. True story.

I frankly don't like going much past the Mississippi as a general rule. I may someday take my family on a vacation to NYC for the sightseeing, but to me it's an intensified version of having to go to Los Angeles to get to Disneyland.

 

[Anathema]

In proper society don't have Rights. They exist to assist/support Men, as they were always intended to.

So YES, wasting time talking about women's rights DOES take away from actually important discussions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Really?

So, If someone found a way to connect your body to theirs in such a way that you will DIE if the connection is broken before the period of nine months. . . and they did this against your will or while you were completely unaware of what they were doing. . .

Would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

A right for government to force the person to do that? No, I wouldn't

So, if they did connect your body in that way and

Our existing laws against Fetal Homicide are all I need as proof that you are wrong about that.

For one, I am NOT religious. I don't need (nor use) religion or God to know what the legal, biological and Constitutional arguments are against abortion.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws already define children in the womb as Human Beings - in ANY stage of their life and development.

Your denials and mischaractizations are not going to change that fact.

Like hell you aren't religious.

Fetal homicide laws that protect a fetus at any stage of development are misguided and have nothing to do with science.

Science states that the brain of a 1st trimester fetus is undeveloped, and it is capable of thought and awareness. Thought and awareness of being are necessary components of humanity. A corpse cannot be murdered despite the fact that it still looks like a human being.

If I have to see you in hell to prove to you that I am not religious.. . LOL!

So be it.

That's how NON-Religious I am.

You have completely dodged the biological fact that Human Beings do not reproduce via metamorphosis. We do not have sex and use our haploid gametes cells to create NON human organisms that only later become something that YOU can no longer deny as a human being.

Biological parenthood begins at conception. That';s the moment your biological father and mother became your biological parents and it is the moment that you (as a human biological organism) began to age.

Those and other biological facts are the reason that the opponents to our fetal homicide laws were not able to block the laws or to have them overturned.

You're not religious. Yeah, right.

Fetal homicide laws that protect the fetus at any stage of development were voted in by religious loons whose goal is the banning of abortion and all post conception birth control. Defining a lump of cells with no brain as a person or human being is ludicrous beyond belief. Religious right dominated states will vote in favor of such laws, but the moment they start encroaching on womens' rights, the courts will get involved.

You can believe anything you want to about my religious views.

I frankly don't give a fuck because it isn't about ME and it's not about YOU.

I just hope readers will scroll back and see how it is YOU that is the one dodging the biological points that I raised.

CAUTION UNSUPPORTED BULLSHIT CLAIMS BELOW.

"A human organism is not a human being during fetal development until it has developed brain function that can be identified as human brain function - thought, emotion, awareness."

That bullshit claim has been refuted not only by our fetal homicide laws but also by past supreme court rulings that fall in FAVOR of the Constitutional rights of children born with no frontal lobes to their brains at all. Children with no capacity for thought, emotion, awareness or even a prognosis that their condition will ever improve.

". . . all persons are born with certain inalienable rights and a set of legal protections that accompany them. To deny those protections to even the least among us would compromise the moral basis of our system for a utilitarian purpose. Even with the purest motives and the best of intentions, we cannot allow that to happen." - LIFE, DEATH AND THE LAW: SHOULD THE ANENCEPHALIC NEWBORN BE CONSIDERED A SOURCE FOR ORGAN DONATION?

Every argument that something is a human being or a person has everything to do with that something's will, desire, thought, consciousness ... and nothing to do with whether it has parents or DNA. That is what my loyal readers will see that you have completely disregarded and ignored.

Your 'readers' then need to educate themselves on case laws that deal with "persons" in comas or who are otherwise incapable of thoughts and awareness in any capacity that approximates your claims.

If your claims that awareness is required for personhood have any validity at all, then the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the others who OPPOSED our Fetal Homicide laws would have had no problem at all in blocking those laws or with overturning those laws on Constitutional Review.

Guess what, homey.

They tried to block them and overturn them and they LOST.

You cannot make a single argument that proves the humanity of a first trimester fetus in the same way that appeals to humanity are made in every other context.

Perhaps I could and perhaps not. But that is because my arguments are not based upon emotive notions like "humanity." My arguments are based upon existing legal definitions which do NOT require "awareness" for personhood. My arguments are based upon the biological facts that prove an individual's life begins at conception. My arguments are based up the need for our laws to be consistent and my Laws are based on the principles of the Constitution that states that all "persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

YOUR arguments are only based on the DENIAL of the fact that any of the above applies to a human being who is in the first days of their life, growth and development.

YOUR denials have been and will continue to be defeated.

"How would you like it if ...." does not apply because the first trimester fetus has ZERO ability to "like" or "feel" anything. It is not a person. It is not a human being. No argument can disprove that because it is 100% true.

Denial.

It's the drug of CHOICE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really?

So, If someone found a way to connect your body to theirs in such a way that you will DIE if the connection is broken before the period of nine months. . . and they did this against your will or while you were completely unaware of what they were doing. . .

Would you NOT have a right to maintain that connection?

A right for government to force the person to do that? No, I wouldn't

So, if they did connect your body in that way and

Our existing laws against Fetal Homicide are all I need as proof that you are wrong about that.

For one, I am NOT religious. I don't need (nor use) religion or God to know what the legal, biological and Constitutional arguments are against abortion.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws already define children in the womb as Human Beings - in ANY stage of their life and development.

Your denials and mischaractizations are not going to change that fact.

Like hell you aren't religious.

Fetal homicide laws that protect a fetus at any stage of development are misguided and have nothing to do with science.

Science states that the brain of a 1st trimester fetus is undeveloped, and it is capable of thought and awareness. Thought and awareness of being are necessary components of humanity. A corpse cannot be murdered despite the fact that it still looks like a human being.

If I have to see you in hell to prove to you that I am not religious.. . LOL!

So be it.

That's how NON-Religious I am.

You have completely dodged the biological fact that Human Beings do not reproduce via metamorphosis. We do not have sex and use our haploid gametes cells to create NON human organisms that only later become something that YOU can no longer deny as a human being.

Biological parenthood begins at conception. That';s the moment your biological father and mother became your biological parents and it is the moment that you (as a human biological organism) began to age.

Those and other biological facts are the reason that the opponents to our fetal homicide laws were not able to block the laws or to have them overturned.

You're not religious. Yeah, right.

Fetal homicide laws that protect the fetus at any stage of development were voted in by religious loons whose goal is the banning of abortion and all post conception birth control. Defining a lump of cells with no brain as a person or human being is ludicrous beyond belief. Religious right dominated states will vote in favor of such laws, but the moment they start encroaching on womens' rights, the courts will get involved.

You can believe anything you want to about my religious views.

I frankly don't give a fuck because it isn't about ME and it's not about YOU.

I just hope readers will scroll back and see how it is YOU that is the one dodging the biological points that I raised.

A human organism is not a human being during fetal development until it has developed brain function that can be identified as human brain function - thought, emotion, awareness. Every argument that something is a human being or a person has everything to do with that something's will, desire, thought, consciousness ... and nothing to do with whether it has parents or DNA. That is what my loyal readers will see that you have completely disregarded and ignored.

You cannot make a single argument that proves the humanity of a first trimester fetus in the same way that appeals to humanity are made in every other context. "How would you like it if ...." does not apply because the first trimester fetus has ZERO ability to "like" or "feel" anything. It is not a person. It is not a human being. No argument can disprove that because it is 100% true.

Again, all you're doing is stating your unscientific opinion as fact. You believe that XYZ arbitrarily-chosen level of cogitation constitutes humanity. It doesn't, and there's not one shred of scientific evidence to support that assertion. This is not Neverland, and wishing doesn't make things so.

Not "every argument" has to do with will, desire, thought, and consciousness. YOUR arguments involve those, because that allows you to feel justified in doing exactly as you please while still fooling yourself that you're a good person. The scientific arguments involve things such as metabolism, growth, reaction, adaptation (aka biological signs of life), organism differentiation, species differentiation . . . you know, SCIENCE. That is what MY loyal readers will see you were never educated on.

I can make the exact same arguments proving the humanity of an unborn child at any stage of development you would like as I can with an adult, because THEY ARE THE SAME ORGANISM, just at different ages. Can I make it in a way that will allow you to "feelz" that unborn children are human when you're determined to rationalize your desire to kill them? No, but then, science doesn't care about "feelz". Your example does not constitute proof of anything except that you're biologically illiterate, and your high school should be sued for graduating you.

Let me ask you something, in your rush to discard "mere" scientific facts like genetics in favor of imposing philosophical opinion onto biology: If the cops go into a house and find blood splattered all over the walls and floor, how does the forensics team determine whether the blood is human or from, say, a dog or cat or some other mammal? That's right: they do DNA testing. It's almost like DNA and genetics have some scientific connection with humanity, or something.

 

[Harry Dresden]

what a sad place we are in. When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living. instead they want to make sure they have that way to kill off our Society. 58million potential American citizens have been sucked out of women bodies and flushed down a drain SO FAR and counting. but that isn't enough evidently
as if these progressive/democrats give a crap about you women AND the guilt you suffer afterwards.

When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living
would not most people be concerned about their kids being killed over these other things?....just asking...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course it's human life. The DNA has already been set on the x and y. That interaction between the sperm and egg locks in the specific instruction for human life. There is no denying this.

Where did I deny that? I deny that it is a human being during first trimester. My belief is it becomes a human being sometime in the 2nd trimester based on the brain developing the capability of thought and awareness.

Your belief? If we want to know about your religion, we'll ask. This is science, Bubba. Facts don't require "belief". They just are.

The moment the fetus becomes a human being is not known, nor is it precisely knowable. For human being is a defined term, and that exact definition can only be made in terms of belief. The science is clear that it must have something to do with brain function, for a human being or person must have thoughts and awareness of some sort. The science is clear that a first trimester fetus is incapable of any of that, and is not a human being. But when exactly it happens in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is still a matter of belief, and I err on the side of caution, to the earliest it might be, which to my limited scientific knowledge on the subject is somewhere early in the 2nd trimester, when clear reflexive actions requiring cranial function begin.

Wrong. The moment is clearly knowable, and it is when the embryo comes into existence. Human being IS a defined term, and unborn children meet the definition. And no, definitions - like science - are not matters of belief. They're objective, not subjective, particularly when it comes to scientific terms. There is no "clear science" that humanity has anything to do with higher brain functions; that's your opinion. A coma patient does not stop being a human being and become some other species. What the science IS clear on is that life is a series of stages of developments, and an organism (which I think is the word you're flailing around for with all this "entity" crap) does not miraculously morph from one species to another upon achieving a specific stage.

You know how you can tell that your gasbagging isn't science? Science doesn't torture itself that way to find justifications. It just is.

You're right about one thing, though: your scientific knowledge is seriously limited.

People in comas still have brain function, still are capable of thought and awareness, still capable of "I am". Otherwise, they are brain dead i.e. dead i.e. scientifically no longer a human being.

See how your so-called scientific argument falls flat? It is not science, it is raw emotion and beating up straw men.

Depending on the coma, they may actually have no more brain function than a fetus does: just enough to maintain body function. There is no evidence that people in deep comas are thinking and aware at all. And they are still human regardless. They didn't magically turn into some other species via the head trauma, now did they?

See how YOUR so-called scientific argument falls flat? It is not science; it is wishful thinking.

 

[Chuz Life]

what a sad place we are in. When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living. instead they want to make sure they have that way to kill off our Society. 58million potential American citizens have been sucked out of women bodies and flushed down a drain SO FAR and counting. but that isn't enough evidently
as if these progressive/democrats give a crap about you women AND the guilt you suffer afterwards.

When the citizens are more worried over the killing of their offspring/human beings: over Jobs, the economy, a way to make a living
would not most people be concerned about their kids being killed over these other things?....just asking...

I think you missed the brilliant use of sarcasm in that post.