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

[Harry Dresden]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

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.

you got that out of what he said?....i bet if hillary had said that you would be backing her up....right?...

 

[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...

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

i may have....but i will let steph yell at me then....lol...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Correct.

Bosses and industry have a favorite gender and race, it's the one that makes them the most money.

Men make more money only when they are more productive than their coworkers be they male or female. Attendance should be rewarded as well. Women take much more time off of work than men. Women are the gender that gives birth. Women are the people that have to pick up their kid from school when they are sick or in trouble. Women are the people that stay home with their children while being sick.

This may surprise the libs, but business owners and bosses have female partners in life in most cases. Their mothers are women, their sisters are women, their daughters are girls or women.

 

[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.

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.

I honestly don't care if you have one arbitrarily made up goalpost or twenty. It's still false and unscientific.

See, fool, you're still arguing philosophy in place of science. "But the term is human BEING. BEING!" Thanks for the attempt at semantics, but no.

In scientific terms (not literary, philosophical, or infanticidal), the word "being" is a synonym for "organism", just as the word "human" is a synonym for "hominid". Even Merriam-Webster contains this particular, simple, scientific definition. Without the rhetorical hearts and flowers, a human being is a living organism of the human species. Biology is not interested in how you feel about that.

I like that "now . . . on to the science". At least you're admitting that the bullshit before that wasn't scientific.

Unfortunately, everything after that was irrelevant, because it assumed that your arbitrary goalpost was correct and going to be accepted as the parameter for debate. Since the debate happens to be how incorrect your goalpost is, that's not going to work.

Furthermore, citing anonymous opinion blogs as "scientific evidence"? You're just making my case for me.

On the other hand, we can go to a PhD from Princeton, and her footnote citations from embryology textbooks and publications used by universities to train actual medical scientists. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I find that more reliable, somehow.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Or we can go with the Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, from the National Institutes of Health.

Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point?

I can go on and cite you the actual embryology textbooks and any number of medical, biological, and embryological journals, if you insist.

 

[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.

Correct.

Bosses and industry have a favorite gender and race, it's the one that makes them the most money.

Men make more money only when they are more productive than their coworkers be they male or female. Attendance should be rewarded as well. Women take much more time off of work than men. Women are the gender that gives birth. Women are the people that have to pick up their kid from school when they are sick or in trouble. Women are the people that stay home with their children while being sick.

This may surprise the libs, but business owners and bosses have female partners in life in most cases. Their mothers are women, their sisters are women, their daughters are girls or women.

In my "now retired" civilian position, we had several women drivers and warehouse workers. They were required to pull their own weight. Most did - but a few, when they found out that they had to repeatedly lift anything from 50-200 pounds (in the warehouse) they quit shortly after the first days work. However, the one's that made the grade stayed and had a nice pension. They were paid the EXACT same money that the men were, had the EXACT same opportunity for overtime as the men. They got the same benefits, same vacation time, everything was equal.

What the left will NOT tell you is that laws were passed YEARS ago that made everything equal. Unfortunately, there are a number of women who want an unequal "playing field" that gives them distinct advantages over the men. No.

 

[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.

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.

I honestly don't care if you have one arbitrarily made up goalpost or twenty. It's still false and unscientific.

See, fool, you're still arguing philosophy in place of science. "But the term is human BEING. BEING!" Thanks for the attempt at semantics, but no.

In scientific terms (not literary, philosophical, or infanticidal), the word "being" is a synonym for "organism", just as the word "human" is a synonym for "hominid". Even Merriam-Webster contains this particular, simple, scientific definition. Without the rhetorical hearts and flowers, a human being is a living organism of the human species. Biology is not interested in how you feel about that.

I like that "now . . . on to the science". At least you're admitting that the bullshit before that wasn't scientific.

Unfortunately, everything after that was irrelevant, because it assumed that your arbitrary goalpost was correct and going to be accepted as the parameter for debate. Since the debate happens to be how incorrect your goalpost is, that's not going to work.

Furthermore, citing anonymous opinion blogs as "scientific evidence"? You're just making my case for me.

On the other hand, we can go to a PhD from Princeton, and her footnote citations from embryology textbooks and publications used by universities to train actual medical scientists. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I find that more reliable, somehow.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Or we can go with the Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, from the National Institutes of Health.

Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point?

I can go on and cite you the actual embryology textbooks and any number of medical, biological, and embryological journals, if you insist.

Whatever. I'm right and you're wrong. Maybe it's philosophy, but philosophy is the most fundamental of all the sciences. Science is part of philosophy. An entity totally incapable neural function is human life but not a human being. It has no "I am".

 

[Davros]

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

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.

Those are not really human beings regardless of what misguided people have said. With no brain function, no ability to feel or think, they can be called human beings to help the parents cope (nearly all of the babies die within days, and the longest they've lived is a few years), but fundamentally they are not human beings. They are human life born without a brain. No person should be held legally accountable for anything that happens to them other than to the extent that the parents wishes and feelings must be respected. Any person that willfully harms such a baby against the wishes of the parents would have committed a crime against the parents. It should be treated humanely, as all life should be treated humanely as much as possible. But if I were the parent, I would wish for it to be put to death to put it out of any sort of suffering that it would be capable of sensing.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I honestly don't care if you have one arbitrarily made up goalpost or twenty. It's still false and unscientific.

See, fool, you're still arguing philosophy in place of science. "But the term is human BEING. BEING!" Thanks for the attempt at semantics, but no.

In scientific terms (not literary, philosophical, or infanticidal), the word "being" is a synonym for "organism", just as the word "human" is a synonym for "hominid". Even Merriam-Webster contains this particular, simple, scientific definition. Without the rhetorical hearts and flowers, a human being is a living organism of the human species. Biology is not interested in how you feel about that.

I like that "now . . . on to the science". At least you're admitting that the bullshit before that wasn't scientific.

Unfortunately, everything after that was irrelevant, because it assumed that your arbitrary goalpost was correct and going to be accepted as the parameter for debate. Since the debate happens to be how incorrect your goalpost is, that's not going to work.

Furthermore, citing anonymous opinion blogs as "scientific evidence"? You're just making my case for me.

On the other hand, we can go to a PhD from Princeton, and her footnote citations from embryology textbooks and publications used by universities to train actual medical scientists. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I find that more reliable, somehow.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Or we can go with the Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, from the National Institutes of Health.

Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point?

I can go on and cite you the actual embryology textbooks and any number of medical, biological, and embryological journals, if you insist.

Whatever. I'm right and you're wrong. Maybe it's philosophy, but philosophy is the most fundamental of all the sciences. Science is part of philosophy. An entity totally incapable neural function is human life but not a human being. It has no "I am".

Yeah, try selling that shit to those already doing time for convictions under our Fetal HOMICIDE laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Correct.

Bosses and industry have a favorite gender and race, it's the one that makes them the most money.

Men make more money only when they are more productive than their coworkers be they male or female. Attendance should be rewarded as well. Women take much more time off of work than men. Women are the gender that gives birth. Women are the people that have to pick up their kid from school when they are sick or in trouble. Women are the people that stay home with their children while being sick.

This may surprise the libs, but business owners and bosses have female partners in life in most cases. Their mothers are women, their sisters are women, their daughters are girls or women.

In my "now retired" civilian position, we had several women drivers and warehouse workers. They were required to pull their own weight. Most did - but a few, when they found out that they had to repeatedly lift anything from 50-200 pounds (in the warehouse) they quit shortly after the first days work. However, the one's that made the grade stayed and had a nice pension. They were paid the EXACT same money that the men were, had the EXACT same opportunity for overtime as the men. They got the same benefits, same vacation time, everything was equal.

What the left will NOT tell you is that laws were passed YEARS ago that made everything equal. Unfortunately, there are a number of women who want an unequal "playing field" that gives them distinct advantages over the men. No.

Absolutely correct. Kind of reminds me of one of my stops where a Hispanic woman loads my truck. She insists that I slide my axles to the rear before she can unload me. There is no possible reason why we need to go through all that trouble. We've had several customers in the same building and they always just unloaded the truck.

A few months ago when it was snowing, she started crying about the axles again. I told her that wasn't going to happen because it's an old trailer and the axles won't slide in the snow. She cried to her boss, and I explained it to him. He insisted just to make her happy to please give it a try anyway. He watched out the window as the axles did just as I predicted.

So I went back inside and told him that if he lets me use their tow motor, I'll load the Fn truck myself. Of course he refused, so he called some other worker over and he loaded my truck in less than 15 minutes. With all that Fn around with the stupid axles, it took me over an hour to get out of there just because of her. My company charged them for the unnecessary time spent.

If the shipper were a guy, I'm sure he would have been fired or at least removed from the shipping department to do a different job. It's because she's a Hispanic woman that she gets to keep a job she can't really do without making it a huge problem. But do you think she gets paid the same as a male doing the same job there?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

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.

Those are not really human beings regardless of what misguided people have said. With no brain function, no ability to feel or think, they can be called human beings to help the parents cope (nearly all of the babies die within days, and the longest they've lived is a few years), but fundamentally they are not human beings. They are human life born without a brain. No person should be held legally accountable for anything that happens to them other than to the extent that the parents wishes and feelings must be respected. Any person that willfully harms such a baby would have committed a crime against the parents.

Like I said, your denials have not only already been defeated in recent legislation, we are going to continue doing so by building on that legislation.

There are TWO murder charges in cases where pregnant women have been killed. Not just one.

MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON killing another in a criminal act.

So, the murder charge itself testifies to the fact that the victim killed was a "person."

Now, you can throw all the hissy fits and tantrums you want. . . but unless and until you start overturning our fetal homicide laws?

Your denials have been defeated.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Correct.

Bosses and industry have a favorite gender and race, it's the one that makes them the most money.

Men make more money only when they are more productive than their coworkers be they male or female. Attendance should be rewarded as well. Women take much more time off of work than men. Women are the gender that gives birth. Women are the people that have to pick up their kid from school when they are sick or in trouble. Women are the people that stay home with their children while being sick.

This may surprise the libs, but business owners and bosses have female partners in life in most cases. Their mothers are women, their sisters are women, their daughters are girls or women.

I don't care much for men at the local titty bar. I also doubt that the men there get paid more than the women.

It kind of depend on the industry, and those of an intellectual should be the least discriminatory.

 

[basquebromance]

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO............YES!

what about men's rights.

 

[amrchaos]

Then again, when I think about it.

It is the more cerebral jobs that women tend to complain the most about.

 

[rdean]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

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.

Clearly not.

When someone is giving you advice "you shouldn't.........." or "don't.........", then they are blaming you.

At your age you haven't figured that out is a shame.

 

[rdean]

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.

Republicans don't help the born. They see babies as punishment. They laugh when the born suffers but cry because they have the moral right to tell women what those women should be doing.

 

[Dot Com]

Another rdean "Hillary getting desperate" thread

Newsflash rdean!!! All the younger females are on Bernie's side.

I love it when Establ/Corporate Democrats flail about

 

[Contumacious]

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO............YES!

what about men's rights.

Our rights as Americans - male and female - are the right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness,

That's all folks.


.

 

[kaz]

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. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

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.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

 

[Chuz Life]

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. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

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.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

 

[kaz]

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. It's still a crime even if they don't disconnect me

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.

You keep changing the scenario and I've answered it both ways.

1) The person connected to me did it on purpose

2) We somehow got connected

In scenario 1, yes, government can force them and it's murder if they break the connection and leave

In scenario 2, no, government cannot force them and it's not murder if they break the connection and leave

I don't know how I can be any clearer

You have not addressed the scenario that falls between the two that you provided.

What if the "connection" is made from an assumption of risk? That is, the assumption of the risk for connection was "on purpose?"

What then would their obligations be?

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.