Funerals for abortions?!?!

[Czernobog]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

I argue very similarly to you Czernobog. The challenge is including and defending prolife beliefs to the same degree as prochoice. What about ppl who don't want govt endorsing or supporting any abortion at all, similar to only tolerating gay marriage in private but not thru govt which is public.

This is where I argue ppl need to make a choice and take financial responsibility for those choices. If you really believe or don't believe in something, then why not fund it yourself such as through your own party similar to a religious organization that funds its own agenda and beliefs (about abortion, marriage, benefits and health care, genders and bathrooms). Neither side of these issues should push policies thru govt that ppl of other beliefs are objecting to as biased against their beliefs. If we separate religious beliefs from govt. What about secular or political beliefs?

Sure it's a lot of work to separate beliefs by party, but either way we'd be fair and have peace. Either agree to fund it federally or keep it localized if ppl don't agree and can't resolve conflicts of beliefs any other way. One or the other. Either agree what to use the shared bank account for and only use it for that, or agree to have separate bank accounts that don't involve the other party's finances, instead of fighting constantly over whose money goes where.

 

[Czernobog]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

I argue very similarly to you Czernobog. The challenge is including and defending prolife beliefs to the same degree as prochoice. What about ppl who don't want govt endorsing or supporting any abortion at all, similar to only tolerating gay marriage in private but not thru govt which is public.

But that's just it, emilynghiem, government taking the position that abortion is a personal, private matter, and passing no laws is not the same as government endorsing a decision. For example, I have told my teen-aged son that if he chooses to go to a party where there will be drinking, that will be his decision. However, if that party is "raided', then his going to jail will be his consequences. Now, am I endorsing him going to parties? Absolutely not,. I am endorsing him making his own decisions, while understanding that, by allowing him to do so, that means he may well make a decision with which I, personally, may disagree. Allowing for individual choice, is not synonymous with endorsement of the choice made.

This is where I argue ppl need to make a choice and take financial responsibility for those choices. If you really believe or don't believe in something, then why not fund it yourself such as through your own party similar to a religious organization that funds its own agenda and beliefs (about abortion, marriage, benefits and health care, genders and bathrooms). Neither side of these issues should push policies thru govt that ppl of other beliefs are objecting to as biased against their beliefs. If we separate religious beliefs from govt. What about secular or political beliefs?

The difference is that we, specifically, have a constitutional proscription against government endorsing, or supporting theological positions. We have no such proscription against ideological positions. The law that is the subject of this particular thread, however, speaks directly to your point. There is currently a perfectly reasonable process involved in disposal of the waste from an abortion. Since the moralists want the waste disposed of in a manner more fitting a person's remains, that's fine. Then let them pay for that more expensive process.

Sure it's a lot of work to separate beliefs by party, but either way we'd be fair and have peace. Either agree to fund it federally or keep it localized if ppl don't agree and can't resolve conflicts of beliefs any other way. One or the other. Either agree what to use the shared bank account for and only use it for that, or agree to have separate bank accounts that don't involve the other party's finances, instead of fighting constantly over whose money goes where.

You're talking about what many of the moralists are now moving to: that this is, and ought to be, a "State" issue. But it isn't, and shouldn't be. Question: other than a question of size, how is a federally authoritarian intrusion on individual choice any different from a State level authoritarian intrusion on individual choice?

Now, the moralists would say that it is a matter of the "will of the people". But, here's the thing. We have already agreed, through the federal constitution, and the Supreme Court that "the people" (as in the mob of the majority) does not have the authority to impede the right of individual choice, so long as that choice is not affecting the rights of another person. Now, again, they will insist - using those horribly written, self-contradictory irrational fetal homicide laws - that a fetus is a person. Unfortunately, that is simply not established law, which is why there have been so many failed attempts at personhood amendments. So, it doesn't matter if it is federal level authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty, or a state level authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty, the result is the same - an authoritarian intrusion on individual liberty. That is something I will never endorse, and, based on 40 years of case law, neither will the Supreme Court.

 

[theHawk]

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

 

[Czernobog]

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

 

[theHawk]

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

 

[Czernobog]

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

 

[theHawk]

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

 

[Czernobog]

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

 

[theHawk]

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

 

[theHawk]

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

 

[Czernobog]

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

You'll do two things: Hide and continue to be a faggot.

You get that all you're doing is making me laugh right? When I have reduced Right Wing Fucktards to nothing but spitting, and hurling insults, I win, because they have run out of rational arguments. Off you go...

Calling you a coward isn't an insult. It's a character description. I know why you hide.

 

[theHawk]

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

 

[Czernobog]

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

 

[koshergrl]

There is nothing about forced funerals.

You're right. They don't have to have a preacher speaking - they just have to bury, or cremate the remains...

It is a distinction without substance.

What exactly is your objection to the woman paying to dispose of the remains resulting from her choice?

Those remains are used to buy new cars and pharmaceuticals for abortionists! What else???

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

 

[koshergrl]

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

Wrong again.

 

[Conservative65]

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Again, "viability" has nothing to do with it. The medical definition of viable is the ability to survive. Something that is already dead, by definition isn't "viable". A dead child of six years old isn't "viable". Does that mean you don't give a child a funeral? No one ever stated that the fetus at any point had to be "viable" in order to receive a funeral.

No, it's not. Go look it up again. A non-viable fetus is not a person. it is not a person before an abortion. It did not magically become a person after the abortion. If you want the extra money spent to treat a fetus like a person, then you spend it. Do not expect a woman who had an abortion to spend that money, or to attend your fake funeral. Do not expect the abortion clinic to incur extra costs in order to satisfy your sensibilities. Since you want to treat the fetal material like something it is not, you spend the money. There is absolutely no one stopping you from taking that fetal material, and burying it, at your own cost. But, don't expect other people to pay to satisfy your sensibilities.

You're viable and no one considers you a person. They consider you a cowardly piece of shit.