The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[ding]

Overly emotional much?

Pointless much? Its a pretty simple matter to address the ignorance of fundie zealots.

Like yours when you deny that at conception a new and genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Learn some science.

 

[alang1216]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

 

[ding]

You are dodging the question.

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

Lobby your congressman to establish a "Take a fetus to lunch" day.....

Educate yourself on science.

 

[Taz]

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

So what's your solution?

Stop doing it.

So you have nothing and just like pointing fingers. Got it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Chuz, you have been pushing the anti choice agenda for so long that you have totally lost sight of the fact that if people want an abortion, they will have one, and if they don't, they won't. The only change that would occur if you succeeded in outlawing it would be that some doctors might go to prison or lose their licenses. There has never even been a penalty to the woman involved. You are blind to the fact that before Roe VS. Wade, gynecologist's most frequent procedure was D & C's. If they couldn't do that, there was always the vacation trip to a foreign country. For the poor, there was the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Frank Sinatra's mother used to do them, back in Hoboken. Your time would be better spent preaching hell and damnation to women directly. That would overcome my objections, anyway.

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

i know enough about science to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with your trying to give the state control of my wife and daughter's bodies.

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

Lobby your congressman to establish a "Take a fetus to lunch" day.....

Educate yourself on science.

I know enough about science to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with your desire to give the state the control of the bodies of my wife and daughter.

 

[ding]

It is intellectually indefensible that a person's rights should begin at any point after their life does.

If you (or anyone else) holds the view that a persons rights should begin when their life does, then you have no choice but to oppose any and all laws or regulations that run contrary to that belief.

It is as simple as that.

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

So what's your solution?

Stop doing it.

So you have nothing and just like pointing fingers. Got it.

Are you kidding? You are walking around with nothing because I have it all.

Just call me butter because I am on a roll.

 

[koshergrl]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

The nazis certainly believed so.

Euthanasia Program

 

[Vandalshandle]

So far, I have read scientific arguments as to why a fetus who could not live outside the mother's body, is the same as a child. Now, I am reading that a fetus has the same right as a child under the law, despite the fact that a fetus is NOT a child, and the law of the land is in direct conflict with this point of view. I can't help but suggest that you switch to the moral issue, which is strictly a matter of opinion, because the logic that you are using in science and law are strictly failures.

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Does that make it easier to snuff out their life?

So what's your solution?

Stop doing it.

So you have nothing and just like pointing fingers. Got it.

Are you kidding? You are walking around with nothing because I have it all.

Just call me butter because I am on a roll.

Is that you, Trump? I thought that you were a twitter fanatic....

 

[alang1216]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

The nazis certainly believed so.

Euthanasia Program

Can anyone tell when life ends?

 

[koshergrl]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

The nazis certainly believed so.

Euthanasia Program

Can anyone tell when life ends?

I certainly can.

 

[alang1216]

Can anyone tell when life ends?

I certainly can.

Will you?

 

[koshergrl]

Can anyone tell when life ends?

I certainly can.

Will you?

Will I what?

 

[alang1216]

Can anyone tell when life ends?

I certainly can.

Will you?

Will I what?

Never mind, I think you just did.

 

[Chuz Life]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

 

[alang1216]

a person on life support can still be murdered. Can't they.

True. Also true that they can be killed and not murdered. Can't they?

How is allowing someone to die naturally the same thing as killing them to you?

Inaccurate analogy:
How is removing a breathing machine from or not feeding a comatose person different from an abortion?

 

[MPS777]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

 

[alang1216]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

 

[alang1216]

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

No one has yet told me when life ends. If your brain is severely destroyed (no higher brain activity) and you in a coma and are on a respirator, are you still alive? Should a wife or family member be able to end your life?

 

[MPS777]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

 

[alang1216]

It's not that complicated. At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. It is fully human and has all the attributes a human being should have for that part of it's human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Which equates to nothing that makes us human and separates from all other animals: a human brain capable of thinking, feeling, and learning.

What is complicated is why people like you deny its humanity?

Some of us consider that there is more to being human than just having a unique set of chromosomes.

You seem to be struggling with the reality that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Here’s another question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 20 years since fertilization? For example, the mother.

No I don’t think they’re morally equivalent. The zygote hasn’t achieved anything even close to consciousness, and doesn’t yet even possess the cells necessary for consciousness. If I could come up with a metaphor, it’s that the zygote is but an empty vessel.

What is human life without consciousness? "I think therefore I am." Why can consciousness (mental state) have such an extreme impact on one’s rights in our society? Someone can lose their liberty, agency, or even life as a result of different “brain” “states”. Consciousness matters.

My metaphor is that the zygote contains the blueprint for a human being. It has the information needed to build a human but is not itself human. A blueprint of a house likewise has all the information needed to build the house but is not itself anything you could live in.