The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[ding]

We’ll make you a deal...keep your piece of shit people off the taxpayer tit and we’ll quit caring about what the fuck you dirty bastards do...Fair enough?

That's totally fair. But you "dirty bastards" don't really want that. If you did, you'd be working to roll back welfare. Instead, you use it as an excuse to expand government power over our most personal decisions.

its both dems and repubes doing that with welfare,,,

It's a tag team dismantling of our individual rights. Dems create state sponsored dependency, and Republicans use it as an excuse to take away our freedom.

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Yes. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. We know this through DNA. We use DNA in courts all the time for the express purpose of identifying people.

 

[ding]

its both dems and repubes doing that with welfare,,,

It's a tag team dismantling of our individual rights. Dems create state sponsored dependency, and Republicans use it as an excuse to take away our freedom.

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Yes. Albeit a person in its earliest stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.

Every point along the continuum he or she is fully human and possesses the appropriate attributes for that stage of the human life cycle.

 

[anynameyouwish]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

tough one......


if you outlaw abortion
and a woman has a baby which she would have aborted
and it grows up to be a gay atheist liberal democrat (aren't liberal democrats "parasites"?)

can we abort it THEN?

 

[iceberg]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

not sure it matters who's in which camp. whatever camp they were in before this "law", roe vs wade, kavanaugh fears and the like i'm pretty sure people are still in that camp.

we can't keep working to undo what we've done and ever pretend to think we're evolving as a country or society. undo what the last admin did will be the sole focus of activity upon a power shift. when D's get back in office, what then? tear down the wall and put obama care back?

both sides are i a deadly lock of "my way or death" on the extremes and it's bleeding over to the rest who usually want nothing to do with mass stupidity.

i'm against abortion when it relates to me. if someone i know whats one i'll talk and listen and provide the best advice i can based on their scenario. hopefully talk them out of it but in the end, it's not my decision, it's theirs.

but i do think this extreme action is very "liberal" like and not designed to fix anything but to force a revisit of something decided long ago.

 

[Dragonlady]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

The issue has already been settled. A woman has a right to an abortion.

A self righteous asshole, who it's none of their business, has no say in the matter.

What part of it is unsettled to you?

What exactly is unsettled about it? Is it the fact that 9 black robes voted a certain way, the same type of 9 black robes that voted on the Dred Scott case?

LOL.

Let's settle it this way. The fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person. It was NOT created or ordained of God. It is the physical product of human biology which makes it both the responsibility and the property of its actual creators - its parents. In other words, since YOU would never seek to interfere with decisions make by a parent about their own children, you want to make decisions about OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, WHICH ARE NO CONCERN OF YOURS.

If you believe in the sanctiity of the fetus and its absolute right to life, DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION. What OTHER people do, is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

The issue has already been settled. A woman has a right to an abortion.

A self righteous asshole, who it's none of their business, has no say in the matter.

What part of it is unsettled to you?

What exactly is unsettled about it? Is it the fact that 9 black robes voted a certain way, the same type of 9 black robes that voted on the Dred Scott case?

LOL.

Let's settle it this way. The fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person. It was NOT created or ordained of God. It is the physical product of human biology which makes it both the responsibility and the property of its actual creators - its parents. In other words, since YOU would never seek to interfere with decisions make by a parent about their own children, you want to make decisions about OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, WHICH ARE NO CONCERN OF YOURS.

If you believe in the sanctiity of the fetus and its absolute right to life, DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION. What OTHER people do, is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

You think that settles it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

The issue has already been settled. A woman has a right to an abortion.

A self righteous asshole, who it's none of their business, has no say in the matter.

What part of it is unsettled to you?

Same thing that was unsettled for you when states had laws restricting abortion: we disagree.

I get that you think "settled" means "things are the way I want them, and everyone should accept that", but may I introduce you to the shocking notion that everyone else in this country has an equal right to yours to try to change things they don't like?

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

The issue has already been settled. A woman has a right to an abortion.

A self righteous asshole, who it's none of their business, has no say in the matter.

What part of it is unsettled to you?

What exactly is unsettled about it? Is it the fact that 9 black robes voted a certain way, the same type of 9 black robes that voted on the Dred Scott case?

LOL.

The only one that has a vote is the woman. Whether or not 9 black robes vote for it or not. Abortion will remain legitimate and available, and there is nothing religious assholes will ever be able to do about it.

And with the easily availability of abortion inducing medications, they will be able to do it in states that think they have a right that they don'r have, to stop women from doing it.

And even further, with technology in communications with smartphones and the internet, a whole new cottage industry is being set up as we speak, to make sure that any woman trapped in one of the Taliban controlled areas in the US, will be able to get aid in a number of ways to make sure she will have access to an abortion.

We have an app for that.

Oh, SPARE me this tripe about "THIS ONE THING can't possibly be subject to laws. THIS is outside society!" You live in a society, you interact with a society, you benefit from a society; that means all of your actions have an effect on society, however much you want to pretend that in THIS case, you're some isolated island of independence.

And don't give me that "We got our way, and now you can't ever change it, so just give up and accept that our way will always prevail."

Are you even female? 'Cause if not, may I point out that your own post is violating your "only women get a say in this"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no right to kill an innocent.

For any reason!

Rape, incest, health of the mother. None of those matter as long as that innocent little baby is born.

Learn the difference between "doesn't matter" and "doesn't matter more than killing innocents".

 

[Cecilie1200]

We’ll make you a deal...keep your piece of shit people off the taxpayer tit and we’ll quit caring about what the fuck you dirty bastards do...Fair enough?

That's totally fair. But you "dirty bastards" don't really want that. If you did, you'd be working to roll back welfare. Instead, you use it as an excuse to expand government power over our most personal decisions.

its both dems and repubes doing that with welfare,,,

It's a tag team dismantling of our individual rights. Dems create state sponsored dependency, and Republicans use it as an excuse to take away our freedom.

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

If you're too dumb to even grasp THAT much, you really should stop wasting our time trying to contribute to this discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

its both dems and repubes doing that with welfare,,,

It's a tag team dismantling of our individual rights. Dems create state sponsored dependency, and Republicans use it as an excuse to take away our freedom.

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

leave

Of course.

Is this a person?

leave it alone and it will be,,,

It either is or it isn't.

then it is,,,

Good luck convincing people of that.

So scientific reality is based on whether or not average people understand it or believe in it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Conservatives believe that "personal responsibility" you speak of should happen before the pregnancy...you support it happening after the pregnancy. Listen to how retarded that sounds.

No birth control method is 100% and we are also human. Shit happens, even to the best of us, even with the best of intentions.
If you are pretending that everyone should be abstinent, LOL

Abortion was never presented in Roe as a method of birth control. That’s really what the debate is. When Row was argued no on was talking about birthing just the head, shoving a probe or forceps in its head, dismembering the corps and sucking it out with a vacuum pump. There also wasn’t a morning after pill you could buy at Walmart. There is zero need for abortion as it’s pushed now. None.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-O...-Emergency-Contraceptive-Tablet-1-Ea/29131740

Morning after pill isn't always effective. And most women don't use abortion as birth control. Accidents happen. Many women who have gotten pregnant by accident were taking precautions. Then you have rape victims.

If abortion is overturned we risk going back tot he days of coat hangers

Bull shit and just the type of bull shit I would expect from a racist libtard. The only reason you people want abortion is to control the amount of black baby’s that are borne. That’s why y’all always have abortion clinics built in poor Black neighborhoods. Accidents happen? Inserting a penis into a vagina don’t happen on accident.

Republicans are the first ones to complain about single black women being welfare. When a woman in a poor black neighborhood has a baby, that child is going to grow in poverty and most likely crime.

So I'm glad some women make the decision to not go through with the pregnancy.

Oh, good, another one who thinks "Abort babies because they cost too much!" is a winning argument. It's amazing how left-thinkers only become penurious when it comes to national security or not killing babies.

 

[AntonToo]

leave

Is this a person?

leave it alone and it will be,,,

It either is or it isn't.

then it is,,,

Good luck convincing people of that.

So scientific reality is based on whether or not average people understand it or believe in it?

Scientific reality is that in that photograph is a human embryo.

Saying that human embryo is not a person make is 100% consistent with science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Conservatives believe that "personal responsibility" you speak of should happen before the pregnancy...you support it happening after the pregnancy. Listen to how retarded that sounds.

No birth control method is 100% and we are also human. Shit happens, even to the best of us, even with the best of intentions.
If you are pretending that everyone should be abstinent, LOL

Abortion was never presented in Roe as a method of birth control. That’s really what the debate is. When Row was argued no on was talking about birthing just the head, shoving a probe or forceps in its head, dismembering the corps and sucking it out with a vacuum pump. There also wasn’t a morning after pill you could buy at Walmart. There is zero need for abortion as it’s pushed now. None.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-O...-Emergency-Contraceptive-Tablet-1-Ea/29131740

Morning after pill isn't always effective. And most women don't use abortion as birth control. Accidents happen. Many women who have gotten pregnant by accident were taking precautions. Then you have rape victims.

If abortion is overturned we risk going back tot he days of coat hangers

You’re going to do what LefTards do...hide behind the one percentile to justify your filth?
Hmm..I wonder how many abortions you’ve had performed?

Birth control failing is more than 1%. And especially with put the obesity rates, birth control failure is higher. Birth control methods like the pill are less effective on overweight women, along with the morning after pill.

Then there are medical conditions that call for it.

I did have to have an abortion one time, because I had an ectopic pregnancy. So am I a murderer too?

What you are is willfully stupid, if you really can't tell the difference between ending an ectopic pregnancy and having an abortion because motherhood would interfere with your promotion at work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another interesting thing is, Republicans want less government but want to dictate a woman's reproductive rights.

You have the right to reproduce.

You have no right to take an innocent life.

It's not a life pre 22 weeks. A 12 week old fetus isn't viable for life. It's merely growing tissue at that point. Not a baby.

Well, thanks for that scientific update from 1960. Why not go whole hog and recommend treating fevers with leeches, while you're being archaic and primitive?

 

[AntonToo]

It's a tag team dismantling of our individual rights. Dems create state sponsored dependency, and Republicans use it as an excuse to take away our freedom.

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

The issue has already been settled. A woman has a right to an abortion.

A self righteous asshole, who it's none of their business, has no say in the matter.

What part of it is unsettled to you?

What exactly is unsettled about it? Is it the fact that 9 black robes voted a certain way, the same type of 9 black robes that voted on the Dred Scott case?

LOL.

Let's settle it this way. The fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person. It was NOT created or ordained of God. It is the physical product of human biology which makes it both the responsibility and the property of its actual creators - its parents. In other words, since YOU would never seek to interfere with decisions make by a parent about their own children, you want to make decisions about OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, WHICH ARE NO CONCERN OF YOURS.

If you believe in the sanctiity of the fetus and its absolute right to life, DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION. What OTHER people do, is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

"Let's settle it this way. Just declare what I believe correct, and everyone live with that."

Let's settle it this way. You run your gums, and everyone will ignore you for the dementia patient you are.

As for "other people's children are no concern of yours", may I then assume that you are attending protests against these interferences with "other people's children" in your country?

Parental rights being stamped out in Canada as LGBT mafia given free reign to seize, sterilize children under evil "trans" agenda

Canada cracks down on parental rights, doubles down on Wynne sex ed

Montreal Catholic school fighting for the right to teach ethics and religious culture in its own Jesuit style

 

[Cecilie1200]

leave
leave it alone and it will be,,,

It either is or it isn't.

then it is,,,

Good luck convincing people of that.

So scientific reality is based on whether or not average people understand it or believe in it?

Scientific reality is that in that photograph is a human embryo.

Saying that human embryo is not a person make is 100% consistent with science.

Only if you think science hasn't advanced since early/mid-20th century.

Scientific reality is that a human embryo is, in fact, a living human person. Your notion that "person" is defined by size, location, or appearance is the opposite of science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no right to kill an innocent.

An innocent WHAT? Person?

Of course.

Is this a person?

Assuming that's a normal human embryo, yes.

A person without organs, let alone any sort of high level nervous system? Seriously?

Did I miss the point where "person" was defined by the presence of specific organs?

Yes, a human being at that stage of life looks exactly like that. ALL humans at that stage of life look like that, and they always have. You might just as well tell me that an infant isn't a person because he doesn't have teeth, and humans have teeth. You're trying to define "person" by stage of development.