Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True. But you want to decide it for everyone whereas I want each state to decide that for themselves.Many things are arbitrary. How old should you be to vote in an election?
I think you are right. I wonder if those states will offer more support to mothers and families or will we be inundated with horror stories? The burden on a family to raise a severely handicapped child affects many people, financially and emotionally. That time and money has to be taken from somewhere so the suffering is not just endured by that disabled child.It will be up to the states to determine how they will balance the rights of the child and the mother.
Her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.The right to dispose of her property as she sees fit?
No. I am saying that the original ruling never examined any scientific evidence for when human life begins.Are you saying if a life depends on the mother, or an elderly parent, or an I'll anyone who is dependent on others has no absolute right to life?
I lived through the Civil Rights era, so you may have more respect for States than I do. I see us spiraling downward to Jim Crow.True. But you want to decide it for everyone whereas I want each state to decide that for themselves.
So which one of us is being more demanding in forcing their beliefs on others? The one who doesn't want anyone else to decide for themselves or the one who wants others to decide for themselves?
She still has all of those things but if you believe she doesn't then I would say that her rights end when she infringes on the rights of others.Her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.I lived through the Civil Rights era, so you may have more respect for States than I do. I see us spiraling downward to Jim Crow.
Don't know. That's up to each state to decide. But it's certainly no reason not to have a fair hearing to determine when those rights begin for a child in the womb. Or for that matter to let it influence the outcome of the decision. Rights are not granted because they are convenient. So they shouldn't not be granted because they are inconvenient.I think you are right. I wonder if those states will offer more support to mothers and families or will we be inundated with horror stories? The burden on a family to raise a severely handicapped child affects many people, financially and emotionally. That time and money has to be taken from somewhere so the suffering is not just endured by that disabled child.
I think many in the pro-life ranks have an ideological purity that those of us in the real world can only envy.
How about asking the scientists when the fetus can feel pain, or have thoughts?It would be better to distinguish between the following: when does human life occur/begin, and when can a new life form exist by itself. Huge difference and I see a little bit of blending of the two, perhaps unintentionally, with your remarks.
In embryology textbooks I believe that is addressed in the section immediately following the section which explains how human life begins at conception.How about asking the scientists when the fetus can feel pain, or have thoughts?
Do others have a right to infringe on her? If giving birth to the baby will jeopardize her health would that change the equation? What if the baby will be severely disabled would that change your equation?She still has all of those things but if you believe she doesn't then I would say that her rights end when she infringes on the rights of others.
You mean that DNA is something special because it is unique? Sorry not impressed. My kids did plenty of artwork that was certainly unique but most got thrown out.The child in the womb is not her property. The child in her womb is not her body. The child in her womb is a genetically distinct new human being. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.
You don't want to accept responsibility either. Should Civil Rights be returned to the states too?But again... I'm not the one who wants to force his beliefs on everyone. That's you. You want to skip examination and go straight to implementing your judgement and want it to be binding on everyone. I want SCOTUS to make a ruling on when legal rights begin for a new, specific, genetically distinct human being.
Because I don't see a fertilized egg as a 'child'. It is merely a biological machine. When it can testify at its trial it will already have won.Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.
How many thousands of children did the US kill in the WWII bombing of German because they were inconveniently close to a target (or they were the target themselves)? Was the US morally right to drop those bombs?Don't know. That's up to each state to decide. But it's certainly no reason not to have a fair hearing to determine when those rights begin for a child in the womb. Or for that matter to let it influence the outcome of the decision. Rights are not granted because they are convenient. So they shouldn't not be granted because they are inconvenient.
I believe in restrictions on abortion, meaning I'm against abortion at any stage for any reason. Are there any circumstances that you'd condone abortion? Imminent threat to the mother's life for instance?Again... it's odd that you are so eager to remove all civil rights for a child in the womb without ever having a fair trial.
When someone is infringing upon the rights of others, yes. It happens all the time. In fact, even after someone has infringed upon the rights of others, their rights can be lost.Do others have a right to infringe on her?
That's for each state to decide.If giving birth to the baby will jeopardize her health would that change the equation?
That's for each state to decide.What if the baby will be severely disabled would that change your equation?
DNA is proof of a specific person.You mean that DNA is something special because it is unique? Sorry not impressed. My kids did plenty of artwork that was certainly unique but most got thrown out.
But again... I'm not the one who wants to force his beliefs on everyone. That's you. You want to skip examination and go straight to implementing your judgement and want it to be binding on everyone. I want SCOTUS to make a ruling on when legal rights begin for a new, specific, genetically distinct human being.
Wanting a legal determination of when rights convey to a genetically distinct living human being in a womb based upon science and law is in no way denying responsibility.You don't want to accept responsibility either. Should Civil Rights be returned to the states too?
You misspelled human. You don't see a fertilized egg as a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every point along the continuum is fully human and has the characteristics appropriate for that stage of the human life cycle.Because I don't see a fertilized egg as a 'child'. It is merely a biological machine. When it can testify at its trial it will already have won.
Comparing war between nations to women who want to abort their babies seems like a silly argument even for you.How many thousands of children did the US kill in the WWII bombing of German because they were inconveniently close to a target (or they were the target themselves)? Was the US morally right to drop those bombs?
That should be up to each state to decide.I believe in restrictions on abortion, meaning I'm against abortion at any stage for any reason. Are there any circumstances that you'd condone abortion? Imminent threat to the mother's life for instance?
