The War on Women begins ....

#229
#229
luthervol said:
You edited your own post to change from 4 weeks to 3 weeks and a day. We could find a source that says 2 week and 6 days. Three weeks and 3 days. There is no agreed upon magic point at which a fetus goes from having no heartbeat to having a heartbeat of its own. It will always be a grey area the same as the viability argument.
Click to expand...

So, you want something that says at what exact hour every fetus develops a heartbeat? Or scientific evidence of generally when the fetus develops its own heartbeat, as well as evidence of when heartbeats have been detected?

I was just holding you accountable, as you phrased your objection in such a ways as to appear as though there is wide disagreement in the scientific community as to, generally and within short winows, when the human fetus develops its own heartbeat. That inference was either unintended, ignorance, or willful lies.

If you want to debate him from the perspective of the human heartbeat, do so in good faith to that argument. If not, don't have the argument. If the human heartbeat doesn't hold weight with you, be honest and move on to a discussion you can both have, like viability? Mother's choice trumps any other life? Whatever.

Just do so in good faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
Orange_Crush said:
So, you want something that says at what exact hour every fetus develops a heartbeat? Or scientific evidence of generally when the fetus develops its own heartbeat, as well as evidence of when heartbeats have been detected?

I was just holding you accountable, as you phrased your objection in such a ways as to appear as though there is wide disagreement in the scientific community as to, generally and within short winows, when the human fetus develops its own heartbeat. That inference was either unintended, ignorance, or willful lies.

If you want to debate him from the perspective of the human heartbeat, do so in good faith to that argument. If not, don't have the argument. If the human heartbeat doesn't hold weight with you, be honest and move on to a discussion you can both have, like viability? Mother's choice trumps any other life? Whatever.

Just do so in good faith.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point. I did not word my post very well.

There is fairly uniform agreement among the scientific community. (Just like with man's effect on global warming) I thought there may be millions of people out there that ignored the scientific community.

I was trying to make the point that there is no way to draw that line of no life / life. 4 weeks, 3 months, conception, 48 hrs., birth control?
 
#231
#231
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I'm really surprised that the Democrats haven't run that stupid idiot Democratic Senator Grayson from Florida out there in the public eye mocking Republicans & saying horrible things about what Republicans will do to help Obamacare to be repealed & replaced.
Click to expand...

He is a real asshat
 
#233
#233
luthervol said:
You make a valid point. I did not word my post very well.

There is fairly uniform agreement among the scientific community. (Just like with man's effect on global warming) I thought there may be millions of people out there that ignored the scientific community.

I was trying to make the point that there is no way to draw that line of no life / life. 4 weeks, 3 months, conception, 48 hrs., birth control?
Click to expand...

I would disagree with your statement that "there is no way to draw that line of no life/life". Most people would agree with what constitutes human life--until we start talking about abortion. Then agendas kick in and the definition starts getting a lot murkier. Thus, I would state it this way: "In the abortion debate, it is nearly impossible to get an agreement on the definition of what constitutes human life."

In nearly any other discussion, an independent/personal human genome with a heartbeat constitutes an independent human life.

When abortion is brought up, that doesn't seem to hold water anymore. The concept of independent "viability" is brought up to have the conversation about mothers rights. But imho, it's used disingenuously since a born baby isn't individually viable, nor is your 95 year old grandmother. If you refuse to feed or change a baby/grandma, he/she will die a miserable death.

It's not an individually viable life, but it is protected by law and common morality due to location (inside womb or outside womb?)

So, location seems to be the distinction of life. It seems to be the one argument that "location" becomes a concept in the definition of what constitutes a human life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#235
#235
If "independent viability" is the criterion, we would certainly be able to clear out the nursing homes and ICUs.

A complete human genome + brain activity & heartbeat = live person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#236
#236
kiddiedoc said:
If "independent viability" is the criterion, we would certainly be able to clear out the nursing homes and ICUs.

A complete human genome + brain activity & heartbeat = live person.
Click to expand...

As well as making a HUGE dent in the orphanages, actually.
 
#237
#237
Orange_Crush said:
I would disagree with your statement that "there is no way to draw that line of no life/life". Most people would agree with what constitutes human life--until we start talking about abortion. Then agendas kick in and the definition starts getting a lot murkier. Thus, I would state it this way: "In the abortion debate, it is nearly impossible to get an agreement on the definition of what constitutes human life."

In nearly any other discussion, an independent/personal human genome with a heartbeat constitutes an independent human life.

When abortion is brought up, that doesn't seem to hold water anymore. The concept of independent "viability" is brought up to have the conversation about mothers rights. But imho, it's used disingenuously since a born baby isn't individually viable, nor is your 95 year old grandmother. If you refuse to feed or change a baby/grandma, he/she will die a miserable death.

It's not an individually viable life, but it is protected by law and common morality due to location (inside womb or outside womb?)

So, location seems to be the distinction of life. It seems to be the one argument that "location" becomes a concept in the definition of what constitutes a human life.
Click to expand...
Good, thoughtful points.

If independent viability is the line, then do you and kidiiedoc support a woman's right to choose up to that point?

Also, it's a little more than just a difference of location. The umbilical cord. The fetus's independent viability is directly connected to the mother. When a child is born, nobody forces any one person to be responsible for its existence. We give the mother the right to choose adoption. No law forces any one person to care for the 98 year old or the orphan. It seems as if the only time one individual is legally forced to care for another independently viable individual is when a woman is pregnant. Would you support a law that forced a 75 year old child to care for their 98 year old parent? Of course not. You also would fight any law that allowed that 75 year old to take the life of the 98 year old; as would I. They are not comparable.
 
#238
#238
luthervol said:
Good, thoughtful points.

If independent viability is the line, then do you and kidiiedoc support a woman's right to choose up to that point?
Click to expand...

I never agreed to the thought that independent viiability is "the line". I heavily inferred otherwise. I believe as kiddiedoc does, that a human life is a human life with peronal genome, heartbeat, and brain activity.

luthervol said:
Also, it's a little more than just a difference of location. The umbilical cord. The fetus's independent viability is directly connected to the mother. When a child is born, nobody forces any one person to be responsible for its existence. We give the mother the right to choose adoption. No law forces any one person to care for the 98 year old or the orphan. It seems as if the only time one individual is legally forced to care for another independently viable individual is when a woman is pregnant. Would you support a law that forced a 75 year old child to care for their 98 year old parent? Of course not. You also would fight any law that allowed that 75 year old to take the life of the 98 year old; as would I. They are not comparable.
Click to expand...

I think you are incorrect. There are negligent murder charges on our legal books for a reason. In other words, whoever has the legal responsibility to care for a life has to care for that life, and if they don't, charges are pressed.

See the mother whose baby dies from neglect--i.e. leaving it in a hot car unattended. Or the son, who has accepted the repsponsibility to care for his mother, who allows her to die of hunger.

Since the pregnant mother is the only person that can possibly care for an unborn baby, I believe that she is the only person that can be held responsible to care for the life.

But in short... You are wrong per forced responsibility.

Note: Per umbilical cord, this is nothing more than debating method of care, as opposed to requirement of care.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#239
#239
luthervol said:
Good, thoughtful points.

If independent viability is the line, then do you and kidiiedoc support a woman's right to choose up to that point?

Also, it's a little more than just a difference of location. The umbilical cord. The fetus's independent viability is directly connected to the mother. When a child is born, nobody forces any one person to be responsible for its existence. We give the mother the right to choose adoption. No law forces any one person to care for the 98 year old or the orphan. It seems as if the only time one individual is legally forced to care for another independently viable individual is when a woman is pregnant. Would you support a law that forced a 75 year old child to care for their 98 year old parent? Of course not. You also would fight any law that allowed that 75 year old to take the life of the 98 year old; as would I. They are not comparable.
Click to expand...

They are not comparable to you. To me they are. Life begins at conception. The God of Isaac and Jacob "knit me in my mother's womb." He numbered the hairs of my head, and numbered the days I will live on this earth.

Abortion is murder. Period. Funny how the only person who gets a vote on whether or not the child should be murdered in the womb is a woman who already escaped the same fate. Wonder how many abortions would be performed if the baby got a vote, too? I am betting on zero. Let's appoint an unbiased voter on the baby's behalf for each case. Like the " guardian ad lidem?sp" each foster child is given once they are a ward of the state. Yoi know, a responsible, morally upstanding productive member of society to make decisions with only the babies best interests as a concern. Wonder how many abortions would take place if the new life, which has done nothing wrong, had a voice...rather than only the irresponsible mother who made a decision to spread her legs.

Don't come with the rape bullcrap. A small fraction of a percent of women get raped resulting in pregnancy...it's not even an outlier or anomaly...it's a unicorn. Chances are that you don't know anyone who knows of anyone who was impregnated by a rapist. That's like getting struck by lightning while a shark bites you. Doesn't happen enough to even enter into a rational discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#240
#240
The war on women is an illusion fabricated by the left to portray women as the victims of a male dominated society

If women are equal to men, then why lower the standards in certain combat units of the military to allow better oppurtunities for access to women?

"I'm just as good as any man, but we have to lower the standards for me to have a fair shot"

BS
 
#241
#241
SpaceCoastVol said:
Nope. That is and has always been a bs argument. If abortion is evil, it is always evil. Mom dies. Sorry. Been happening that way for thousands of years. Getting pregnant is a choice that has risks.
Click to expand...

Couldn't one say he same about letting the Mother die? If you accept there are two persons existing at that moment, and one is going to die, the situation changes. Both of the moral rules of thumb end up contradicting. One would need to then set up a rubric of value to decide who lives and who dies. Obviously, different people have different criteria in that situation.
 
#242
#242
luthervol said:
You make a valid point. I did not word my post very well.

There is fairly uniform agreement among the scientific community. (Just like with man's effect on global warming) I thought there may be millions of people out there that ignored the scientific community.

I was trying to make the point that there is no way to draw that line of no life / life. 4 weeks, 3 months, conception, 48 hrs., birth control?
Click to expand...

It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Additionally, it's not a question of "life" but a question of "personhood".
 
#243
#243
marcusluvsvols said:
They are not comparable to you. To me they are. Life begins at conception. The God of Isaac and Jacob "knit me in my mother's womb." He numbered the hairs of my head, and numbered the days I will live on this earth.

Abortion is murder. Period. Funny how the only person who gets a vote on whether or not the child should be murdered in the womb is a woman who already escaped the same fate. Wonder how many abortions would be performed if the baby got a vote, too? I am betting on zero. Let's appoint an unbiased voter on the baby's behalf for each case. Like the " guardian ad lidem?sp" each foster child is given once they are a ward of the state. Yoi know, a responsible, morally upstanding productive member of society to make decisions with only the babies best interests as a concern. Wonder how many abortions would take place if the new life, which has done nothing wrong, had a voice...rather than only the irresponsible mother who made a decision to spread her legs.

Don't come with the rape bullcrap. A small fraction of a percent of women get raped resulting in pregnancy...it's not even an outlier or anomaly...it's a unicorn. Chances are that you don't know anyone who knows of anyone who was impregnated by a rapist. That's like getting struck by lightning while a shark bites you. Doesn't happen enough to even enter into a rational discussion.
Click to expand...

And Catholics believe, as Monty Python sang, "every sperm is sacred." Every time contraception is used a potential life is eliminated. They have every right to believe that just as you have every right to believe life begins at inception. No one is trying to take that away.

If you believe that abortion is murder, then you should obviously be against it. If someone believes that contraception is a damnable sin and is murder of a potential life, then they should obviously be against it. If someone believes that sex for pleasure instead of procreation is a damnable sin that murders potential life, they should be against it. If someone believes that masturbation is a damnable sin that murders potential life, they should be against it.

A lot of people are 100% sure they no what is right.

The rape "bull crap" complicates your stance; as well as the instances of the life of the mother. I think these instances do in fact happen more frequently than getting struck by lightening while being attacked by a shark.
 
#245
#245
kiddiedoc said:
If "independent viability" is the criterion, we would certainly be able to clear out the nursing homes and ICUs.

A complete human genome + brain activity & heartbeat = live person.
Click to expand...

Independent viability is dumb but a genome, brain activity, and a heartbeat aren't the answer either.

Hell, a humane genome seems utterly irrelevant. Would AI, if it gains consciousness over and above humans, never gain personhood for a lack of a human genome?
 
#246
#246
Orange_Crush said:
I never agreed to the thought that independent viiability is "the line". I heavily inferred otherwise. I believe as kiddiedoc does, that a human life is a human life with peronal genome, heartbeat, and brain activity.



I think you are incorrect. There are negligent murder charges on our legal books for a reason. In other words, whoever has the legal responsibility to care for a life has to care for that life, and if they don't, charges are pressed.

See the mother whose baby dies from neglect--i.e. leaving it in a hot car unattended. Or the son, who has accepted the repsponsibility to care for his mother, who allows her to die of hunger.

Since the pregnant mother is the only person that can possibly care for an unborn baby, I believe that she is the only person that can be held responsible to care for the life.

But in short... You are wrong per forced responsibility.

Note: Per umbilical cord, this is nothing more than debating method of care, as opposed to requirement of care.
Click to expand...

"Accepted responsibility" would be the key concept in his point.
 
#247
#247
PKT_VOL said:
Independent viability is dumb but a genome, brain activity, and a heartbeat aren't the answer either.

Hell, a humane genome seems utterly irrelevant. Would AI, if it gains consciousness over and above humans, never gain personhood for a lack of a human genome?
Click to expand...

I think that would depend on one's definition ofor personhood. To some it might just be a sentient being like you said...to me it seems like one could not be a person without being human... aliens for example while they could be much smarter than us would not have the same rights as humans as they are not citizens of earth right? In same way that a foreigner doesn't have the same rights as a citizen?
 
#249
#249
luthervol said:
I agree. Leave the supreme court decision alone.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a philosophical question with happens to have legal ramifications. Their role would be subsequent to the philosophical debate.

On a side note, interesting you're from Buford. Not far away.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top