User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: The Pseudo-Logic of Heartbeat Bills

  1. #21
    Points: 15,977, Level: 30
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 473
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2494
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    6,489
    Points
    15,977
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    1,720
    Thanked 2,493x in 1,869 Posts
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    It is murder and you support it. You can come up with argument but the fact is that you support legalized murder.It is a biological fact. The baby doesn't have the same DNA as the mother, Everything else about her does, including cancer.

    Morals are not changed to fit convenience. Your post is cartoon =like.
    Until the baby can survive outside the mother, it isn't a developed to the point I would call it human. After that, I agree with you --that it is murder.

    The bizarre aspect of this is that for it to get this far, the woman -- or girl, probably -- went through sex education at school, maybe through some other venue, had counseling on birth control, probably had access to free birth control and day-after remedies, and still got pregnant. So you could make a case that she must have wanted to have an abortion over all else as a matter of choice.

    And that would be premeditated murder at some point.
    Last edited by Lummy; 05-14-2019 at 10:39 PM.
    The only way to stop democrats' insane drive to impeach Trump and all their other illicit shenanigan is to force them to pay for it all out of their own pockets when they lose.

  2. #22
    Points: 15,977, Level: 30
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 473
    Overall activity: 48.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2494
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    6,489
    Points
    15,977
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    1,720
    Thanked 2,493x in 1,869 Posts
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have never advocated for either side, by the way. People have asked for my opinion and I've given it. That is not advocacy. It is a peculiar tradition of a lot of Christians to tell everyone else what is and what is not moral, how they should and should not behave, in all manner of making everyone else in their own image, and I have a problem with that.
    Last edited by Lummy; 05-14-2019 at 10:47 PM.
    The only way to stop democrats' insane drive to impeach Trump and all their other illicit shenanigan is to force them to pay for it all out of their own pockets when they lose.

  3. #23
    Points: 40,089, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 61
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    180806
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,687
    Points
    40,089
    Level
    48
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,491x in 7,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    Until the baby can survive outside the mother, it isn't a developed to the point I would call it human.
    What would you call it?
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019)

  5. #24
    Points: 40,089, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 61
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    180806
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,687
    Points
    40,089
    Level
    48
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,491x in 7,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    My religion goes by when the first breath occurs, which makes a lot of sense medically/biologically. Respiratory depression, arrest or prolonged apnea ultimately stops life or can lead to brain death. The heart, while neat, requires respiration. The body requires oxygen and CO2. It's really more essential than the actual organs. Nothing on earth would really be living without the process or a similar process. This seems like a much cleaner way of determining life, and I think the Jewish people were onto something when they/we came up with that gem.
    If the fetus is fed oxygen through the umbilical cord, how is that different from being on a respirator?
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019)

  7. #25
    Points: 69,358, Level: 64
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,592
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153627
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    5,970
    Points
    69,358
    Level
    64
    Thanks Given
    6,219
    Thanked 5,048x in 2,968 Posts
    Mentioned
    539 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    My religion goes by when the first breath occurs, which makes a lot of sense medically/biologically. Respiratory depression, arrest or prolonged apnea ultimately stops life or can lead to brain death. The heart, while neat, requires respiration. The body requires oxygen and CO2. It's really more essential than the actual organs. Nothing on earth would really be living without the process or a similar process. This seems like a much cleaner way of determining life, and I think the Jewish people were onto something when they/we came up with that gem.

    It is an interesting perspective, at any rate. Might be interesting to hear arguments about what the law or legal "rights" should be if a child is considered part of the mother until the first breath. If a mother is basically acting as nature's life support, which she is, does that impact her options or rights?
    That's certainly an interesting argument! However, it is not a medical one. In a strictly medical sense, of course an embryo or a fetus is technically alive. That's not disputed by medical science today. The question most of us are debating here accordingly is instead whether that type of existence constitutes personhood. (And yes, there IS a difference: medical science refers to embryos and fetuses as embryos and fetuses, not "unborn babies", for example. "Unborn baby" is not a medical term.) I argue that it doesn't because every experience of value to us is consequential of birth. I mean, for example, if one had to choose between death and living the rest of their life in say a vegetative state, unable to have such basic human experiences as the ability to perceive the world around them or form relationships anymore, which would they choose? It probably wouldn't be seen to make a difference, frankly. One might just as well be dead for all practical purposes. No one actually wants to live like that. You see what I'm saying? Every experience of value to human beings is made possible by birth.

    The essential functional difference between a grown individual in a coma and an embryo or a fetus is that the latter's form of life support is itself a living being, indisputably a person, with a will and needs of their own; a difference which I feel tips the scales of morality in favor of choice.
    Last edited by IMPress Polly; 05-15-2019 at 06:07 AM.

  8. #26

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 78,239, Level: 68
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 1,811
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    169594
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    19,059
    Points
    78,239
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    6,546
    Thanked 14,856x in 8,519 Posts
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Life begins at conception.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019)

  10. #27
    Points: 69,358, Level: 64
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,592
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153627
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    5,970
    Points
    69,358
    Level
    64
    Thanks Given
    6,219
    Thanked 5,048x in 2,968 Posts
    Mentioned
    539 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are any of our conservative members going to actually engage with the points that I have made about the distinction between life and personhood or just endlessly recycle the same statements about the point at which life semantically begins?

  11. #28
    Points: 458,688, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 68.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397110
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,254
    Points
    458,688
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,412
    Thanked 44,685x in 32,882 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    That's certainly an interesting argument! However, it is not a medical one. In a strictly medical sense, of course an embryo or a fetus is technically alive. That's not disputed by medical science today. The question most of us are debating here accordingly is instead whether that type of existence constitutes personhood. (And yes, there IS a difference: medical science refers to embryos and fetuses as embryos and fetuses, not "unborn babies", for example. "Unborn baby" is not a medical term.) I argue that it doesn't because every experience of value to us is consequential of birth. I mean, for example, if one had to choose between death and living the rest of their life in say a vegetative state, unable to have such basic human experiences as the ability to perceive the world around them or form relationships anymore, which would they choose? It probably wouldn't be seen to make a difference, frankly. One might just as well be dead for all practical purposes. No one actually wants to live like that. You see what I'm saying? Every experience of value to human beings is made possible by birth.

    The essential functional difference between a grown individual in a coma and an embryo or a fetus is that the latter's form of life support is itself a living being, indisputably a person, with a will and needs of their own; a difference which I feel tips the scales of morality in favor of choice.

    The personhood argument was first argued during the Progressive Era in an effort to use eugenics to eliminate undesirables from society. The Nazis later borrowed those ideas as justification for the Holocaust. You can read about that in, for example, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.

    The personhood argument then returned in the 70s in defense of abortion. It is only recently, and regrettably, that a few on the right have picked it up to beat the left at their own game.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019)

  13. #29
    Points: 458,688, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 68.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397110
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,254
    Points
    458,688
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,412
    Thanked 44,685x in 32,882 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    Are any of our conservative members going to actually engage with the points that I have made about the distinction between life and personhood or just endlessly recycle the same statements about the point at which life semantically begins?

    It's been addressed, Polly. Life and when it begins is an objective, scientific, empirical question--there is no semantics involved. Personhood is a subjective, unscientific, emotional question--it is all semantics in assigning value to human life.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019),DGUtley (05-15-2019)

  15. #30
    Points: 40,089, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 61
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    180806
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    17,687
    Points
    40,089
    Level
    48
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 12,491x in 7,786 Posts
    Mentioned
    188 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    Are any of our conservative members going to actually engage with the points that I have made about the distinction between life and personhood or just endlessly recycle the same statements about the point at which life semantically begins?
    Your "points" are absurd, so probably not. In 1973, when Roe was decided, Justice Blackmun made it clear in his opinion, that "“If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

    If you want to keep killing kids, you may want to leave the "personhood" issue out of the discussion.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-15-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO