|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2022 16:19:36 GMT -8
Some voters and jurists think the life of a human being is being terminated in an abortion, especially after the ability to survive outside the womb is upon them. It used to be "reasonable people could reasonably disagree about abortion". When did it become that ONLY the rights of the mother is involved in an abortion? Because it's nobody else's business? How so? Aren't all the laws and rights of this land all of our business? Why does the privacy rights of a woman necessarily trump all the rights of the viable unborn human being? Please provide reasoning. The "fetus", as some would put it, could survive without the mother, can feel pain, can hear, has hiccups, etc. It is a human being. as we know the term, in all ways save for the passage thru the birth canal. Zeroing out their rights needs more justification than just a platitude. In fact. there is no self evident reason for totally ignoring the rights of the unborn, ergo the reasoning in the Roe vs Wade decision that cites viability as a point in life that favors the rights of the "fetus". |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 22, 2022 16:46:39 GMT -8
I don't care what Jesus said. As a matter of fact, we don't even know for sure that Jesus existed. Any quotes attributed to him are 3rd and 4th generation removed (the stories were told verbally for decades before they were written down and compiled). There is no God, my friend. If there were, he wouldn't be a petty, jealous, insecure, angry, bitter, vindictive, cruel God as he's painted in the Bible. Those are the worst of the human traits. God would have to be better than that. God has no place in law, that's for sure. This is just not true. Jesus is historical, but that doesn't make him the Son of God. Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 22, 2022 16:49:03 GMT -8
Because it's nobody else's business? How so? Aren't all the laws and rights of this land all of our business? Why does the privacy rights of a woman necessarily trump all the rights of the viable unborn human being? Please provide reasoning. The "fetus", as some would put it, could survive without the mother, can feel pain, can hear, has hiccups, etc. It is a human being. as we know the term, in all ways save for the passage thru the birth canal. Zeroing out their rights needs more justification than just a platitude. In fact. there is no self evident reason for totally ignoring the rights of the unborn, ergo the reasoning in the Roe vs Wade decision that cites viability as a point in life that favors the rights of the "fetus". The fetus cannot survive without the mother until the 8th month (after 7 months). MAYBE after 6 months. At that point, you've got a very valid argument. Before then? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 22, 2022 17:08:04 GMT -8
This is just not true. Jesus is historical, but that doesn't make him the Son of God. Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. Well, let's just say, I disagree (with your historical look at Jesus and 3rd and 4th generation stuff, book of John, etc.) but whatever. Anyway, you don't have to believe in the Bible to recognize that abortion takes the life on an innocent human being. My belief in God doesn't effect that aspect. It does make me care. (Not as much as I should!) Do you really believe society determines what is actually right and actually wrong? So if we, as a society outlaw abortion, then abortion being illegal is actually right? |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 22, 2022 17:18:23 GMT -8
Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. Well, let's just say, I disagree (with your historical look at Jesus and 3rd and 4th generation stuff, book of John, etc.) but whatever. Anyway, you don't have to believe in the Bible to recognize that abortion takes the life on an innocent human being. My belief in God doesn't effect that aspect. It does make me care. (Not as much as I should!) Do you really believe society determines what is actually right and actually wrong? So if we, as a society outlaw abortion, then abortion being illegal is actually right? If only women could vote on this...you know what would happen. So the poor college freshman goes to her first frat party..drinks too much and gets roofied..then gets gang banged by 6 guys.. and you want her to quit school and further suffer, or even give her the death penalty? Sorry, most Americans think she should be able to make a decision. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 22, 2022 17:25:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 22, 2022 17:29:47 GMT -8
I don't care what Jesus said. As a matter of fact, we don't even know for sure that Jesus existed. Any quotes attributed to him are 3rd and 4th generation removed (the stories were told verbally for decades before they were written down and compiled). There is no God, my friend. If there were, he wouldn't be a petty, jealous, insecure, angry, bitter, vindictive, cruel God as he's painted in the Bible. Those are the worst of the human traits. God would have to be better than that. God has no place in law, that's for sure. OMG I must be loosing my mind. I agree with Eric. At least 500 witnesses say differently. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2022 17:31:19 GMT -8
How so? Aren't all the laws and rights of this land all of our business? Why does the privacy rights of a woman necessarily trump all the rights of the viable unborn human being? Please provide reasoning. The "fetus", as some would put it, could survive without the mother, can feel pain, can hear, has hiccups, etc. It is a human being. as we know the term, in all ways save for the passage thru the birth canal. Zeroing out their rights needs more justification than just a platitude. In fact. there is no self evident reason for totally ignoring the rights of the unborn, ergo the reasoning in the Roe vs Wade decision that cites viability as a point in life that favors the rights of the "fetus". The fetus cannot survive without the mother until the 8th month (after 7 months). MAYBE after 6 months. At that point, you've got a very valid argument. Before then? Nope. Even Wikipedia put the start of viability at 23 weeks and very likely at 24 week. Less than 6 months. But is viability, as cited in Roe vs Wade, the only determination that tells us the fetus is more of a human being than just a "clump of cells"? Presence of a Heartbeat? Since there is no Federal legislation covering abortion rights fir the unborn, you can see why the courts leaves it to the mores of the voters in the various states vs having a dictate from 5 of 9 justices that summarily deny all the rights of the unborn regardless of their condition or circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 22, 2022 20:59:52 GMT -8
The fetus cannot survive without the mother until the 8th month (after 7 months). MAYBE after 6 months. At that point, you've got a very valid argument. Before then? Nope. Even Wikipedia put the start of viability at 23 weeks and very likely at 24 week. Less than 6 months. But is viability, as cited in Roe vs Wade, the only determination that tells us the fetus is more of a human being than just a "clump of cells"? Presence of a Heartbeat? Since there is no Federal legislation covering abortion rights fir the unborn, you can see why the courts leaves it to the mores of the voters in the various states vs having a dictate from 5 of 9 justices that summarily deny all the rights of the unborn regardless of their condition or circumstance. I agree that viability should be the determining line between allowing abortion, vs. allowing forced induction (ie. allowing the mother to take medication in the hospital that causes the cervix to dilate, allowing the mother to give birth). 23-24 weeks... very unlikely to survive. Past 28 weeks, much more likely. So there is a grey area between 23-28 weeks where the viability of the baby is effectively a question mark... it may survive but might be in the nicu for a few months, or it might die. 29+ weeks it should be forced induction and abortion should be illegal.. Not sure on 23-28 weeks. But viability is definitely the dividing line for me. We have all sorts of microorganisms and cells inside of our bodies that all work together to allow us (a human being) to exist as a singular entity. Pre-viability, the baby's existence is dependent upon the mother. If the mother is existent in her own right, and the un-viable baby is merely a part of the mother, then in my opinion the rights of the mother trump the rights of the un-viable baby. In fact I would argue that the un-viable baby has no rights at that point because personhood is defendant upon being a human being (or having the capacity to be a human being in the case of the viable unborn baby) - a singular entity. It is not reasonable for the government to exercise the power of law over a person's body. Much in the same way that it is not right to mandate vaccines, it is not right to outlaw abortion when the fetus is not old enough yet to be a viable baby. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 22, 2022 21:03:45 GMT -8
The fetus cannot survive without the mother until the 8th month (after 7 months). MAYBE after 6 months. At that point, you've got a very valid argument. Before then? Nope. Even Wikipedia put the start of viability at 23 weeks and very likely at 24 week. Less than 6 months. But is viability, as cited in Roe vs Wade, the only determination that tells us the fetus is more of a human being than just a "clump of cells"? Presence of a Heartbeat? Since there is no Federal legislation covering abortion rights fir the unborn, you can see why the courts leaves it to the mores of the voters in the various states vs having a dictate from 5 of 9 justices that summarily deny all the rights of the unborn regardless of their condition or circumstance. There is no federal legislation, but there is a constitutional bill of rights that outlines rights that people have as human beings. The bill of rights supersedes state law. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 22, 2022 23:22:08 GMT -8
Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. Well, let's just say, I disagree (with your historical look at Jesus and 3rd and 4th generation stuff, book of John, etc.) but whatever. Anyway, you don't have to believe in the Bible to recognize that abortion takes the life on an innocent human being. My belief in God doesn't effect that aspect. It does make me care. (Not as much as I should!) Do you really believe society determines what is actually right and actually wrong? So if we, as a society outlaw abortion, then abortion being illegal is actually right? Well, since something like 65% of Americans want abortion to be legal we, as a society, have not decided to outlaw it. A handful of people beholden to the Religious Right have tried to outlaw it, and are succeeding in a number of states. They don't represent the majority - just a very loud minority. And before the fetus becomes viable (after at least 6 months) it's not really a human being. Certainly not before the brain becomes fully functional. Our brains are who we are. That's why we let brain dead people die - because they are already dead. That person is already gone. Without your brain you're just a hunk of living tissue and nothing more. That is a medical and scientific fact. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 22, 2022 23:30:38 GMT -8
The fetus cannot survive without the mother until the 8th month (after 7 months). MAYBE after 6 months. At that point, you've got a very valid argument. Before then? Nope. Even Wikipedia put the start of viability at 23 weeks and very likely at 24 week. Less than 6 months. But is viability, as cited in Roe vs Wade, the only determination that tells us the fetus is more of a human being than just a "clump of cells"? Presence of a Heartbeat? Since there is no Federal legislation covering abortion rights fir the unborn, you can see why the courts leaves it to the mores of the voters in the various states vs having a dictate from 5 of 9 justices that summarily deny all the rights of the unborn regardless of their condition or circumstance. But the voters of the states are deciding it. A small number of elected offcials is. In most states the majority wants abortion legal. Their elected officials are not abiding by their will. And the idea that a fetus is viable at 24 weeks is laughable. Sure, a small percentage of those will survive, but survival at that point is rare, and even the surviving baby ends up with permanent health or cognative issues much more often than a full term baby. And what about cases where the mother's life or health is at risk? Too bad for her? Because these backwards states are prioritizing the lives of unviable fetuses more than they do the mothers. That's messed up. The exceptions are so narrowly listed that doctors in Texas are already consulting with lawyers before treating pregnant women in emergency situations, some with near fatal results. It's only a matter of time before a pregnant woman dies because a doctor was afraid of going to prison. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 23, 2022 0:09:11 GMT -8
This is just not true. Jesus is historical, but that doesn't make him the Son of God. Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. It's not shocking that you, and all other atheists believe that JOHN didn't write it, but I believe he did, and many scholars believe he did, as well. The bottom line is that they're actions of Jesus that were witnessed by MANY. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 0:41:06 GMT -8
Actually, more and more historians are questioning whether Jesus existed, or if the stories about his life are apocryphal or not. It's hard to verify the existence of a non-leadership person over 2,000 years ago. Stories about, but no concrete proof. Well, here's the thing - I was shocked to find out that the Book of John, for example, wasn't written by John, but by a disciple of a disciple, transcribing the verbal stories they had heard into written stories. The standard comes from US. Period. It's what society determines is right or wrong. Basing law on what the Bible says is a bad idea. A VERY bad idea. It's not shocking that you, and all other atheists believe that JOHN didn't write it, but I believe he did, and many scholars believe he did, as well. The bottom line is that they're actions of Jesus that were witnessed by MANY. A.) As any law enforcement officer will tell you, eyewitness accounts are not always correct. B.) This was over 2,000 years ago. We don't know who really witnessed what. We have STORIES of what people said others told them they saw, but we don't have anything that really says that people saw this, or that this wasn't just a bunch of apocryphal stories that were accepted at the time as fact when they never really happened. You don't know, you weren't there, and the writings that came down years later are not exactly beyond questioning. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 23, 2022 5:37:22 GMT -8
It's not shocking that you, and all other atheists believe that JOHN didn't write it, but I believe he did, and many scholars believe he did, as well. The bottom line is that they're actions of Jesus that were witnessed by MANY. A.) As any law enforcement officer will tell you, eyewitness accounts are not always correct. B.) This was over 2,000 years ago. We don't know who really witnessed what. We have STORIES of what people said others told them they saw, but we don't have anything that really says that people saw this, or that this wasn't just a bunch of apocryphal stories that were accepted at the time as fact when they never really happened. You don't know, you weren't there, and the writings that came down years later are not exactly beyond questioning. Well, true belivers are the easiest to manipulate. Another sincere statement by the orange shyster yesterday at a rally. "Americans only kneel to God and no one else"....haha. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 6:35:59 GMT -8
A.) As any law enforcement officer will tell you, eyewitness accounts are not always correct. B.) This was over 2,000 years ago. We don't know who really witnessed what. We have STORIES of what people said others told them they saw, but we don't have anything that really says that people saw this, or that this wasn't just a bunch of apocryphal stories that were accepted at the time as fact when they never really happened. You don't know, you weren't there, and the writings that came down years later are not exactly beyond questioning. Well, true belivers are the easiest to manipulate. Another sincere statement by the orange shyster yesterday at a rally. "Americans only kneel to God and no one else"....haha. He's been so adept at manipulating the Religious Right, it's flat out amazing. Here's a guy who has lived the opposite of a Christian life (as they're supposed to live it), and he says a few right words, and they totally buy into his bull$#!+? Reeks of desperation on the part of the Religious Right, and he knows it. They're desperate to have another Reagan, so all he had to do was say a few key things and BOOM! Instant hero to the Religious Right. So much so that you see thousands upon thousands of memes online about him being Godly and Christlike. Trump's die hard supporters don't just support him, it's darned near worship. I could show you a dozen examples without breaking a sweat, but I don't want to make anyone throw up... That's how he got the confidence to try and have those supporters overturn the election by force. He knew they'd do ANYTHING he told them to do - including ending Mike Pence if Pence wouldn't play ball! |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 23, 2022 7:03:33 GMT -8
Well, true belivers are the easiest to manipulate. Another sincere statement by the orange shyster yesterday at a rally. "Americans only kneel to God and no one else"....haha. He's been so adept at manipulating the Religious Right, it's flat out amazing. Here's a guy who has lived the opposite of a Christian life (as they're supposed to live it), and he says a few right words, and they totally buy into his bull$#!+? Reeks of desperation on the part of the Religious Right, and he knows it. They're desperate to have another Reagan, so all he had to do was say a few key things and BOOM! Instant hero to the Religious Right. So much so that you see thousands upon thousands of memes online about him being Godly and Christlike. Trump's die hard supporters don't just support him, it's darned near worship. I could show you a dozen examples without breaking a sweat, but I don't want to make anyone throw up... That's how he got the confidence to try and have those supporters overturn the election by force. He knew they'd do ANYTHING he told them to do - including ending Mike Pence if Pence wouldn't play ball! "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters" was not a throw away line. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 7:13:55 GMT -8
He's been so adept at manipulating the Religious Right, it's flat out amazing. Here's a guy who has lived the opposite of a Christian life (as they're supposed to live it), and he says a few right words, and they totally buy into his bull$#!+? Reeks of desperation on the part of the Religious Right, and he knows it. They're desperate to have another Reagan, so all he had to do was say a few key things and BOOM! Instant hero to the Religious Right. So much so that you see thousands upon thousands of memes online about him being Godly and Christlike. Trump's die hard supporters don't just support him, it's darned near worship. I could show you a dozen examples without breaking a sweat, but I don't want to make anyone throw up... That's how he got the confidence to try and have those supporters overturn the election by force. He knew they'd do ANYTHING he told them to do - including ending Mike Pence if Pence wouldn't play ball! "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters" was not a throw away line. Nope. He could attempt a coup in three different ways, ending with a failed insurrection as an armed mob that he sent to the Capitol attempted to stop the certification of the 2020 Presidential election as per his urging. Giuliani - "It's trial by combat!" Trump - "Fight like hell!" "Be strong!" And his supporters still think HE'S the good guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 23, 2022 8:58:47 GMT -8
I can see how someone like me that is against vaccine mandates (which looks like I was right to be against) but for limiting abortion would look hypocritical. However, the problem is we have another human body involved. There are now two individual bodies involved in pregnancy and abortion.
This is you and I (hopefully).
conception - zygote - embryo - fetus - baby - toddler - child - teenager - adult - elderly - dead
We all change over time, we change our look, our function, our thinking, etc. but we don't change the type of being that we are. We are human beings, from conception to death.
Abortion clearly ends the life of another human being. It's a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 9:04:51 GMT -8
I can see how someone like me that is against vaccine mandates (which looks like I was right to be against) but for limiting abortion would look hypocritical. However, the problem is we have another human body involved. There are now two individual bodies involved in pregnancy and abortion. So, what you're basically saying is this - you don't want people telling you what to do and how to live, but you want to be able to tell people what to do and how to live. |
|
