SCOTUS hearing on Roe V Wade

[mect]

Yes. Women are designed to have the baby, not kill it. Having the baby is natural, killing it by snipping it's spine with scissors is most definitely not. So in nature, there is no such thing as abortion unless it's stress induced and that's called a miscarriage not an abortion. That's exactly why when women lose a baby due to natural circumstances, it's NOT called an abortion.

I want to clarify. When you say yes, you are saying yes, the government should be able to force a person to have a kidney surgically removed to donate to a person in need. Is that correct?

Additionally, whether or not something is natural has no bearing on whether it is moral. Lots of animal species naturally rape each other. Does this mean that rape is moral?

 

[brycejones]

Well what's your take exactly?

You're fucking nuts.

 

[IronWing]

Did I mention that my wife made Eccles cakes this week ? Mmm, Eccles cakes, pure buttery goodness.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Did I mention that my wife made Eccles cakes this week ? Mmm, Eccles cakes, pure buttery goodness.

But not as good as dead babies, right?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

You're fucking nuts.

Must be opposite day today.

 

[brycejones]

I finally had to clean up the thread.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Additionally, whether or not something is natural has no bearing on whether it is moral. Lots of animal species naturally rape each other. Does this mean that rape is moral?

Animals don't have a soul. Therefore, they do not have a conscience. They operate on instinct and various hormones that during times of year promote the novel idea of procreation. Animals don't have abortions, either.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

I want to clarify. When you say yes, you are saying yes, the government should be able to force a person to have a kidney surgically removed to donate to a person in need. Is that correct?

This? WTF?

 

[mect]

Animals don't have a soul. Therefore, they do not have a conscience. They operate on instinct and various hormones that during times of year promote the novel idea of procreation. Animals don't have abortions, either.

What does that have to do with anything? Your argument was that the morality of an action was determined by whether or not it was natural. Based on the bible, a fetus doesn't have a soul either.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

What does that have to do with anything? Your argument was that the morality of an action was determined by whether or not it was natural. Based on the bible, a fetus doesn't have a soul either.

EDIT: natural biological processes that go on in human beings.

 

[mect]

This? WTF?

You are arguing that the government should violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy to save the life of a fetus. I'm wondering if you extend that to people after they are born. If a person needs a kidney in order to survive, should the government violate another person's right to bodily autonomy and forcibly remove their kidney to save that person's life?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

You are arguing that the government should violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy to save the life of a fetus. I'm wondering if you extend that to people after they are born. If a person needs a kidney in order to survive, should the government violate another person's right to bodily autonomy and forcibly remove their kidney to save that person's life?

Yeah, and 38 states agree with me..
The fetus is a separate entity with unique DNA. The woman loses her body autonomy when she gets pregnant. The growing baby insider her is NOT part of her body, it''s a brand new human being. This argument is very weak.

 

[mect]

Right I stand by the natural statement I made earlier, what exactly are you getting at here? Did I overlook a question or something? Just explain so I can respond accurately. thanks

You made the natural statement. I responded that rape was natural. You responded that didn't matter because animals don't have souls. I pointed out a fetus doesn't have a soul either. So if arguments are based on whether or not the morality of natural processes is dependent on those involved having souls, it would follow that the lack of a soul present in a fetus would invalidate any argument regarding a fetus based on whether or not a process is natural. Its a silly argument to begin, but adding in the requirement for a soul makes it logically inconsistent in addition.

 

[Paratus]

It doesn't matter what I 'feel'. It matters what I think. And I don't agree with you that a women's 'body' has secondary rights. My operating principle is that no one, the woman, her boyfriend, the participating doctor, has the right to deprive that fetus of it's right to live. Since that fetus is completely dependent on on it's mother to survive, that mother has the moral responsibility to provide for it until birth. I am 100% down with doing everything possible to help her raise that child with whatever social programs are necessary if she can't provide for that child after birth. Or, she could put that child up for adoption (thought the system is broken: https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/demo/SEHSD-WP2017-10.html).

From a non-faith based perspective there is a moral and scientific framework that maximizes the woman’s bodily autonomy while still treating a fetus with value.

From first principles it’s do no harm to a person and respecting their rights to their own bodies.

From a scientific perspective a person must have something like a functioning mind to be a person that harm can be done to.

We do declare formerly alive people to be dead when they are brain dead even if their hearts are still beating. Ending life support is not considered harming them as there is no them to harm any longer.

Similarly until there is something like a functioning mind there is no “one” to harm if a fertilized egg fails to implant or a miscarriage happens before the brain starts functioning.

By 2X weeks fetuses start having REM sleep which seems to me to be a pretty definitive line of a functional brain.

The good news is by that point the risk of miscarriage is pretty low ~ 1/4000

So spontaneous abortion, elective abortions, and miscarriages before ~20 weeks doesn’t bother me because no one is yet being harmed and it’s the parent(s) right to decide if she (they) are bringing a baby into the world.

After that virtually all abortion are for medical reasons. If it’s to protect the mother almost all babies can be delivered after ~26 weeks and survive and abortions wouldn’t necessarily be required.

If it’s because of a defect incompatible with life then it is the parents right and responsibility to determine what the best course of action is for them and their child. You wouldn’t take away the rights of the parents to determine end of life care for their child dying of cancer would you? So why do that to the parents of the unborn.

 

[mect]

Yeah, and 38 states agree with me..
The fetus is a separate entity with unique DNA. The woman loses her body autonomy when she gets pregnant. The growing baby insider her is NOT part of her body, it''s a brand new human being. This argument is very weak.

Scientifically, it isn't a human being.

The fetus is dependent on her body to survive. You are forcing the woman to go through the medical process of birthing that child against her will and at risk to her own life and safety.

Another person dying from a failed kidney however is an actual human being. So you are right, it isn't exactly equivalent. Forcing another person involuntarily donate a kidney to save the life of that other human being is actually less invasive to a person's rights to bodily autonomy than forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term.

 

[IronWing]

But not as good as dead babies, right?

I've never eaten dead babies with butter but you do you.

 

[IronWing]

Animals don't have a soul. Therefore, they do not have a conscience.

LOL! Which would you like to take on first: evidence for souls or evidence that animals don't have them?

 

[Paratus]

No, you just seem to be confused about what 'killing' is. IMHO.

If I take an action that I know has a high likelihood of ending a human beings life I killed them. It might be justified as in the case of self-defense or it might be murder or it might be reckless endangerment but I would consider myself responsible.

what do you mean by this statement.

I’ve made it quite clear. Taking an abortifacient with a 95% chance of causing abortion is bad according to pro-lifers

Trying to procreate month after month with an 85% chance of causing a spontaneous abortion is just fine.

They both end in aborted “children” but only the first is bad.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Yeah, and 38 states agree with me..
The fetus is a separate entity with unique DNA. The woman loses her body autonomy when she gets pregnant. The growing baby insider her is NOT part of her body, it''s a brand new human being. This argument is very weak.

Oh? So that umbilical cord is just for decoration? It can be removed with no impact on the fetus right? That fetus can also be removed from the womb anytime after conception, and it won't have any effect on that fetus.. right?. You know, since it's not a part of the woman's body and all.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

You made the natural statement. I responded that rape was natural. You responded that didn't matter because animals don't have souls. I pointed out a fetus doesn't have a soul either. So if arguments are based on whether or not the morality of natural processes is dependent on those involved having souls, it would follow that the lack of a soul present in a fetus would invalidate any argument regarding a fetus based on whether or not a process is natural. Its a silly argument to begin, but adding in the requirement for a soul makes it logically inconsistent in addition.

Okay so in my opinion the soul enters the fetus at the exact moment of conception. There is no delay. Why do you think there is a delay?

Animals operate on instincts. kill or be killed, and during certain times of year or if the animal is in heat, yes rapes do occur. But animals cannot operate under or perceive sin. I have never seen a prison for animals. Again it's about intent, they arent operating under a criminal mentality like a rape of a human being. They aren't being judged for their actions. So it has to be an apples to apples comparison, which this is not. The reason why humans are on the hook is because we will each be judged for our actions. procreation that is continuation of the species, a natural biological process that must take place to preserve the species.

Scientifically, it isn't a human being.

38 states say you are wrong. Unborn children in all of these states have equvialent rights to "born" human beings.

But yes, you have to first de-humanize what you are trying to kill --- that way it doesn't look as bad, right?

 

[Paratus]

Okay so in my opinion the soul enters the fetus at the exact moment of conception. There is no delay. Why do you think there is a delay?

Animals operate on instincts. kill or be killed, and during certain times of year or if the animal is in heat, yes rapes do occur. But animals cannot operate under or perceive sin. I have never seen a prison for animals. Again it's about intent, they arent operating under a criminal mentality like a rape of a human being. They aren't being judged for their actions. So it has to be an apples to apples comparison, which this is not. The reason why humans are on the hook is because we will each be judged for our actions. procreation that is continuation of the species, a natural biological process that must take place to preserve the species.


38 states say you are wrong. Unborn children in all of these states have equvialent rights to "born" human beings.

But yes, you have to first de-humanize what you are trying to kill --- that way it doesn't look as bad, right?

How many souls?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Oh? So that umbilical cord is just for decoration? It can be removed with no impact on the fetus right? That fetus can also be removed from the womb anytime after conception, and it won't have any effect on that fetus.. right?. You know, since it's not a part of the woman's body and all.

The mother feeds the child, yes. The mother does not murder the child. The child has unique DNA. The child is a separate being with a different soul.

Did you ever consider the pain a fetus or partial birth or after birth abortion must be like? Bet you'd have a real quick change of heart if you walked in their tiny defenseless shoes. Or if you had that happen to you. But since it didnt happen to you you can advocate to do it to others. That's one hell of a paradox buddy.

If DNA can be used to identify a single individual out of 9,000,000,000 people, I think I can trust it over you every day of the week.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

How many souls?

What? As in like how many souls have gone up in smoke because of abortion? Millions. Literally planned parenthood is taking away people like Steve Jobs and Jack Nickolson and Justin Beeber. They are cheating us out of what might otherwise be incredible talent. PP deadens life by cheating us out of other people that could go on to create amazing things in all aspects of life. And don't bring up the whole counter argument that abortion also prevents killers from becoming serial killers. Quite the opposite in fact, planned parenthood is the chief serial killer on the entire planet. Pot calling the kettle black anyone?

 

[NWRMidnight]

The mother feeds the child, yes. The mother does not murder the child. The child has unique DNA. The child is a separate being with a different soul.

Did you ever consider the pain a fetus or partial birth or after birth abortion must be like? Bet you'd have a real quick change of heart if you walked in their tiny defenseless shoes. Or if you had that happen to you. But since it didnt happen to you you can advocate to do it to others. That's one hell of a paradox buddy.

If DNA can be used to identify a single individual out of 9,000,000,000 people, I think I can trust it over you every day of the week.

First, no a fetus does not have a soul. Yes, I saw your previous comment saying you believe it does, even though it's not backed up by science or the bible. Basically it's a typical millennial interpretation where facts, biblical or scientific, don't have to support your belief.

The mom feeds the baby? You mean the mom digests the food SHE eats and passes neutrients, thru her blood via the umbilical cord vein, to the fetus? She is the babies immune systems etc. Please try and tell us the baby is not part of her. Again, another Millennial interpretation.

Now as for "mom does not murder the child" how about you go respond to my comment I posted this morning to you, that you ignored.

As for pain, you must have huge issues with the actual birth itself and with the doctor spanking the child to get it to breath, which per the Bible is when life begins.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Scientifically, it isn't a human being.

Right because if you were killing human beings, there would be a public outcry and pp doctors would all be thrown in jail for 1st degree murder charges. Under no circumstances can people / the public know what you are actually doing behind closed doors. And again, 38 states do recognize the baby just like the mother, in utero. Also, if a baby and mother are killed / murdered the police will charge the suspect with 2 counts of murder, making planned parenthoods idea that it's not a human being preposterous.