Reply With QuoteIt's a living organism, whether it's inside or outside of the womb.Originally Posted by jon1959
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You prefer Wales Bales' 'facts' and certainties to mine, and approve the Supreme Court decision?
OK - I think that is a very bad and sad place to be - but your choice (although obviously not a woman's choice!)
But help me out by pointing to any dictionary definition of the word baby that includes the foetus state. I have looked and cannot find. I am not talking about whether a foetus would be viable or not - that is a different question. My response to Wales Bales was about his use of the word, and then doubling down with claiming it was 'a fact', and so not open to debate.
It's a living organism, whether it's inside or outside of the womb.
Yes, legislation has to pass through both houses. That's the point. That's how small-population Republican states like Wyoming and Nebraska and Iowa and the Dakotas and Missouri and Kansas and Missouri and Alabama and Tennessee and Utah, and even large-population Republican states like Texas and Florida, defend their autonomy from massive-population Democratic states like New York and California.
It's also how small-population Democratic states like Maine and Vermont and Maryland, and even large-population Democratic states like California and New York, will defend their autonomy from the Republican wave that is expected to sweep across America during this November's mid-term election.
The confusion stems from imagining that the United States is a unitary nation. It is not. It is a federation of 50 almost-if-not-quite-completely-sovereign states with their own legislatures, their own laws, their own cultures and their own presidents (governors). The federal government does not like this, of course, and tries to coerce the states any which way it can. The Senate, with its equal representation, makes this impossible, or at least a lot more difficult.
The U.S. Senate is vastly more democratic than the UN Security Council. No state has veto power in the U.S. Senate. If 60 percent of the vote can be gathered, then anything can be passed, and, contingent upon any such legislation surviving constitutional scrutiny in the courts, everyone will have to fall in line no matter what.
So is bacteria. That doesn't make it an unborn child though.
These are difficult and serious issues that deserve to be addressed, as they have been in the United States, without resort to snark. It can all seem ridiculous sometimes when you see contending protesters with their incendiary signs screaming at one another in the streets, but underlying all that are serious philosophical — and biological — questions that have to do with the nature of human life.
Look at that. An actual argument. Good for you.
Of course, bacteria will not become a human being. The fetus will. It is a human being in embryo, which raises the question of whether it deserves protection in the same way that a born child, who is an adult in embryo, is worthy of protection. And so, we return to the vexing question of timing — at what point in the gestational or developmental process do we deem a biologically human entity worthy of protection?
These are not easy questions.
I think you may be reaching a bit here.
You're elevating human life above all other life with that statement. Nature isn't interested in philosophy. Populations of animals are not governed by anything other than ecological systems and population dynamics i.e. mathematics and the equations of production, consumerism (in the biological sense) and decay. Mess with that (which we do all the time) and nature (the universe) has a way of making sure it balances out again.
Humans really aren't as clever as we think we are. People bang on about life being 'sacred' but they really mean human life, in isolation. We can't survive like that so all this so-called philosophical discussion is pointless anyway.
I was arguing against the point that because something is a living organism that it makes it relevant.
Were there not already laws in place to prevent non-essential/emergency (as in: obvious risk to mother or baby) abortions in the second trimester and outright bans beyond that gestational stage?
The "unborn child" will now have more human rights in certain states than the women who will be forced to carry it to term.
Women have abortions for good reasons. They don't just fancy killing a human.
If a woman is pregnated through rape, why should her only choice be to carry the baby for 9 months and deliver it?
Tell me more.
So would you condone the indiscriminate killing that occurs in the non-human animal kingdom, i.e. legalise murder?
(Impregnated, sorry. In b4 TBG)
To tell you the truth, I can't be bothered
Surprise, surpriseTo tell you the truth, I can't be bothered
I’m not against abortion, but something that always puzzles me, is we pass a law that allows a human life to be terminated, where the human has obviously no say in the matter, yet we don’t allow a human of sound mind, suffering from excruciating pain and no quality of life, to decide on terminating their own life. ??
Is this fact or opinion, because I know a few girls who just wanted to enjoy life without any consequences.
I don't believe this for a second.
There's no way that you know a few girls
Life is full of complexities, some people will argue for rights in specific circumstances, based on political ideology.
There is no non-human animal kingdom until humans become extinct. I don't remember seeing Meerkats with AK47s on any of Attenborough's programs.
I'm happy to debate but your question doesn't make any sense to me.
I didn't ask to be born in the first place. Not that it would have made any difference because I wouldn't have been sentient at the time.
Anyway, I'm off to deal with this quantum singularity that's been bugging me for a while.
Edit: and a life without consequences sounds awesome. In fact, if I wasn't alive, I wouldn't be in so much f*cking pain. It's kind of a circular argument.
Also all this from a country with no universal healthcare. So a young woman who maybe can't afford medical insurance would now be forced into giving birth, which on average costs between $5000 and $11000 out there if it's a vaginal pregnancy with no complications. If it's a C Section then make it between $7500 and $14000. God help you if the baby's premature, or needs aftercare.
So now this young mother now has a baby, thousands upon thousands of dollar of debt and all the cost involved with raising a child ahead of her. What sort of life is that kid going to have? And all because some dinosaurs who pretend they give a shit about life think they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. It's disgusting.
Obama made an election promise in 2007 that would enshrined Roe v Wade into federal law, thus removing the ability to challenge it as a precedent, which is how the supreme court works.
Obama could have also continued with his pick despite McConnell trying to block it.
. You can't block a presidents pick, just vote against it at confirmation, and Obama could have likely picked someone whom a few republicans would have voted for, thus confirming the pick.
RBG, she could have stepped down knowing how Ill she was, allowing Obama a pick...
I think the problem is Democrats play nice and adhere to some standards expected in office... republicans don't. So I agree republicans are primarily to blame, the ineffectual approach and foresight of the democrats make it much easier for them.
Just imagine... A woman who seeks an abortion for being pregnant due to rape could be imprisoned for longer than the rapist, that is if he's caught at all...There is a 50.8% chance of an arrest for a reported rape and an 80% chance of prosecution (of the 50% arrested).
Ironically the most vocal anti abortions voices are ultra religious evangelicals who seem to ignore the Bible, Numbers 5, which advocates for forced miscarriages (to be done by priests using poisonous water) if a woman becomes pregnant by another man other than her husband.
Also, twitter is exploding of women speaking out naming ardent pro life republican senators (or their sons) who paid for them, even forced them to have an abortion.
Ivanka Trumps college friends are also calling her out asking why she's so quiet about abortions when she wasn't so quiet when they took her to have an abortion in college.
The hypocrisy is astounding
It's funny how conservative evangelical males are so pro life until they get the wrong woman pregnant
Posting Permissions