Line Ate Member said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

You didn't say pain. You said no brain or ability to think. That would require that it doesn't move around (during the 1st trimester) which videos have proven false.

Yikes. We are killing unborn children because they can't feel it anyway. Wow.

---

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus.

---

Are you arguing no brain = fine to kill or are you arguing no pain = fine to kill?

You said one thing, I questioned it and then responded with something else.

---

Cognition and pain go together and neither are proven to be active because a fetus moves due to stimuli.

Jmiller said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

You didn't say pain. You said no brain or ability to think. That would require that it doesn't move around (during the 1st trimester) which videos have proven false.

Yikes. We are killing unborn children because they can't feel it anyway. Wow.

---

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus.

---

Are you arguing no brain = fine to kill or are you arguing no pain = fine to kill?

You said one thing, I questioned it and then responded with something else.

---

Cognition and pain go together and neither are proven to be active because a fetus moves due to stimuli.

---

Well then under your belief of what constitutes life, you believe that abortions should be allowed all the way to 29-30 weeks?

I am really happy that you are here to share your views and that your parents did not act on your views.

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I don't practice criminal law. I think the answer to all is 3.

Roe v. Wade recognized that the 14th Amendment right of privacy gave a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy. It does not confer any such right upon a drunk driver.

---

Now answer it without referencing Roe v Wade. Make a moral judgement. Your appeal to authority provides no substance to the underlying question.

Also, you didn't have to prove me right so quickly.

---

There is no moral value to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution or a person's right to privacy? No one has a definitive answer to "when 'human life' begins." You can disagree on science, religion, philosophy or whatever.

Everyone on this thread arguing that life begins at conception has either appealed to "their science" or religion or "common sense."

---

There is no value to right to privacy when that entails killing another human being, no. We don't let people kill their children in private because of their "right to privacy."

Matters of murder are entirely about values. There is no objective, scientific standard that proves murder is wrong. It is a moral judgement that requires an appeal to philosophy or religion. The question is, then, when does life begin? After all, murder only applies to living beings.

Well, the logical answer is that life begins when a distinct living being is created with its own unique genetic code. Conception. The reason that there was such a philosophical struggle on this issue historically is because we didn't have the science to understand insemination and fetal development. We now know for a fact how and where life begins. Any attempt to define another point at which life begins runs into all kinds of logical issues. Thus, the willful action of ending the life of a distinct human being is murder.

All you've done is appeal to case law to avoid making a moral judgement on an issue that you hold an abhorrent opinion on. Guess what, case law can be wrong. In the case of Roe, even liberal legal scholars admit it's a garbage opinion. Stop supporting evil on the basis of bad legal precedent.

---

Does it? What about a human being that is braindead and on life support? Is it murder to pull the plug? No it is not. Neither is aborting a fetus that has no brain. There is no person there. They can neither think nor feel.

---

Except one action is the direct cause of the trauma that precipitates death while the other is the removal of technology that is artificially preventing death. Under normal circumstances, a fetus will not die if you do not intervene. A brain dead person will absolutely die without the intervention of life life support.

That's like equivocating not performing CPR indeterminately to someone in cardiac arrest versus stabbing that person in the heart. In one situation, you've necessitated death while in the other you simply could not prevent it.

You articulated earlier that sentience should be the standard. Well, then I could "abort" anyone in a coma, naturally or medically induced, anyone that has been temporarily knocked unconscious, or anyone experiencing a medical episode like a seizure. After all, consciousness is a main component of sentience and they have no ability to display sentience in their current states.

The fact is, we know for a fact that after X number of days a fetus will be sentient just like, barring something catastrophic, we know the incapacitated person will wake up. Your false equivalence to say that someone is less of a human based on their current state as opposed to their potential state is a ****ty rationalizing for the evil, unsupportable position you hold on baby murder.

---

Wrong. I disproved your counter argument in an earlier post. A person in a coma has cognition. So does an unconscious person.

I see we have moved to a new 'potential state' argument. The fact is, we absolutely do not know for a fact that a fetus will not miscarry, which happens in up to 1/5th of pregnancies, and the odds were much greater prior to the 20th century.

---

You didn't disprove anything. In fact, all you did was make an argument against yourself by saying that a person in a coma is sentient. That would imply is would be murder to take them off life support by your own logic. This is, of course, absurd.

I'm not moving on to anything new. The potential state is a central part of the logic of why abortion is wrong. This is just the first time in this thread that it has come up.

Again, a miscarriage is akin to natural death. If a man has a heart attack, nobody murdered him. An abortion causes the death of a human being. This would be like me comparing a heart attack with a stabbing, like I stated earlier. It's apples to oranges. If you want to play the "what if" game, you might die in the next 15 seconds. Does that therefore give me the right to kill you? Should we rewrite laws based on potential events, or should we base our actions on what we know to be the normal processes of life?

You still haven't articulated any kind of cogent point or rebuttal.

Line Ate Member said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

You didn't say pain. You said no brain or ability to think. That would require that it doesn't move around (during the 1st trimester) which videos have proven false.

Yikes. We are killing unborn children because they can't feel it anyway. Wow.

---

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus.

---

Are you arguing no brain = fine to kill or are you arguing no pain = fine to kill?

You said one thing, I questioned it and then responded with something else.

---

Cognition and pain go together and neither are proven to be active because a fetus moves due to stimuli.

---

Well then under your belief of what constitutes life, you believe that abortions should be allowed all the way to 29-30 weeks?

I am really happy that you are here to share your views and that your parents did not act on your views.

---

His beliefs are one big pretzel of a contradiction. He hasn't provided a single cogent response as to when life begins. Just some cheap, deluded scientific explanations about fetal development and weird commentary about how people are just arrogant animals.

Kvetch said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I don't practice criminal law. I think the answer to all is 3.

Roe v. Wade recognized that the 14th Amendment right of privacy gave a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy. It does not confer any such right upon a drunk driver.

---

Now answer it without referencing Roe v Wade. Make a moral judgement. Your appeal to authority provides no substance to the underlying question.

Also, you didn't have to prove me right so quickly.

---

There is no moral value to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution or a person's right to privacy? No one has a definitive answer to "when 'human life' begins." You can disagree on science, religion, philosophy or whatever.

Everyone on this thread arguing that life begins at conception has either appealed to "their science" or religion or "common sense."

---

There is no value to right to privacy when that entails killing another human being, no. We don't let people kill their children in private because of their "right to privacy."

Matters of murder are entirely about values. There is no objective, scientific standard that proves murder is wrong. It is a moral judgement that requires an appeal to philosophy or religion. The question is, then, when does life begin? After all, murder only applies to living beings.

Well, the logical answer is that life begins when a distinct living being is created with its own unique genetic code. Conception. The reason that there was such a philosophical struggle on this issue historically is because we didn't have the science to understand insemination and fetal development. We now know for a fact how and where life begins. Any attempt to define another point at which life begins runs into all kinds of logical issues. Thus, the willful action of ending the life of a distinct human being is murder.

All you've done is appeal to case law to avoid making a moral judgement on an issue that you hold an abhorrent opinion on. Guess what, case law can be wrong. In the case of Roe, even liberal legal scholars admit it's a garbage opinion. Stop supporting evil on the basis of bad legal precedent.

---

Does it? What about a human being that is braindead and on life support? Is it murder to pull the plug? No it is not. Neither is aborting a fetus that has no brain. There is no person there. They can neither think nor feel.

---

Except one action is the direct cause of the trauma that precipitates death while the other is the removal of technology that is artificially preventing death. Under normal circumstances, a fetus will not die if you do not intervene. A brain dead person will absolutely die without the intervention of life life support.

That's like equivocating not performing CPR indeterminately to someone in cardiac arrest versus stabbing that person in the heart. In one situation, you've necessitated death while in the other you simply could not prevent it.

You articulated earlier that sentience should be the standard. Well, then I could "abort" anyone in a coma, naturally or medically induced, anyone that has been temporarily knocked unconscious, or anyone experiencing a medical episode like a seizure. After all, consciousness is a main component of sentience and they have no ability to display sentience in their current states.

The fact is, we know for a fact that after X number of days a fetus will be sentient just like, barring something catastrophic, we know the incapacitated person will wake up. Your false equivalence to say that someone is less of a human based on their current state as opposed to their potential state is a ****ty rationalizing for the evil, unsupportable position you hold on baby murder.

---

Wrong. I disproved your counter argument in an earlier post. A person in a coma has cognition. So does an unconscious person.

I see we have moved to a new 'potential state' argument. The fact is, we absolutely do not know for a fact that a fetus will not miscarry, which happens in up to 1/5th of pregnancies, and the odds were much greater prior to the 20th century.

---

You didn't disprove anything. In fact, all you did was make an argument against yourself by saying that a person in a coma is sentient. That would imply is would be murder to take them off life support by your own logic. This is, of course, absurd.

I'm not moving on to anything new. The potential state is a central part of the logic of why abortion is wrong. This is just the first time in this thread that it has come up.

Again, a miscarriage is akin to natural death. If a man has a heart attack, nobody murdered him. An abortion causes the death of a human being. This would be like me comparing a heart attack with a stabbing, like I stated earlier. It's apples to oranges. If you want to play the "what if" game, you might die in the next 15 seconds. Does that therefore give me the right to kill you? Should we rewrite laws based on potential events, or should we base our actions on what we know to be the normal processes of life?

You still haven't articulated any kind of cogent point or rebuttal.

---

I used braindead, not a coma, in my example. But you seem to be too keen on winning an argument than trying to understand a well articulated and cogent point or rebuttal.

IMHO, legal abortion will never be murder because a fetus is not a person that has cognitive abilities. You can make the argument of what MIGHT become, but a possibility does not justify taking away the bodily autonomy of an existing person.

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I don't practice criminal law. I think the answer to all is 3.

Roe v. Wade recognized that the 14th Amendment right of privacy gave a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy. It does not confer any such right upon a drunk driver.

---

Now answer it without referencing Roe v Wade. Make a moral judgement. Your appeal to authority provides no substance to the underlying question.

Also, you didn't have to prove me right so quickly.

---

There is no moral value to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution or a person's right to privacy? No one has a definitive answer to "when 'human life' begins." You can disagree on science, religion, philosophy or whatever.

Everyone on this thread arguing that life begins at conception has either appealed to "their science" or religion or "common sense."

---

There is no value to right to privacy when that entails killing another human being, no. We don't let people kill their children in private because of their "right to privacy."

Matters of murder are entirely about values. There is no objective, scientific standard that proves murder is wrong. It is a moral judgement that requires an appeal to philosophy or religion. The question is, then, when does life begin? After all, murder only applies to living beings.

Well, the logical answer is that life begins when a distinct living being is created with its own unique genetic code. Conception. The reason that there was such a philosophical struggle on this issue historically is because we didn't have the science to understand insemination and fetal development. We now know for a fact how and where life begins. Any attempt to define another point at which life begins runs into all kinds of logical issues. Thus, the willful action of ending the life of a distinct human being is murder.

All you've done is appeal to case law to avoid making a moral judgement on an issue that you hold an abhorrent opinion on. Guess what, case law can be wrong. In the case of Roe, even liberal legal scholars admit it's a garbage opinion. Stop supporting evil on the basis of bad legal precedent.

---

Does it? What about a human being that is braindead and on life support? Is it murder to pull the plug? No it is not. Neither is aborting a fetus that has no brain. There is no person there. They can neither think nor feel.

---

Except one action is the direct cause of the trauma that precipitates death while the other is the removal of technology that is artificially preventing death. Under normal circumstances, a fetus will not die if you do not intervene. A brain dead person will absolutely die without the intervention of life life support.

That's like equivocating not performing CPR indeterminately to someone in cardiac arrest versus stabbing that person in the heart. In one situation, you've necessitated death while in the other you simply could not prevent it.

You articulated earlier that sentience should be the standard. Well, then I could "abort" anyone in a coma, naturally or medically induced, anyone that has been temporarily knocked unconscious, or anyone experiencing a medical episode like a seizure. After all, consciousness is a main component of sentience and they have no ability to display sentience in their current states.

The fact is, we know for a fact that after X number of days a fetus will be sentient just like, barring something catastrophic, we know the incapacitated person will wake up. Your false equivalence to say that someone is less of a human based on their current state as opposed to their potential state is a ****ty rationalizing for the evil, unsupportable position you hold on baby murder.

---

Wrong. I disproved your counter argument in an earlier post. A person in a coma has cognition. So does an unconscious person.

I see we have moved to a new 'potential state' argument. The fact is, we absolutely do not know for a fact that a fetus will not miscarry, which happens in up to 1/5th of pregnancies, and the odds were much greater prior to the 20th century.

---

You didn't disprove anything. In fact, all you did was make an argument against yourself by saying that a person in a coma is sentient. That would imply is would be murder to take them off life support by your own logic. This is, of course, absurd.

I'm not moving on to anything new. The potential state is a central part of the logic of why abortion is wrong. This is just the first time in this thread that it has come up.

Again, a miscarriage is akin to natural death. If a man has a heart attack, nobody murdered him. An abortion causes the death of a human being. This would be like me comparing a heart attack with a stabbing, like I stated earlier. It's apples to oranges. If you want to play the "what if" game, you might die in the next 15 seconds. Does that therefore give me the right to kill you? Should we rewrite laws based on potential events, or should we base our actions on what we know to be the normal processes of life?

You still haven't articulated any kind of cogent point or rebuttal.

---

I used braindead, not a coma, in my example. But you seem to be too keen on winning an argument than trying to understand a well articulated and cogent point or rebuttal.

IMHO, legal abortion will never be murder because a fetus is not a person that has cognitive abilities. You can make the argument of what MIGHT become, but a possibility does not justify taking away the bodily autonomy of an existing person.

---

So your position is it is completely dependent on brain activity at that specific moment?

Also, it's not what might become. It's what will become under normal circumstances. We don't stop doing normal things because something abnormal MIGHT happen.

Any obstetrician will tell you that miscarriages happen under normal circumstances.

They will also tell you It's not the typical or expected outcome. 100% of people will die. That is not justification for ending life.

Trying to argue rationally with people that are over emotional and have no morals is futile.

Some people will tie themselves in illogical, semantic knots in an effort to justify something that any sentient human being knows is disgusting, inhumane, immoral and wrong on any level.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Kvetch said:

---

They will also tell you It's not the typical or expected outcome. 100% of people will die. That is not justification for ending life.

---

Among 53,479 different women admitted to labor and delivery ward, 43% of women reported having had 1 or more first trimester spontaneous miscarriages.

I know you want to win your argument, but the facts are not on your side.

A possibility is not justification for the government to suspend a persons bodily autonomy.

Jmiller said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

They will also tell you It's not the typical or expected outcome. 100% of people will die. That is not justification for ending life.

---

Among 53,479 different women admitted to labor and delivery ward, 43% of women reported having had 1 or more first trimester spontaneous miscarriages.

I know you want to win your argument, but the facts are not on your side.

A possibility is not justification for the government to suspend a persons bodily autonomy.

---

The hill you're going to die on is that miscarriages are the expected outcome of a pregnancy so abortion is justified because they'll probably die if we did nothing anyways? Bold move.

I understand that miscarriages happen. I know people who have had them. You're making a false equivalence between natural death and human-induced death. It's a ridiculous assertion.

ETA you still haven't answered. Please define when life begins. I know you like to take one little snippet of what I said and ignore the rest, but the miscarriage point is really irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

Look at the old biddies coming in here to defend the mistakes of their youth. They can't forgive themselves so they double down.

Artorias said:

---

Buzzy said:

---

This is the natural response for all of the recent anti-abortion bills of late. Keep trying to make it impossible for women to get an abortion, expect liberal states to slap back.

---

Which abortion bill has made it impossible to get an abortion?

---

Do you not understand the difference between 'trying to' do something and actually accomplishing it, or are you just being deliberately obtuse so you can start an argument?

A liberal baby murderer once told me, matter of factly as if it has been proven and can't be debated, that "ensoulment" occurs at week 30something after conception. Therefore, I suppose the argument these people so passionately fight for is that people should choose to have intercourse with any or as many partners they're not prepared to raise children with as they want and choose to not use contraceptives no matter how young they are, no matter what other plans they may have for themselves, and no matter what they can afford or what support systems they have or don't have because of course they then can go ahead and choose to mutilate and destroy that baby growing inside of them without any guilt. With so many easy choices and no guilt or consequences for any of them, it is really convenient to tell yourself that baby murder is a good thing and fight to defend that position.

Quote:

---

A liberal baby murderer once told me, matter of factly as if it has been proven and can't be debated, that "ensoulment" occurs at week 30something after conception.

---

I wonder if that's what God meant in Jeremiah 1:5....

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Quote:

---

A liberal baby murderer once told me, matter of factly as if it has been proven and can't be debated, that "ensoulment" occurs at week 30something after conception.

---

I wonder if that's what God meant in Jeremiah 1:5....

---

This will be my heavy metal band name if I ever start a heavy metal band