Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Farb]

Your line of thinking is. Glad to see you admit it. Please stop using the vaccine mandate = abortion is murder comparison in the future. It's just dumb.

Dumb or not, it is the same thing. Why do you have a right to know what I inject in my body? You just stated you don't have the right to know about my herpes flair up or my boner pills, but you do get to know about that medicine injected into me? Can't have it both ways.

Since the womans body trumps any 'tenant', do you think she has the right to have an abortion at at 8 months? By your analogy, she does because she is just 'evicting' a tenant?
What about the federal law that prohibits a landlord from evicting a tenant during the pandemic? You have to feel those are wrong as well, just using your logic train.

 

[Farb]

It's the written law. I know it forward and backward, have read it in it's original Hebrew. Although I think the King James translation of it is fine.

I've read the Talmud as well, it's the oral law interpretation of the written law. Structurally similar to reading English common law precedent.

From my point of view it's the New Testament where the really wild eyed stuff is. The roots of very mystical movement in Judaism is found there.

I was told recently on this board that Judeo-christian beliefs have no bearing and no strutural signifigance to wester civilization and/or our common law.

But I agree with you. Our law is inherent to the judeo-chrisitan beliefs that were the foundation for western civilization.

Great post.

Personal question, are you Jewish by chance?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Still with this lazy argument?

For the 1138th time it’s because you can’t give people herpes or boners just by standing next to them

And herpes and boners don’t kill people

 

[Farb]

Show me the science, not based on religion, that says an embryo or fetus is a fully autonomous person.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

During the first 24 hours, once the sperm and egg bind to each other, the membranes of these two cells fuse, creating in less than a second a single hybrid cell: the zygote, or one-cell embryo.13,14 To protect his or her bodily integrity, within minutes the zygote initiates changes in its ionic composition, releasing zinc in a spark that induces “egg activation,” first modifying the surrounding zona pellucida blocking further sperm binding to the cell surface.15,16,17 Cooperation between sperm and egg components to achieve replication of DNA, cell division, and growth occurs as maternally and paternally derived factors in the zygote begin interacting with and chemically modifying each other to initiate the final round of meiotic division in the maternally derived nucleus15,16 to enable DNA replication.

Finally, the nuclear membranes of the pronuclei break down (called syngamy—technically, pronuclear membranes). No new nuclear membrane encompassing both pronuclei is formed; rather, mitosis occurs and two cells, each with its own identical nucleus encased in a nuclear membrane, are formed.18

Furthermore, studies with mice embryos demonstrate that despite the plasticity of which allows disrupted blastomeres to form an entire organism, ordinarily the polarity of the embryo is determined by the site of sperm penetration.19,20 (Evidence from other mammalian species suggests that the same may be true in humans, but does not offer definitive proof).

Some embryologists consider fertilization a day-long process and regard the beginning of human life as occurring near the end of this process at syngamy,1,18,21 whereas others consider the time of cell membrane fusion when the embryo gives evidence of being a different kind of cell than either oocyte or sperm, to be the beginning of a new human life, since within minutes the new embryo acts to prevent the merger of another sperm with itself and starts the business of self-replication. The single-celled embryo is a very different kind of cell than that of sperm or oocyte, and contains a unique genome that will determine most future bodily features and functions of his or her lifetime.

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.

The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was told recently on this board that Judeo-christian beliefs have no bearing and no strutural signifigance to wester civilization and/or our common law.

But I agree with you. Our law is inherent to the judeo-chrisitan beliefs that were the foundation for western civilization.

Great post.

Personal question, are you Jewish by chance?

No, you were told that our system of government was designed to be 100% separate from religious institutions and that that there are things common to both our laws and religious tenets because there are secular reasons for outlawing some of the same stuff outlawed by the Ten Commandments (since that was the example used.) Thou shalt not kill serves a secular purpose, therefore murder is illegal. Keeping the sabbath holy serves no secular purpose, therefore it's not legally a holy day.

You are either unable to comprehend basic arguments or unable to debate them honestly.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

During the first 24 hours, once the sperm and egg bind to each other, the membranes of these two cells fuse, creating in less than a second a single hybrid cell: the zygote, or one-cell embryo.13,14 To protect his or her bodily integrity, within minutes the zygote initiates changes in its ionic composition, releasing zinc in a spark that induces “egg activation,” first modifying the surrounding zona pellucida blocking further sperm binding to the cell surface.15,16,17 Cooperation between sperm and egg components to achieve replication of DNA, cell division, and growth occurs as maternally and paternally derived factors in the zygote begin interacting with and chemically modifying each other to initiate the final round of meiotic division in the maternally derived nucleus15,16 to enable DNA replication.

Finally, the nuclear membranes of the pronuclei break down (called syngamy—technically, pronuclear membranes). No new nuclear membrane encompassing both pronuclei is formed; rather, mitosis occurs and two cells, each with its own identical nucleus encased in a nuclear membrane, are formed.18

Furthermore, studies with mice embryos demonstrate that despite the plasticity of which allows disrupted blastomeres to form an entire organism, ordinarily the polarity of the embryo is determined by the site of sperm penetration.19,20 (Evidence from other mammalian species suggests that the same may be true in humans, but does not offer definitive proof).

Some embryologists consider fertilization a day-long process and regard the beginning of human life as occurring near the end of this process at syngamy,1,18,21 whereas others consider the time of cell membrane fusion when the embryo gives evidence of being a different kind of cell than either oocyte or sperm, to be the beginning of a new human life, since within minutes the new embryo acts to prevent the merger of another sperm with itself and starts the business of self-replication. The single-celled embryo is a very different kind of cell than that of sperm or oocyte, and contains a unique genome that will determine most future bodily features and functions of his or her lifetime.

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.

The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.

ACPeds? Nice. While we're at it, we should get the Cato Institute's unbiased opinion on government regulation of the marketplace.

"The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. ACPeds reports its membership at "over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals".

This is from the American Academy of Pediatricians, the group that ACPeds spun off of because the AAP didn't support their bigotry:

"America’s leading physician groups are deeply concerned about the consequences of the Texas state law, which took effect yesterday, banning abortions, medical counseling and support related to abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

Our organizations, which represent nearly 600,000 physicians and medical students, strongly oppose any laws and regulations that interfere in the confidential relationship between a patient and their physician. This new law will endanger patients and clinicians, putting physicians who provide necessary medical care, or even offer evidence-based information, at risk, by allowing private citizens to interfere in women’s reproductive health decision making. Moreover, this law virtually eliminates women’s access to evidence-based, comprehensive care and information, and denies women their right to make decisions about their own health.

Our organizations are firmly against any policies that limit the evidence-based practice of medicine, threaten the patient-physician relationship, and inhibit the delivery of safe, timely, and necessary comprehensive care, including reproductive health services and information.

Patients must be able to depend on their physicians to help them make critical decisions about their personal health, including reproductive health. To that end, we fundamentally oppose the unprecedented ability for private citizens to take legal action against individuals who help a woman obtain an abortion, including physicians providing necessary, evidence-based care for their patients. Physicians must be able to practice medicine that is informed by their years of medical education, training, experience, and the available evidence, freely and without threat of punishment, harassment, or retribution.

Patients and their physicians should be the ones to make medical decisions together about what care is best for them. We strongly urge the courts to act swiftly to strike down this law and any similar legislation."

Leading Physician Groups Oppose Texas Legislation That Threatens Access to Reproductive Patient Care

America’s leading physician groups are deeply concerned about the consequences of the Texas state law, which took effect yesterday, banning abortions, medical counseling and support related to abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

www.aap.org

 

[Farb]

But you don’t actually believe that based on what you said earlier in the thread.

If you believe a fetus has the same protection of personhood as a child, then you wouldn’t be against the government taking that person from the mother against her will in order to protect the fetus or child. I mean, you’re obviously not against the government taking a, say, 6 month old baby or 3 year old child from the mother against her will if the mother has stated the intent to hurt the child, correct? You would be in favor of CPS taking a child from the mother in those circumstances, right? But yet you claimed twice earlier in the thread that you would not ever be in favor of taking a fetus from the mother against her will even when the mother has stated the desire to terminate the pregnancy. That’s completely illogical if you truly believe a fetus has the same rights of personhood as a born child.

So either you do think the government should have the right to take a fetus from the woman against her will, or you don’t actually believe a fetus has the same rights of personhood as a born child. There’s no other possibility.

How would the state take a fetus from the mother in order to protect the child?

You apparently think the laws regarding the state taking a child who is in danger from parents. What would you change?

Also, when should abortion be illegal? At what point is it no longer 'ok' to have an abortion?

 

[samiam5211]

I was told recently on this board that Judeo-christian beliefs have no bearing and no strutural signifigance to wester civilization and/or our common law.

But I agree with you. Our law is inherent to the judeo-chrisitan beliefs that were the foundation for western civilization.

Great post.

Personal question, are you Jewish by chance?

I suppose you think Hammurabi's code was also based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

[Farb]

Still with this lazy argument?

For the 1138th time it’s because you can’t give people herpes or boners just by standing next to them

And herpes and boners don’t kill people

Can you get pregnant from standing next to somone?

 

[Farb]

No, you were told that our system of government was designed to be 100% separate from religious institutions and that that there are things common to both our laws and religious tenets because there are secular reasons for outlawing some of the same stuff outlawed by the Ten Commandments (since that was the example used.) Thou shalt not kill serves a secular purpose, therefore murder is illegal. Keeping the sabbath holy serves no secular purpose, therefore it's not legally a holy day.

You are either unable to comprehend basic arguments or unable to debate them honestly.

I don't think you know the 'debate' I was thinking about, but good job regergitating what other on here have said.

Since we are debating honestly,
When should abortions be illegal? At what point does it become not 'ok' to have an abortion?

 

[Taurus]

Dumb or not, it is the same thing. Why do you have a right to know what I inject in my body? You just stated you don't have the right to know about my herpes flair up or my boner pills, but you do get to know about that medicine injected into me? Can't have it both ways.

Since the womans body trumps any 'tenant', do you think she has the right to have an abortion at at 8 months? By your analogy, she does because she is just 'evicting' a tenant?
What about the federal law that prohibits a landlord from evicting a tenant during the pandemic? You have to feel those are wrong as well, just using your logic train.

I only get to know a positive or negative regarding your vaccine status. I don't get to know if you had a reaction or what (if anything) was done about it. I only get to know these things because you might be exhaling infectious particles into the air that anyone around you breathes. Pregnancy isn't contagious.

And yes, she does have the right to evict the tenant at 8 months. However, there's a difference between an abortion and an intentionally-botched delivery. If a fetus can live outside the womb, then it ought to be given the opportunity to do so.

If a landlord housed tenants inside their own body, then the prohibition on evictions would equate. As they do not and the relationship with the building is purely monetary, there's no equivalency.

 

[Farb]

I only get to know a positive or negative regarding your vaccine status. I don't get to know if you had a reaction or what (if anything) was done about it. I only get to know these things because you might be exhaling infectious particles into the air that anyone around you breathes. Pregnancy isn't contagious.

And yes, she does have the right to evict the tenant at 8 months. However, there's a difference between an abortion and an intentionally-botched delivery. If a fetus can live outside the womb, then it ought to be given the opportunity to do so.

If a landlord housed tenants inside their own body, then the prohibition on evictions would equate. As they do not and the relationship with the building is purely monetary, there's no equivalency.

Your stance is that 8 months, a mother can decide to have an abortion?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't think you know the 'debate' I was thinking about, but good job regergitating what other on here have said.

Since we are debating honestly,
When should abortions be illegal? At what point does it become not 'ok' to have an abortion?

I don't, because anyone seeking an abortion at 8 months is doing so because there is no other recourse. I would rather guarantee access to late-term abortions than force someone to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

If your wife or daughter were 8 months pregnant and found out that the skull didn't form correctly and the baby would die soon after delivery, living its short life in excruciating pain, would you want them to have the option for an abortion?

 

[Farb]

I don't, because anyone seeking an abortion at 8 months is doing so because there is no other recourse. I would rather guarantee access to late-term abortions than force someone to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

If your wife or daughter were 8 months pregnant and found out that the skull didn't form correctly and the baby would die soon after delivery, living its short life in excruciating pain, would you want them to have the option for an abortion?

So your stance is up until birth? Does there have to be an issue with the baby in order to be approved or is strictly up to the mother?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So your stance is up until birth? Does there have to be an issue with the baby in order to be approved or is strictly up to the mother?

The number of late-term abortions sought and performed is staggeringly small, and someone carrying a pregnancy up until that point has already decided that they are carrying to term if not for the situation that has led to the need for an abortion. Late-term abortions are performed almost solely because there is no other option, such as a severe birth defect that will cause the child to have a short, painful existence.

If your wife, sister, daughter, or some other woman that you care about found out at 8 months that their child was only going to have one excruciatingly painful hour of life due to a severe birth defect, would you want them to have the ability to seek an immediate abortion?

 

[brandon]

You just stated you don't have the right to know about my herpes flair up

What about your HIV? You are legally required to inform a sexual partner if you know you have HIV because you might forking kill them.

And you should be legally required to inform everyone you come in contact with (via card or otherwise) of your vaccination status because you might forking kill them.

 

[V Chip]

How would the state take a fetus from the mother in order to protect the child?

Does it matter if you truly believe the fetus should have the same rights as a born person? Again, unless you believe the state should take a fetus from the woman against her will in order to protect the fetus, you don't actually believe the fetus has the same rights as a born child.

You apparently think the laws regarding the state taking a child who is in danger from parents.

I think the laws... what?

Also, when should abortion be illegal? At what point is it no longer 'ok' to have an abortion?

It shouldn't be illegal under any circumstances.

Arguing that a mother would carry a fetus for 8 or 9 months and then want to abort and that her care providers would agree to do it is arguing a lie -- that does not happen. Even in the case of severe fetal defects, an 8 month fetus would be delivered by c-section or naturally through inducing if necessary. There would be no "abortion" in the way you're trying to imply. Might as well argue "what if a woman is carrying a unicorn fetus?"

 

[MT15]

Guys, there are no abortions at 8 months. They would either induce labor or have a C-section. It would almost always (like 99.99% of the time) be because of fetal demise.

Late term abortion is a myth cooked up by anti-abortionists to make everyone outraged.

Edit: I should have read V-Chip’s post first. Carry on.