A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
Armstronglivs is absolute scum, scientifically illiterate, incapable of basic reasoning skills, and quick to viciously attack the poster instead of the argument. I’ve blocked him but still can’t avoid seeing his posts quoted by others. Sure enough, his quoted posts are inane as expected. I don’t even know what business it is of someone in NZ or AU or wherever the jerk is to weigh in on American politics.
I am well aware of his bs. I just happen to be bored today so I tried to educate him. Some people evidently can’t be saved though.
he has never once used any semblance of logic in this thread and constantly bounces from point to point whenever he runs up against a barrier.
he thinks being from NZ gives him some moral high ground or credibility. It just makes me laugh.
A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
Armstronglivs is absolute scum, scientifically illiterate, incapable of basic reasoning skills, and quick to viciously attack the poster instead of the argument. I’ve blocked him but still can’t avoid seeing his posts quoted by others. Sure enough, his quoted posts are inane as expected. I don’t even know what business it is of someone in NZ or AU or wherever the jerk is to weigh in on American politics.
I don't know why but I have the feeling you and I aren't in agreement. But you must be used to that as everyone is wrong except you. I would block me if I was you - being humiliated can't be much fun.
Armstronglivs is absolute scum, scientifically illiterate, incapable of basic reasoning skills, and quick to viciously attack the poster instead of the argument. I’ve blocked him but still can’t avoid seeing his posts quoted by others. Sure enough, his quoted posts are inane as expected. I don’t even know what business it is of someone in NZ or AU or wherever the jerk is to weigh in on American politics.
I am well aware of his bs. I just happen to be bored today so I tried to educate him. Some people evidently can’t be saved though.
he has never once used any semblance of logic in this thread and constantly bounces from point to point whenever he runs up against a barrier.
he thinks being from NZ gives him some moral high ground or credibility. It just makes me laugh.
From a purely legal standpoint, don’t most legal minds agree that it was bad law?
Yes, they do. All these shrill minds yelling about it are illegal, or at least illegitimate. It doesn’t even take much legal expertise or either a liberal or conservative bias to see the flawed reasoning in Roe to which the SCOTUS itself admitted.
A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
A single cell is life. It also contains "unique human DNA". You didn't sleep through the class. You simply didn't go. Not too late to catch up.
In the United States it is settled law and ethics that life ends with an absence of brain activity. No cortical or brainstorm activity, life is over. You may turn off the ventilator or harvest the organs for transplant no questions asked. This organism is no longer a living human. Does any reasonable person dispute this? If you agree with this, then it follows that human life does not begin until there is brain activity. The most charitable reading of this would be at 6 weeks gestation. Certainly an embryo or fertilized egg is not “a live human” based on American jurisprudence or ethics. Tell me how this reasoning is wrong? If you are waiting for cortical brain activity, ie, feeling things, “thinking”, then it is much later in gestation. Not during trimester 1. We have near 100% consensus on the end of human life. Why don’t we have the same for the beginning of human life?
A sperm is life. (So is an egg). There is no "life" possible if it were otherwise. So I assume you are equally against masturbation and menstruation and contraception as you are against abortion?
A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
1. A zygote or an early stage fetus is a long way from a fully fledged person. Half of all zygotes just never attach and are ejected, but we’re not sifting through every fertile women’s menses to see if a child has died.
2. Most people agree with the above, which is why they’re ok with an early stage abortion. Find me someone who’s just as upset about a zygote that doesn’t implant as they are about the kids who were killed in that school in Texas last month.
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
4. If you’re going to say that it’s ok to force women to give birth to children they don’t want to because the children will die otherwise, then it must also be okay for the State to force you to give up a kidney or lung to someone who will die without it.
A single cell is life. It also contains "unique human DNA". You didn't sleep through the class. You simply didn't go. Not too late to catch up.
In the United States it is settled law and ethics that life ends with an absence of brain activity. No cortical or brainstorm activity, life is over. You may turn off the ventilator or harvest the organs for transplant no questions asked. This organism is no longer a living human. Does any reasonable person dispute this? If you agree with this, then it follows that human life does not begin until there is brain activity. The most charitable reading of this would be at 6 weeks gestation. Certainly an embryo or fertilized egg is not “a live human” based on American jurisprudence or ethics. Tell me how this reasoning is wrong? If you are waiting for cortical brain activity, ie, feeling things, “thinking”, then it is much later in gestation. Not during trimester 1. We have near 100% consensus on the end of human life. Why don’t we have the same for the beginning of human life?
It is possible to have life begin and end in different places. The reason we don’t have consensus is the left has no morality or sense of responsibility.
Armstronglivs is absolute scum, scientifically illiterate, incapable of basic reasoning skills, and quick to viciously attack the poster instead of the argument. I’ve blocked him but still can’t avoid seeing his posts quoted by others. Sure enough, his quoted posts are inane as expected. I don’t even know what business it is of someone in NZ or AU or wherever the jerk is to weigh in on American politics.
I don't know why but I have the feeling you and I aren't in agreement. But you must be used to that as everyone is wrong except you. I would block me if I was you - being humiliated can't be much fun.
I don't know why but I have the feeling you and I aren't in agreement. But you must be used to that as everyone is wrong except you. I would block me if I was you - being humiliated can't be much fun.
A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
1. A zygote or an early stage fetus is a long way from a fully fledged person. Half of all zygotes just never attach and are ejected, but we’re not sifting through every fertile women’s menses to see if a child has died.
2. Most people agree with the above, which is why they’re ok with an early stage abortion. Find me someone who’s just as upset about a zygote that doesn’t implant as they are about the kids who were killed in that school in Texas last month.
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
4. If you’re going to say that it’s ok to force women to give birth to children they don’t want to because the children will die otherwise, then it must also be okay for the State to force you to give up a kidney or lung to someone who will die without it.
1. A zygote that doesn’t implant is still a life. Tragically the life doesn’t make it through no fault of the woman. What’s your point here? 2. A zygote that doesn’t implant and a shooting victim are both tragic loses. Logically people will be more upset when they lose someone they have known for years, but couples still struggle emotionally trying to get pregnant. 3. I’m not ok with any abortions, especially though caused by the woman’s proclivity to engage in risky sex. 4. This is so devoid of logic it is hard to argue. Woman opens legs and gets pregnant vs. person needs heart transplant due to defect. Please show me where the two are connected.
A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
Have you ever considered that women should only be having intercourse with the man they are married to before God and that maybe this culture of tinder hookups is not the right path?
It is possible to have life begin and end in different places. The reason we don’t have consensus is the left has no morality or sense of responsibility.
I just want to hear why my reasoning is wrong? We have an absolute consensus that there is no longer a living human when there is no brain activity. It is not murder to turn off life support or stop the heart from beating at this point. It follows human life has not started until there is brain activity. This is not simply a passive ending of life in the absence of brain function, no, we literally open up the person’s chest and remove their hearts. If this is not cold blooded murder, certainly aborting an embryo is not. What about all of the embryos yet to be implanted? Do they have rights too?
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
Are you familiar with the not-at-fault principle? Insurance does not and does not have to penalize you for accidents that are not your fault. If you hit a pedestrian who hurled themselves out of nowhere in front of your truck, you are not charged with even involuntary manslaughter.
Between life and economic or other inconveniences, life takes precedence. Between bringing a fatherless (or father-absent) child to life forced on the mother without her consent, the not-at-fault principle takes precedence. Principles can be nuanced, not always stupid black or white.
You may not like it or agree with it, but that view of precedence of principle will be the law of the land in most states if not all.
I just want to hear why my reasoning is wrong? We have an absolute consensus that there is no longer a living human when there is no brain activity. It is not murder to turn off life support or stop the heart from beating at this point. It follows human life has not started until there is brain activity.
I hear you but honestly don’t see an intellectually coherent justification for why the start and the end have to be similarly defined. Do we define the start of a relationship and the end of a relationship the same way? Do we define the start of a disease and the end of a disease the same way? Pre-life and after-life are different enough for them to not to have to share the same boundary definition.
It is possible to have life begin and end in different places. The reason we don’t have consensus is the left has no morality or sense of responsibility.
I just want to hear why my reasoning is wrong? We have an absolute consensus that there is no longer a living human when there is no brain activity. It is not murder to turn off life support or stop the heart from beating at this point. It follows human life has not started until there is brain activity. This is not simply a passive ending of life in the absence of brain function, no, we literally open up the person’s chest and remove their hearts. If this is not cold blooded murder, certainly aborting an embryo is not. What about all of the embryos yet to be implanted? Do they have rights too?
I just told you that start and end pints don’t have to be the same.
I hear you but honestly don’t see an intellectually coherent justification for why the start and the end have to be similarly defined. Do we define the start of a relationship and the end of a relationship the same way? Do we define the start of a disease and the end of a disease the same way? Pre-life and after-life are different enough for them to not to have to share the same boundary definition.
Human life has been very clearly defined as being more than just a bunch of living human cells. I’m a doctor, we look at a mass of living human cells with no brain activity as NOT being a living human. We are under no obligation to keep this mass of cells alive. You agree with this, correct? Again, tell me why a mass of living human cells without brain activity is a human deserving of standing or rights, rights that supersede those of a fully human with brain activity, the mother?
There are millions of low income Democrats that can’t afford to cross state lines to get an abortion or take their lady across state lines.
Much easier for them to show up and vote.
How many people here have to have election demographics explained to them?
No, the vast majority of poor people don't vote, or even pay attention to politics at all. Go to a ghetto and try to talk politics to people on the street, you will be like an alien from another planet.
Since you're surely a Democrat, you might ask yourself why they refuse to care about you supposedly representing them
