Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous


A pacemaker is a tool or piece of equipment designed and used to regulate a heart beat. Simply adding a pacemaker to a corpse and then claiming the corpse is alive due to an artificially produced heartbeat - is not equivalent to it being used to regulate a living humans heartbeat. It certainly isn't remotely equivalent to a baby's heartbeat in the womb.

One is artificially produced (in the corpse via equipment) the other is naturally produced (in the womb via the babys heart).

Like I said - bad argument.

Living humans require a heartbeat to pump blood through the circulatory system. Barring any outside technology being used to artificially pump said blood through the circulatory system - a heartbeat can be concluded to be a sign of a living human. If you disagree please show me a human that doesn't have a beating heart, but is considered alive without any outside intervention (technology). If you agree then you are agreeing that a baby with a heartbeat is therefore alive and as such deserves all the protections under the constitution of you and I - right?

originally posted by: Imperator2
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


A pacemaker is a tool or piece of equipment designed and used to regulate a heart beat. Simply adding a pacemaker to a corpse and then claiming the corpse is alive due to an artificially produced heartbeat - is not equivalent to it being used to regulate a living humans heartbeat. It certainly isn't remotely equivalent to a baby's heartbeat in the womb.

One is artificially produced (in the corpse via equipment) the other is naturally produced (in the womb via the babys heart).

Like I said - bad argument.

Living humans require a heartbeat to pump blood through the circulatory system. Barring any outside technology being used to artificially pump said blood through the circulatory system - a heartbeat can be concluded to be a sign of a living human. If you disagree please show me a human that doesn't have a beating heart, but is considered alive without any outside intervention (technology). If you agree then you are agreeing that a baby with a heartbeat is therefore alive and as such deserves all the protections under the constitution of you and I - right?

What happens if we meet intelligent aliens in outer space that don't have hearts at all? Maybe their cardiovascular system works differently than ours and there is no central pump.

Are you gonna tell them they're not people?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Nope, the decision has already been taken out of the Drs hands. Some times by hospital policies sometime by laws . and, I asked the question first... If both mother and fetus if given equal rights under the law, how do we handle when these rights conflict?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Ummm... They aren't people. And 10 to one the govts would drive that point home to justify their attempt to blow them out of the sky.

How the anti abortion freaks wants women in this time and age to be?

Barefooted and pregnant in the kitchen

Blotched coat hanger abortions and no privacy rights for any female with a viable uterus.

Forget about anti conceptive, they will all be deemed a tool to abortions if the abortions become illegals.

How about reversing back to medieval times when women were burn at the stakes.

If anybody thinks this is about fetuses and babies you are for a very bad wake up.

Want some insurance with that pregnacy? you know in case you lose the fetus and be charged with murdering the unborn.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Nope, the decision has already been taken out of the Drs hands. Some times by hospital policies sometime by laws . and, I asked the question first... If both mother and fetus if given equal rights under the law, how do we handle when these rights conflict?

How do we handle questions involving siamese twins?

There is no easy answer. There isn't supposed to be one.

People who want easy answers to these kinds of questions are usually not the kind of people you would ever want to be friends with.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Ummm... They aren't people. And 10 to one the govts would drive that point home to justify their attempt to blow them out of the sky.

Then let us hope the decision is never yours to make.

If they have the technology to get here, then we would probably lose that war. ......

I should add:


In the eyes of an alien culture, where in all likelihood, multiple types of space faring species are living in harmony and have been for thousands of years, the attitude you just expressed here would make you a Nazi.

Hating Jews, and hating "other thing that isn't quite identical to me but shares my cognitive attributes" would be absolutely identical propositions to them on every level.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


From A.P.

Not possible for anyone to call anything they do or say conservative in any way.


"The justices will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, with limited exceptions — well before the current established point of “viability,” at around 24 weeks. The court is also weighing challenges to a Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks — before many women even know they’re pregnant.

The court could decide to uphold current precedent, could let the law stand, effectively doing away with the current viability standard, or could overturn Roe entirely."



Please post pic of shoe on head for such an ignorant claim.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Imperator2
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


A pacemaker is a tool or piece of equipment designed and used to regulate a heart beat. Simply adding a pacemaker to a corpse and then claiming the corpse is alive due to an artificially produced heartbeat - is not equivalent to it being used to regulate a living humans heartbeat. It certainly isn't remotely equivalent to a baby's heartbeat in the womb.

One is artificially produced (in the corpse via equipment) the other is naturally produced (in the womb via the babys heart).

Like I said - bad argument.

Living humans require a heartbeat to pump blood through the circulatory system. Barring any outside technology being used to artificially pump said blood through the circulatory system - a heartbeat can be concluded to be a sign of a living human. If you disagree please show me a human that doesn't have a beating heart, but is considered alive without any outside intervention (technology). If you agree then you are agreeing that a baby with a heartbeat is therefore alive and as such deserves all the protections under the constitution of you and I - right?

What happens if we meet intelligent aliens in outer space that don't have hearts at all? Maybe their cardiovascular system works differently than ours and there is no central pump.

Are you gonna tell them they're not people?

Are they humans or aliens? Certain jellyfish don't have hearts either, I don't consider them to be humans - do you?

Like I said... Bad argument.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Ummm... They aren't people. And 10 to one the govts would drive that point home to justify their attempt to blow them out of the sky.

LOL - I agree on those odd!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous


That's some impressive gymnastics!

Bravo!





(Not commenting on the point you were making, just the creative linguistics, and not being sarcastic.)

a reply to: carewemust

um shes basically stating the opposite of what she meant isn't she..? I'm confused...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Often times we sacrifice one twin so the other can live.

Seems to me, I ain't the one wanting the easy answer. Most are unwilling to even face the question. It is so much easier to just convince themselves that abortion is just to alleviate women from the hassle of parenthood, to have irresponsible sex with no consequences.. Then ya.. Abortion should be banned, with just a brief sentence, maybe, about saving the live of the mother..

Girls start stock piling on the after morning pill, just in case your uterus privacy goes down the drain, is better to be prepare than sorry. The courts will own your uterus.

originally posted by: marg6043
How the anti abortion freaks wants women in this time and age to be?

Barefooted and pregnant in the kitchen

Blotched coat hanger abortions and no privacy rights for any female with a viable uterus.

Forget about anti conceptive, they will all be deemed a tool to abortions if the abortions become illegals.

How about reversing back to medieval times when women were burn at the stakes.

If anybody thinks this is about fetuses and babies you are for a very bad wake up.

Want some insurance with that pregnacy? you know in case you lose the fetus and be charged with murdering the unborn.

Wow.

Lose track of those marbles again?

Or just trying to pick a nonsensical fight for no reason?

Again.

And again.

NOBODY here has said anything even remotely similar to what you just claimed.

I am offended by your seemingly pathological need to make things up and then attack other thread participants with it.

Your act is getting old.

a reply to: marg6043

Umm how would that work with married couples who are having sex multiple times a week...
Not sure if it would be dangerous but got a feeling it would be quite expensive.
Stock up on your preferred method of birth control or consider an iud...
Or well, just give your hubby the phone number of the neatest whore house and tell him till the laws changed there is nothing from you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If a person (say. . . ummm. . . . me) thinks that the unborn child is a unique living human, then where should I compromise?

How about this?

1st trimester: abortion on demand.
2nd trimester: abortion allowed in cases of rape, incest, or evidence of severe malformities.
3rd trimester: abortion only where medically necessary to prevent major irreparable harm to the mother.

In addition, women have two weeks after learning of their pregnancy to schedule an abortion on demand.

No public funds to be used unless medically necessary, rape, or incest.

----------

The thing is, this is one fight that cannot be completely won. We tried outlawing abortion completely; that didn't work. All it did was cause more women to die from botched attempts. I don't think that's what anyone wants, including you and me. I want to make abortion rare but safe, and discourage it being used as birth control. At the same time, I believe the unborn deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. It is a person... a unique human being with the same potential as any of us.

Consider the following science: we know that the child once born is fully human with a distinct personality. Any parent will tell you that. We also know that, at the moment of conception, the child is a single-celled organism and incapable of thought, memory, or feeling pain; there are no neurons to do so. Precious few continuity breaks occur in nature, so it is quite logical to say that the child becomes less and less like the single cell and more and more like after it is born during the pregnancy, in a continuous if not linear manner.

Therefore, ending a pregnancy the second after conception may cost a future life, but it causes no pain to the child. Ending a pregnancy the second before the head emerges is murder; anyone who disagrees with that is either ignorant or just plain malicious. Somewhere in the middle there must be a line drawn, and while we cannot say definitely when consciousness begins, when viability begins, or when personality begins, we can make educated guesses at this point.

Allowing unregulated abortions during the first trimester or two weeks after discovery, whichever comes later, will allow for women to make a decision. Allowing exceptions for rape or incest until the second trimester will give abused women additional time, understandable taking the abuse into account. Preventing abortion during the third trimester, which we know is when both a heartbeat and brain waves resembling human consciousness exist, will mean that no painful execution is used against a child.

The protection for a mother's health is of course necessary at any point.

Would that be an acceptable compromise?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those states used the claim of scientific advancements.

Democrats are attempting to confuse the issue with nonsensical claims, and soto's little stunt.

But this is still the only issue at hand.

Did these states act properly when ignoring the current rvw viability assumptions, or did they not.

It's their only possible defense, rvw was very clear, and these recent restrictions do not comply with rvw.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

"The justices will weigh whether to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, with limited exceptions — well before the current established point of “viability,” at around 24 weeks. The court is also weighing challenges to a Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks — before many women even know they’re pregnant.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that they are making the consideration to uphold the Mississippi law, in violation of Roe V Wade's viability standard, in light of new scientific advancements. There are no new scientific advancments that would affect Roe V Wade.

What they are weighting, is throwing out Roe V Wade's viability standard and handing any arbitrary call, like 15 weeks or 6 weeks, over to the states instead. They are weighing whether or not to take the choice away from women and give it to the states. They are weighing states' rights over what they previously ruled to be women's inalienable reproductive rights for the past 50 years, and whether or not they should take those right from the people they first bestowed it on, the women, and hand it over to the states.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Those states used the claim of scientific advancements.

Again, no. The State of Mississippi presented no new scientific advancements that would affect Roe V Wade.

a reply to: TheRedneck


I'd have to give it more consideration, but looks to me like a fairly reasonable approach at first glance.

Just curious, what were your viability assumptions when coming up with this?

When does fetal tissue become a person?

I personally don't know how to answer that one very precisely yet.