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

a reply to: TheRedneck

But, if that too rich to get help, too poor to live crack is still present.. Then it is not guarenteed.
And, low income housing at least in my area, has an unbelievable waiting list.

Question if it hasn't been brought up before, can you be charged with a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman?
a pregnant man?

a brain dead person? ETA; not pregnant opposed to pregnant,

a reply to: HilterDayon

Yes, I know about that, the soul or spirit whatever people in their own believes wants to call it, comes and goes and interacts with the fetus, but this happens only if the soul knows the fetus is viable and will survive outside the uterus.

Let me explain that this my believes, others may differ. I love reading from other cultures that are not soo much into Christian believes and their approach to dead and birth or rebirth is sometimes very beautiful and no soo scary.

But that should be another topic.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Actually, I think the subject of this thread was resolved a few pages ago.. The context surrounding what Soto said was misrepresented.. So.. Should we let the thread die or go on with our interesting conversations?
My question would be could maybe the failure of men to see the humanity in women throughout a good part of history play a role with what really seems like a uncaring attitude when some are presented with the fact that pregnancy poses dangers to women always have, probably always will so the rights of the fetus can't always trump that of the mother. This isn't the middle ages where we can say well if the mother dies in childbirth so be it...for that was her divine purpose..

Really sad if you still think soto's words were taken out of context.

I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think for themselves.


Kinda joking with this post.

I'm pretty much done on this subject, just basking in the incredibly unique thing we did over the past 20 hours.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

When does fetal tissue become a person?

I have no idea. I guess it would depend on your definition of a "person."

At conception, it has a unique DNA structure, is certainly human, and definitely alive.

At some point, it contains a functional circulatory system to pup blood to supply oxygen and nutrition from the mother.

At some other point, neural activity seems consistent with what we consider normal human neural activity.

At birth it is fully formed and capable of surviving outside the womb, yet still dependent on its mother.

At puberty it is capable of reproducing.

At adulthood it is capable of surviving independently (supposedly anyway).

Which of those constitute a "person"?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: sarahvital
Question if it hasn't been brought up before, can you be charged with a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman?
a pregnant man?

a brain dead person?

Yes. Justice Thomas pointed out yesterday that pregnant women have been charged (pre viability) with child neglect or abuse for overdosing on drugs while pregnant and causing harm to the baby. They were also convicted for it.

Doesn't make a lot of sense if people would have you believe that she didn't hurt anything as the baby doesn't technically exist until viability - right? Also viability becomes shorter in terms of weeks every time science advances.

So many inconsistencies with the laws regarding the protections of the unborn.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No, it isn't. At present we have de facto unlimited access to abortion, at any time, for any reason, in many states. Roe v Wade convoluted everything so much that there is essentially no limit on abortion in some places and extreme limits in others. We also have people in less restrictive states trying to strike down laws in more restrictive states, and people in the more restrictive states responding by passing even more restrictive laws.

What we have now is, to use technical lingo, a crapfest.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

even after they're born, the government doesn't guarantee any newborn or any child health care, food, clothing or shelter.

What country are you in?

The government here certainly does have programs for food (WIC and Food Stamps), health care (Medicaid), clothing (Welfare, several private organizations) and shelter (Low Income Housing). Every one of those programs either expect one to have dependent children, or accelerate the applications of anyone who has dependent children.

And that's in Alabama!

TheRedneck

All those programs depend on the qualifications of the parents, who have to apply. There is no free prenatal health care for a fetus. Health care is based on the parent's eligibility, when they apply. There's no WIC or SNAP for kids, it's based on the eligibility of the parents. Same with HUD and affordable housing. It's based on the qualifications of the parents, not the children's needs.

There are, unfortunately, parents that have lost benefits based on work requirements, criminal records, make too much or just being too irresponsible to get it together and apply. Children have no guarantees of having shelter, food, clothing, health care, etc., from the US government or the states.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Humanity is also more than just not dying. Humanity is causing as little pain as possible. That is what I want: as little pain as possible.

Either extreme is painful to one group. Unlimited abortions causes pain to the unborn; prohibiting abortions causes pain to the mothers and still doesn't stop abortions. Maybe if we outlawed back alleys and coat hangers?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254

No, it isn't. At present we have de facto unlimited access to abortion, at any time, for any reason, in many states. Roe v Wade convoluted everything so much that there is essentially no limit on abortion in some places and extreme limits in others. We also have people in less restrictive states trying to strike down laws in more restrictive states, and people in the more restrictive states responding by passing even more restrictive laws.

What we have now is, to use technical lingo, a crapfest.

TheRedneck

That is simply not true. But if it were, this SCOTUS case will do nothing to curtail that.

a reply to: TheRedneck


"Which of those constitute a 'person'?"

We have a Bingo!



That is the question, isn't it.

The entire reason for this, and nearly all abortion related debates and disagreements.

Is the exact reason for the convoluted rvw decision, and the exact question being reexamined now.

Disagreements about the answer to this exact question are what drives nearly all of the weird, and often hurtful, personal attacks.

Intelligent and rational people just completely lose their marbles at the mere suggestion that their beliefs sound a little extreme.

People that can intelligently discuss nearly any other subject without even the slightest bit of rage directed at other users.

Entertaining, but a frightening indication of just how far we need to progress as a species.

I don't envy the responsibility heaped onto the shoulders of our 8 honest supremes, I wouldn't wish a decision like this on anyone.

And couldn't care less about soto, who just exposed herself as the dishonest pplotical hack many observers thought she was all along.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The guidelines laid out in Roe v Wade are a state cannot limit access to abortions during 1st trimester, can prohibit abortions during 2nd trimester with caveats for medical issues, and can completely prohibit abortions during 3rd trimester.

So it pretty much takes your guidelines but then leaves it up to the states to decide if they want to follow them.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Outlawing abortion will never end abortion, outlawing murder surely hasn't eliminated murder either, but we try because we know murder is wrong even though people still do it.

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't know of any such crack here. If one has dependent children, the requirements are not heinous.

I think this might be an opportune time to point out that I am talking abut Alabama! Not New York, not California... Alabama! One of the poorer states in the union, fiercely conservative and proud of it, and regularly looked down upon.

And it seems we have better protection for poor mothers and children than anywhere else! Anyone not in Alabama should be ashamed. I know I would be.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, let me get this straight... you want a fetus to fill out the government forms from inside the womb, or you claim the benefits aren't really for them?


O... K... out of respect for Ghostsdogood, I am going to ignore you for the rest of this thread. Good day.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

even after they're born, the government doesn't guarantee any newborn or any child health care, food, clothing or shelter.

What country are you in?

The government here certainly does have programs for food (WIC and Food Stamps), health care (Medicaid), clothing (Welfare, several private organizations) and shelter (Low Income Housing). Every one of those programs either expect one to have dependent children, or accelerate the applications of anyone who has dependent children.

And that's in Alabama!

TheRedneck

All those programs depend on the qualifications of the parents, who have to apply. There is no free prenatal health care for a fetus. Health care is based on the parent's eligibility, when they apply. There's no WIC or SNAP for kids, it's based on the eligibility of the parents. Same with HUD and affordable housing. It's based on the qualifications of the parents, not the children's needs.

There are, unfortunately, parents that have lost benefits based on work requirements, criminal records, or just being too irresponsible to get it together and apply. Children have no guarantees of having shelter, food, clothing, health care, etc., from the US government or the states.

The income limits for most of those programs are quite high now.

Anyone even remotely capable of claiming that pre-post is unaffordable, would easily qualify for the most important programs you listed, and quite a few more.

I have no opinion on whether 'affordability' in general is a legitimate issue, but in rough ranges, the lower 50% of earners qualify for pretty generous benefits in this area, and MOST folks above that level can't claim poverty with a straight face.

There are many exceptions of course.

Massive one size fits all benefit programs, even when extraordinarily generous, can never efficiently help everyone their creators intended.

a reply to: TheRedneck

They may have closed it finally... my kids are around 30 now. But we recently had a single mom and her daughter staying here with us for a time.. so got tired of waiting for a spot to open up on Hud's waiting list and moved back to the Carolinas where hee family can help. So, I am pretty sure that problem still exists across the country. I will just take your word for it that your state is an oddball.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254

No, it isn't. At present we have de facto unlimited access to abortion, at any time, for any reason, in many states. Roe v Wade convoluted everything so much that there is essentially no limit on abortion in some places and extreme limits in others. We also have people in less restrictive states trying to strike down laws in more restrictive states, and people in the more restrictive states responding by passing even more restrictive laws.

What we have now is, to use technical lingo, a crapfest.

TheRedneck

That is simply not true. But if it were, this SCOTUS case will do nothing to curtail that.

Do you know anything at all about the U.S.?

Ever been here?

Or even met an actual American?


Just difficult to believe that you would post some of this nonsense if you had ever met a single average American.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Actually, it just illustrates how moot the question of "is it a person" becomes when the issue is looked at logically. Just like the question of "when is it alive?" is moot because the answer is it was alive even before conception. "When is it a human?" It has always been human, again, since before conception!

I try to look at it as a question of both entities, the mother and the fetus, have rights. If those rights conflict, who holds the greater right? Who suffers the most pain? I believe in the first trimester, that would be the mother, no question. in the last trimester, that would be the child, no question. So in the second trimester, it becomes a balancing act that depends on circumstances.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So it pretty much takes your guidelines but then leaves it up to the states to decide if they want to follow them.

In theory, perhaps. In practice? Roe v Wade is a club that pro-abortionists use to try to beat up those who want to limit abortions.

We need legislative action to end this debacle. The courts should have never started writing law.

TheRedneck