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

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you have your own imaginary hurdle point that you deign personally what is and is not a human life.

No one said that a 6 to 12 to 15 week fetus isn't human or that there isn't life there. A non-viable fetus at that stage of development doesn't feel pain the way you and I or a horse or dog does. A non-viable fetus is not an autonomous, sentient being.

And, it's not my imaginary hurdle we're talking about. It's Roe V Wade, a standard that's been in place for the last 50 years. A fetal reflex exhibited at 15 weeks doesn't change that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's a dumb question.

So you consider questions as "dumb"?

Your body is your body, including what you were born with, what it has grown, like hair, nails and warts and what it adopts, like a blood transfusion or a donated kidney.

FINALLY! EUREKA! HOUSTON, WE HAVE LIFTOFF!

My GOD! How many pages just to get you to define something? And the above is all I was asking for. Was it really that hard?

As I've shown through internet links, exact DNA replication (mitosis) isn't a requirement for stuff to still be part of the human body. A transformed cell doesn't magically not become part of a body.

Internet links without explanation are not enough. Links are there to support an argument, not to replace it.

No matter; I have your definition. We can now proceed.



I disagree with your definition because it includes items I do not consider as part of the body. For instance, the symbiotic organisms that we house are a separate life form. They do not belong to us. The fact that they are present only indicates a symbiotic relationship, not ownership.

There are other organisms, quite similar to those beneficial ones that cause illness and disease. For example, take the infamous Chinese virus we are all too familiar with. It, too, thrives inside our bodies, but its existence there is counterproductive toward health. There are also bacteria that are quite harmful... malaria, sepsis, salmonella... I consider these "invaders," as do most medical researchers I have known. Obviously the body itself considers them such, as it seeks to destroy them. Yet, there is precious little difference between them and the beneficial bacteria in our gut, leading to the conclusion that if we are to include those beneficial bacteria, we must also include harmful bacteria. Else, we are arbitrarily picking and choosing what we do and do not wish to claim as part of our bodies.

I also disagree with transfusions and implants being considered a part of our bodies. In the case of a transfusion, the material transferred does contain different DNA from our own, but it does not reproduce. Blood cells are created not through mitosis, but in the marrow. Since all cells die (I believe red blood cells have a life expectancy of three months?) the transfusion is not even a permanent addition. It is rather a borrowed substance that actually is part of another person's body... the donor.

In the case of transplants, which do reprduce cells through mitosis, the procedure requires a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs to prevent the body from attacking and damaging the transplant. I consider that indicative of the fact that these transplants are not actually a part of our body, but rather a foreign object that the body wishes to rid itself of. Yes, we use technology to prevent that, because the body is at that point not acting in its own best interests... but the fact we have to do so is what causes me to reject the idea of transplants being part of one's body.

Your turn.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A fetuus isn't a slave. Forcing a woman to bear her rapist's child is slavery. Punishing a woman for having sex by forcing her to give birth, and then give up for adoption is slaver.

Excuse me, but slavery is well-defined as the ownership of one person by another. Exactly how do you reconcile that with not being allowed an abortion?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Pointing to a court decision is nothing but appeal to authority. Once its overturned, will you accept pointing to it as some level of authority?

Roe v Wade is wrong. Period. No way around it. It suggested that because a human is unable to care for itself, that it is ok to kill it. You dont kill homeless people because they don't have a home. You find them a home if you want, but you don't kill them.

So autonomy is your hurdle now? There are group homes full of humans that are not autonomous, being fed through tubes and kept alive by other humans who roll them from time to time. Is that really your hurdle now? We can "abort" 35 year old mentally retarded people?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought the thread was about the comparison made by Justice Sotomayor between a fetus and a brain dead adult.

,,,Between a 12 to 15 week fetus and a brain dead person. Because what the solicitor general for Mississippi claimed was that a 12 t0 15 week fetus can feel pain and shouldn't be aborted, because reflexes.

Of course, we were also discussing what constitutes viability... health issues with pregnancy... what defines a body... Hey! Here's a crazy idea! How about arguing over one topic at a time so the rest of us can keep up!

LOL

You're the one gish galloping all over the place about body parts, trying to prove "My body. My choice" erroneous.

It's about scientific evidence that points to the "viability" (per the present Roe v Wade interpretation) of a fetus at 15 weeks.
It's not trying to overturn Roe v Wade. It's only trying to update it.

Nope. If medical science were to show that a 15 week old fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb, then Roe V Wade still remains intact, because Roe V Wade draws the abortion line, for when the state can ban abortion, at viability. Showing fetal reflexes doesn't meet that bar.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That she would think bearing children is slavery is dumbfounding.

its the miracle of what makes a woman. Its the magic that a woman alone is reserved to create, to grow a human life. Humans, the great stalwart of entropy, the marvel of the Earth capable of not only understanding the world around him, but also himself. Creating this is the greatest magic humans can weave

and now its also slavery.

The devaluing of women is almost complete now. And it isn't even men that are perpetrating it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Pointing to a court decision is nothing but appeal to authority. Once its overturned, will you accept pointing to it as some level of authority?

Still, it isn't my imaginary hurdle, that I just pulled out of thin air.

Would you accept the Supreme Court taking away your rights and handing them over to the state?

Handing over a woman's reproductive rights to the state doesn't make a fetus suddenly medical viable at 15 weeks. It says they don't care about women's reproductive rights. And in this case, it says they don't care about fetal rights either. If they did, they'd fix the fact that Mississippi is number 1 in fetal mortality, maternal mortality and child hunger. What it will say is that states' right supersede women's reproductive rights, not that a fetus has rights.

It will be a bad decision, as bad as the Dread Scott decision and I will fight it in every way that I can. State governments and legislators, unlike the Supreme Court justices, are voted in and voted out every few years. All it would take is a "blue wave" in any one state to restore those rights back to the people concerned, women, their families and their doctors.

Texas might have Beto as governor soon. Who knows.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Between a 12 to 15 week fetus and a brain dead person.

Was that not the comparison I made?

You're the one gish galloping all over the place about body parts, trying to prove "My body. My choice" erroneous.

You do seem to have this persecution complex. I was asking for clarification. See my other post to you.

If medical science were to show that a 15 week old fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb, then Roe V Wade still remains intact, because Roe V Wade draws the abortion line, for when the state can ban abortion, at viability. Showing fetal reflexes doesn't meet that bar.

But that is what is being argued. At present, Roe v Wade does not recognize viability at 15 weeks and severely restricts states from limiting abortions. There are two parts to Roe v Wade: the general viability issue and the findings at the time of when that occurs. This is about changing the finding about when viability occurs, not about changing Roe v Wade itself.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Roe v Wade does not recognize viability at 15 weeks and severely restricts states from limiting abortions.

Neither does medical science.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you agree with the Supreme Curt, as long as they rule the way you want them to?

Will you be a benevolent Queen or a malevolent Queen?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Neither does medical science.

Wow, that was fast! You already made the Supreme Court's decision for them! And without even hearing testimony!

Impressive.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

its the miracle of what makes a woman. Its the magic that a woman alone is reserved to create, to grow a human life. Humans, the great stalwart of entropy, the marvel of the Earth capable of not only understanding the world around him, but also himself. Creating this is the greatest magic humans can weave

and now its also slavery.

To think that forcing a 13 year old to bear their rapists child isn't slavery is dumbfounding. To think that forcing any woman to carry and unwanted pregnancy to term is not slavery, is dumbfounding.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have heard it said that women rule the world, no matter who is in charge. Women bear and raise children, and those children then grow up to be the people they were raised to be by their mothers. I remember a time, not long ago, when women were revered, placed on a pedestal, and respected, because they, and only they, had the true power.

It's a crying shame to see that lessened.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you agree with the Supreme Curt, as long as they rule the way you want them to?

Do you agree with everything they rule on? Haven't you been fighting against Roe V Wade for years now?

Wow, that was fast! You already made the Supreme Court's decision for them! And without even hearing testimony!

WTF are you talking about now? Roe V Wade was decided in 1973.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Supreme Court cannot take away rights. Nor can it grant them.

Abortion is not a right. Its not protected in the constitution, and there is no legislation protecting it as a civil right.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you agree with everything they rule on? Haven't you been fighting against Roe V Wade for years now?

Not for many years. I was fine with it until people like you decided to abuse it. You are the reason I want it overturned.

And no, I do not agree with every decision they make. I base my opinions on the specific case. I do not, like you done several times now, blindly defer to them though.

WTF are you talking about now? Roe V Wade was decided in 1973.

This case is being heard in 2021. And you apparently just decided it for the Justices.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Honestly, its rather simple: if people want abortion protected as a right, then pass legislation doing so. It will be a civil right, the same as non-discrimination would be. Its a right that the government can afford to you, if you have your government vote for it.

There are 2 views on rights, both apply here: one is that you only have the rights that are protected by the authority you submit to. The other is that you only have the rights which you can secure for yourself.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If they decided to deny healthcare to unvaccinated people, would you consider that as unconstitutional?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

its the miracle of what makes a woman. Its the magic that a woman alone is reserved to create, to grow a human life. Humans, the great stalwart of entropy, the marvel of the Earth capable of not only understanding the world around him, but also himself. Creating this is the greatest magic humans can weave

and now its also slavery.

To think that forcing a 13 year old to bear their rapists child isn't slavery is dumbfounding. To think that forcing any woman to carry and unwanted pregnancy to term is not slavery, is dumbfounding.

To say you think that murdering a perfectly healthy, viable, and self aware baby so that it won't inconvenience a 13 year old is beyond dumbfounding, and requires completely ignoring the most basic rights for our most defenseless citizens.

To do so using deception and dishonesty, and with such fervor is nothing less than shameful for the entire human race.

Keep going though I'm sure you have more dishonest arguments to make.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If they decided to deny healthcare to unvaccinated people, would you consider that as unconstitutional?

When democrats deny both healthcare AND the most basic human rights to our most defenseless citizens, that IS unconstitutional.

That is what rvw declared.

The ONLY honest debate now is whether those rvw viability assumptions should be updated based on newly discovered facts.


So why all the effort to deceptively change the subject?