How many men have no clue

originally posted by: VierEyes

Can it survive on its own? No.

What does it do? It sucks resources from the woman.

Parasite.

1 week old?, 1 year? 5 year? 10 years? I asked you when does this parasite stop being one. Also, if I see another person as a parasite what rights do I have?

I still think you are dealing with your own demons on this issue...

originally posted by: TheRedneck


When does a human being transition into a person with all the rights and privileges inherent thereon? That, I believe, is the real question. Many try to say at the moment of birth; I reject that. I believe it happens somewhere between conception and birth, and likely not at the beginning or end of the process.

And I gotta go risk a car crash. BBL.

TheRedneck

We agree on this BTW, just a little different labeling, but yes I like your use of a "person" as to differentiate here as that is all that I'm trying to suggest.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

To whatever point is necessary to preserve life, limb and liberty. You can shoot an unarmed intruder in your home stealing your TV. Why can't a woman evict an unwelcome pregnancy that threatens her life, limb and/or liberty?

Well then you need to prove the threat...you can't go out and shoot someone on the sidewalk walking their dog because they are annoying, so prove that the baby is a direct threat to your life and not just some life annoyance.

SCOTUS had no right to call abortion "the taking of a 'life'", since the unborn and fetal life are not protected in the Constitution, while the lives of "person's born" are.

Maybe true, but doesn't take away Roe was wrong, but you are taking of a life no matter how you look at it unless it is an inanimate object. So many on your side has such a hard time saying it is a developing human life we are killing and we agree it is OK within x stage of that life. Maybe it makes you feel better about it all.


I on the other hand have no issues saying it...

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's a parasite for a long time, relatively speaking, but as soon as it is able to survive on its own outside the mother's body. Forget the fact that even after that it is helpless for a considerable amount of time. Years.

I was, fortunately, unable to have children, so you'd be wrong about demons.

But I will fight for my sisters who are not so fortunate. The enemies of women are many.

originally posted by: VierEyes

But I will fight for my sisters who are not so fortunate.

Doesn't matter, to dehumanizes is how we humans cope with the idea of killing the innocent, makes it so much easier.


So now we go to the point of when? 1 second before birth, 7 months etc etc. You are the one defining all this so I'm just trying to understand your point.

a reply to: Xtrozero

so prove that the baby is a direct threat to your life and not just some life annoyance.

It's not a baby. It's an embryo, or a fetus. The only proof needed is that it is occupying and commandeering a woman's body and her personal vital resources, without her consent/permission.

Having to buy a new TV, or make an insurance claim for items stolen from your home is an annoyance that the law says is worth killing a person over, if you walk into your home and catch them in the act. States that have "stand your ground laws", and police in general, only require one to declare they "felt" threatened, not that they actually were.

but you are taking of a life no matter how you look at it unless it is an inanimate object.

So is eating a hamburger. Except cattle are born, they have a certain autonomy and they're sentient, while the unborn aren't and don't.

but doesn't take away Roe was wrong,

Roe wasn't wrong. Roe was incomplete. Women have a right to privacy, just like everyone else does, regardless of what's in their uterus, under the 14th Amendment. Their rights to abortion are also covered under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 13 Amendments.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

So now you want to play semantics because you can't win any other way. You've gone on and on in this thread and have not advanced your argument one iota.

.......
...........
................
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being
By all means, prove me wrong

a reply to: Quadrivium

Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being

A non-sentient, non-viable, potential human being.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Xtrozero

The only connection between a car crash (like I am likely to have, any time now, while driving down this country road and replying to your post) and abortion is if you crash into another person with the intent of killing them.
But then it wouldn't be an accident, would it

Still don't see it. 100% of people will say a crash is wrong 50% or less will say an abortion is wrong. You are establishing your own right and wrong rules here, so do I need to follow the rules you seem to make?

Again, it depends on if you adhere to Basic Human Rights for ALL humans.
1. If you think some humans are "less than" or property, then no, to you it wouldn't be wrong.
2. If you believe all humans deserve Basic Human Rights, then yes, to you it would be wrong.

Currently, many pro-abortionist have the exact same mentality as some slave owners had in the 1600s.
Regardless of the fact, they are killing a human beings, they try to justify it by saying "it's just a clump of cells" or "it's more of a parasite". Some even claim this new human being as "property".
If we look back through history we see an eerily similar argument from slave owners over the way they treated their slaves.
Even to justify killing them......
Does the following sound familiar to some of the post you have read?

The law provided that an enslaver's killing of an enslaved person could not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property.

calendar.eji.org...
This is from the Virginia Colony in 1600s.
If you change "enslaver" to "mother" and "enslaved" to "unborn", you have a good definition of abortion, today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being

A non-sentient, non-viable, potential human being.

No.
Human being.
You could say "potential person" but you would be moving the argument into philosophy and spiritualism.
This is the main problem.
You people don't understand the very argument you try to push...
SMDH.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

It's not a baby. It's an embryo, or a fetus. The only proof needed is that it is occupying and commandeering a woman's body and her personal vital resources, without her consent/permission.

OK, human life.... vital recourses really? You are really trying hard, not working

So is eating a hamburger. Except cattle are born, they have a certain autonomy and they're sentient, while the unborn aren't and don't.

Well the hamburger is dead.... unborn is alive, is a human and at some point in the development is sentient.

Roe wasn't wrong. Roe was incomplete. Women have a right to privacy, just like everyone else does, regardless of what's in their uterus, under the 14th Amendment. Their rights to abortion are also covered under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 13 Amendments.

It was wrong for the SC to rule on it, and that is what was wrong as they overstepped their authority in doing so. Roe could have been prefect, that not my point.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Xtrozero

Can it survive on its own? No.

What does it do? It sucks resources from the woman.

Parasite.

By your very definition, you are a parasite.
What are you doing? Sucking the resources out of many in this thread with yout outdated, backwards thinking.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Xtrozero

Can it survive on its own? No.

What does it do? It sucks resources from the woman.

Parasite.

By your very definition, you are a parasite.
What are you doing? Sucking the resources out of many in this thread with yout outdated, backwards thinking.

I think you'll find, by European standards, my views are advanced well ahead of yours.

a reply to: Xtrozero

OK, human life.... vital recourses really?

"Resources"...
Yes, vital resources like one's kidneys, one's liver, heart, blood pressure, oxygen and insulin levels, autoimmune responses, and so on and so forth.

Well the hamburger is dead....

We kill living cows for hamburgers, steaks and pot roasts.

is a human and at some point in the development is sentient.

Not at pre-viability, when abortions are performed.

It was wrong for the SC to rule on it, and that is what was wrong as they overstepped their authority in doing so.

That's an opinion. 50 years of precedent and 60 million choices made by sentient women disagree with that opinion.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

1. If you think some humans are "less than" or property, then no, to you it wouldn't be wrong.
2. If you believe all humans deserve Basic Human Rights, then yes, to you it would be wrong.

Human or persons/people? Does the Constitution say we the humans or we the people? If you want to suggest all phase of a pregnancy is human, or a life form that can only be human then I agree, but we do not say human when applying your two points above unless we use it relating to or characteristic of humankind, such as human rights. So I disagree with both of your points unless you change human to people and then an unborn is not a person yet, but could be human.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes, vital resources like one's kidneys, one's liver, heart, blood pressure, oxygen and insulin levels, autoimmune responses, and so on and so forth.

Yeah I get ya, just total BS still...

We kill living cows for hamburgers, steaks and pot roasts.

Yes we do, so what is your point unless you are suggest eating people too? We also kill people all the time that is totally within the laws and social norms.

Not at pre-viability, when abortions are performed.

I don't disagree, its still alive and human though, so the only point is when is it sentient, and just what does being sentient really mean, how do we measure it?

That's an opinion. 50 years of precedent and 60 million choices made by sentient women disagree with that opinion.

An opinion held by many much more learned and smarter than you and I on both sides of the isle for the last 50 years. Its not my personal opinion, but one very popular by those who know, and by the current SC too, so who are we to say otherwise.

a reply to: Quadrivium

No.
Human being.
You could say "potential person" but you would be moving the argument into philosophy and spiritualism.

No, saying "human being" moves the argument into religion and philosophy. What is "being human" and what is a "human being"?

A human egg, fertilized by human sperm is biologically a human zygote. It's blueprinted to evolve into a human being, after several more thresholds have been achieved. An acorn is not an oak tree. A budding flower is not yet an apple, yet it is part of an apple's pre-programmed progression to becoming an apple tree.

Person and personhood are logical and legal terms for a born, autonomous, sentient people.

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Xtrozero

Can it survive on its own? No.

What does it do? It sucks resources from the woman.

Parasite.

By your very definition, you are a parasite.
What are you doing? Sucking the resources out of many in this thread with yout outdated, backwards thinking.

I think you'll find, by European standards, my views are advanced well ahead of yours.

Your "standards" are the same as slave owners in the 1600s, how is that more advanced? It is the exact same warped mentality.
Backwards and outdated.
It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being

People fought against the idea of the world being round.
Science prevailed.
People fought over the Earth being the center of the Universe.
Science prevailed.
People fought over whether slaves were human.
Science and common sense prevailed.
People are now fighting over the status of a human being, after THEY initiate their own life cycle.
Science has prevailed. You and many others just haven't caught up.
It took a couple hundred years, in America, for some to catch up regarding slaves as well.
Like it or not, it doesn't matter.
Once Mitosis begins, a new human being is created. They guide their own development from that point on.
Can you kill them? Yes. Just as someone could brutally murder you at any time.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
What?
You have about 3 hours to edit that post.
I won't even quote it to embarrass you with later.
Go read, put your feelz aside, for just 2.5 hrs and go read...
You are as lost as last years Easter Egg.....

a reply to: Quadrivium

Bolding it does not make it so.

Europeans grew up years ago. They jettisoned religion as a controlling interest and have never looked back.