France makes abortion a constitutional right in historic vote

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

God has already assigned us rights at birth.

Where?

As we don't come with an instruction manual.

Or if we do i might have missed it amongst the afterbirth.

That which is not allowed is simply not possible.

To be honest it is simply not accurate to equate lack of permission with inherent impossibility.

Human history is replete with examples of individuals and societies defying perceived limitations to accomplish what was once thought unattainable or impossible.

Who are they to decide on your freedom!?

Heaven is not free BrotherKinsMan, its a monarchy.

You're are not gods equal, but his subject, make no mistake about it.

As for right and wrong, and when someone should oppose another's expression of freedom, well this is up to everyone really.

Our laws decide whats right and wrong but the fact is ethical beliefs and judgments differ among individuals and different cultures.

But is the normalization of infant murder to be celebrated!?

Abortion simply does not equate to murder no matter which way you care to spell it out.

Also who celebrates having an abortion, do Hallmark do cards saying "congratulations on having an abortion"?

I think not.

Or not enough.

Sad world.

I think that part goes without saying.

Then again feelings of disillusionment and frustration seem to go hand in hand with existence in this day of age.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

... Here... This is the last time i prove you wrong..

Viability, as the word has been used in the United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine.

Pay special attention to "as the word has been used"

Very much a new definition of the word "viability" and first used in a court case...

Huh... How about that...

As used in constitutional law. Not as created.

The Supreme Court adopted the conventional medical view of when the fetus would survive outside the womb.

The poster tried a few times to argue the term medical viability is somehow constructed out of nowhere and is an obscure term used by medical experts and scientists. He offered an alternative term 'viable human' without explaining what it means and without knowing the definition of the medical definition of fetal viability.

When I first pointed out that medical viability means the ability of the fetus to live outside the uterus and it's placed around 24 weeks into the pregnancy the poster replied that we 'deny science'. Just absurd.

SCOTUS and every court in the world most used accepted medical and scientific terms and definitions. The poster believes this term has been constructed to defend abortions but fetal viability is a term that reflects decades of hard empirical evidence gathered in the field which shows that before the 24th week the chances of survival outside the uterus are extremely small or zero.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Venkuish1

I think the argument is trying to say it's a made up term to justify killing babies. The word "viability" was conjured specifically for abortions.

You must feel for the sanctity of human life! Even though the embryo still looks similar to a house pet (at similar stage of development) when most abortions take place.

But which one is created in the image of god?

Two of those are eaten at restaurants in Vietnam. Thịt mèo "little tiger" and thịt chó. And the other one is eaten after a rugby team's plane crashed.

One of those will become absolutely distinguishable as human.

And because that eventually happens, it is more important than the other developing life pictured, despite them being mostly interchangeable in appearance. And equal where the term "life" is applied.

I move for disambiguation that only human life is sacred, and even then, a mother's life, and freedom of choice, takes a back seat to the embryo that still looks mostly indistinguishable from future Vietnamese food, because it is the life most selectively important.

Can't get more wrong.

So much empirical evidence exists that before the 24th week into the pregnancy the chances of survival of the fetus outside the uterus are miniscule and the term fetal viability reflects this timeline on the pregnancy.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

... Here... This is the last time i prove you wrong..

Viability, as the word has been used in the United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine.

Pay special attention to "as the word has been used"

Very much a new definition of the word "viability" and first used in a court case...

Huh... How about that...

As used in constitutional law. Not as created.

The Supreme Court adopted the conventional medical view of when the fetus would survive outside the womb.

The poster tried a few times to argue the term medical viability is somehow constructed out of nowhere and is an obscure term used by medical experts and scientists. He offered an alternative term 'viable human' without explaining what it means and without knowing the definition of the medical definition of fetal viability.

When I first pointed out that medical viability means the ability of the fetus to live outside the uterus and it's placed around 24 weeks into the pregnancy the poster replied that we 'deny science'. Just absurd.

SCOTUS and every court in the world most used accepted medical and scientific terms and definitions. The poster believes this term has been constructed to defend abortions but fetal viability is a term that reflects decades of hard empirical evidence gathered in the field which shows that before the 24th week the chances of survival outside the uterus are extremely small or zero.

It seems sa strange argument to be making.

Even if he was right about it being a recent term ( and I don't believe he is) then the concept has still been around for ever.

Artificial womb technology and bioethics: (hope for the future? )

Artificial wombs will raise a profound question: What is the definition of birth? “To be born is to be situated outside a mother’s womb, to interact with people, and to take on some of the burden of sustaining yourself,” says Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, a PhD candidate in bioethics and medical law at the University of Manchester, who is studying the bioethics of artificial wombs. In an artificial womb, the fetus is still gestating, so it is essentially not born, says Romanis, who has coined the term “gestateling” to describe this artificial in-between stage.

expmag.com...

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: Venkuish1

Calm down there Galahad, that was a rhetorical position, without sarcasm denotation. Guess I could have made that more clear.

That was a dog, human, and cat embryo, all at comparable stages of development. The human embryo is at 8.5 weeks. Of course it's not viable. It's the size of a pinto bean.

Most abortions, the vast majority, happen right around that stage of development, when its hard to tell many mammals apart yet.

I move for [A SARCASTIC] disambiguation that only human life is sacred, and even then, a mother's life, and freedom of choice, takes a back seat to the embryo that still looks mostly indistinguishable from future Vietnamese food, because it is the life most selectively important.

The word selectively is important there. First identify the sacred human, and then explain why it is more sacred, based on observation, and without invoking a religious sentiment.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

God has already assigned us rights at birth.

Where?

As we don't come with an instruction manual.

Or if we do i might have missed it amongst the afterbirth.

We're essentially inside of a 'safebox'.
Explore it's boundaries as you will.
They may differ for every one.

That which is not allowed is simply not possible.

To be honest it is simply not accurate to equate lack of permission with inherent impossibility.

Human history is replete with examples of individuals and societies defying perceived limitations to accomplish what was once thought unattainable or impossible.

It is, from my point of view.

And again, perception differs per observer.

Furthermore, are you so sure we've reached the limit of our world and explored all within our back of the woods?

Who are they to decide on your freedom!?

Heaven is not free BrotherKinsMan, its a monarchy.

You're are not gods equal, but his subject, make no mistake about it.

Indeed.

That I am.

^_^

As for right and wrong, and when someone should oppose another's expression of freedom, well this is up to everyone really.

Our laws decide whats right and wrong but the fact is ethical beliefs and judgments differ among individuals and different cultures.

This is precisely why your man made laws fall short.

We should abide by the rule of God and none other.

But is the normalization of infant murder to be celebrated!?

Abortion simply does not equate to murder no matter which way you care to spell it out.

Also who celebrates having an abortion, do Hallmark do cards saying "congratulations on having an abortion"?

But it absolutely does equate to murder.

There may be a righteous reason to take a life.

But even then, one must face the consequences.

Can you honestly say you understand such, and so are beyond reproach at the termination of another's life?

You can use logic all you want, but know that thoughts and beliefs originating from your current place of residence is limited and flawed; whereas those that originate from the source are perfect.

I think not.

Or not enough.

Sad world.

I think that part goes without saying.

Then again feelings of disillusionment and frustration seem to go hand in hand with existence in this day of age.

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

But it absolutely does equate to murder.

There may be a righteous reason to take a life.

Are you saying that there exists such a thing as righteous murder? Or, that if it's righteous, it isn't murder, it's a [righteous] taking of a life?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

But it absolutely does equate to murder.

There may be a righteous reason to take a life.

Are you saying that there exists such a thing as righteous murder? Or, that if it's righteous, it isn't murder, it's a [righteous] taking of a life?

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


I guess it depends on whose law you abide by.


But wether it is right or wrong, you verily have put an end to the unique expression of some one; a gift given to them by God.

This being will never be known to any.

The entirety of this 'self' has been shut off.


It is always a sad affair.

If you knew of Sorrow, then it would be evident to you.

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

Reproduction is a biological mechanism.

Same for all mammals.

God is a man made illusion to explain the unexplainable. Nothing more.

What we contribute to humanity in our endeavors is worth far beyond any reason to pump out a mini-me.

I SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN.

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

I guess it depends on whose law you abide by.

Nature's law requires all of us to choose our own lives above the unique expression of some one life; a gift given to them by God. That is the law of this world. There's no way around it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: VoiceofReality

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Venkuish1

Good for France and good for woman rights.

It's a sad state of affairs when France is ahead of us on women's rights....lol

I don't know if you are sarcastic but most countries in Europe and the Western World are ahead of the US in women's rights and on the issue of human rights. For example Europe has abolished the death penalty and there are no lethal injections, hangings, firing squads. Guantanamo type prisons don't exist either.

In most countries in the Western World you will still get healthcare even if you are poor or homeless.

Do you find women's rights more important than human rights?

What's the difference?

And don't tell me its a clump of cells.

Woman: an adult female person.

Human: a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal.

And just so you know, what begins as an egg and forms into a clump of cells, starts developing human characteristics between 6 and 9 weeks.

I can speak from personal experience. Can you?

Not on abortion. I've taken care of my responsibilities and have 5 boys that will carry on my name and my way of thinking.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LSU2018

Nor do you have a right to anyone else's body, that should include the body of a child growing inside you.

NO. No BODY has a right to another's BODY.

It's a simple concept.

That baby’s body is not their body.

Who's body is it?

The unborn baby's body.

What happened to the woman's body? Did the fetus eat it?

That doesn't even make sense. The baby isn't food that has been ingested.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: VoiceofReality

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Venkuish1

Good for France and good for woman rights.

It's a sad state of affairs when France is ahead of us on women's rights....lol

I don't know if you are sarcastic but most countries in Europe and the Western World are ahead of the US in women's rights and on the issue of human rights. For example Europe has abolished the death penalty and there are no lethal injections, hangings, firing squads. Guantanamo type prisons don't exist either.

In most countries in the Western World you will still get healthcare even if you are poor or homeless.

Do you find women's rights more important than human rights?

What's the difference?

And don't tell me its a clump of cells.

Woman: an adult female person.

Human: a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal.

And just so you know, what begins as an egg and forms into a clump of cells, starts developing human characteristics between 6 and 9 weeks.

I can speak from personal experience. Can you?

Not on abortion. I've taken care of my responsibilities and have 5 boys that will carry on my name and my way of thinking.

I can speak personally on abortion, spontaneous abortion, and raising my 2 kids.

Which I raised to be themselves.

I swear -- we spend the majority of our lives trying to undo ideologies that were forced on us -- and trying to become who we are as an individual.

Also divorce because he was jealous of his own children, single motherhood, hysterectomy, physical disability, and more.

a reply to: LSU2018

The baby isn't food that has been ingested.

LOL

Let me try to make this easier for you to understand.

Pro-choicer: What about the woman's body?
Anti-choicer: It's not HER body.
Pro-choicer: Whose body is it?
Anti-choices: It's the baby's body.
Pro-choicer: What happened to the woman's body?

(Did the fetus eat it)

Hope that clears it up for you.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

Reproduction is a biological mechanism.

Same for all mammals.

God is a man made illusion to explain the unexplainable. Nothing more.

What we contribute to humanity in our endeavors is worth far beyond any reason to pump out a mini-me.

I SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN.

I dare not ask what life even means to you...

So be a simple mammal then, if that is all you see yourself as.

People seem to identify as very odd things these days... Such a disconnect.


Oh well, your choice I guess...

But it is dangerous to stray away from the will of LIFE itself.

Beware my friend, live your life, be well, and good luck.

originally posted by: BrotherKinsMan

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

Reproduction is a biological mechanism.

Same for all mammals.

God is a man made illusion to explain the unexplainable. Nothing more.

What we contribute to humanity in our endeavors is worth far beyond any reason to pump out a mini-me.

I SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN.

I dare not ask what life even means to you...

I support living children.

Let me know when every LIVING child is cared for, sheltered, fed, educated, loved.

We do not need one more unwanted child pumped out just to say it was.

originally posted by: Annee
Who's body is it?
A parasite is by definition of another species from the host.

The baby's body.
The baby has his/her own heart beating.
The baby has his/her own brain, eyes, ears, genitalia, etc.
Those aren't the mothers heart.
Those aren't the mothers brain, eyes, ears, genitalia, etc.
It's the baby's body.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Does a woman have a body, or is that the [potential] "baby's" body too?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Does a woman have a body, or is that the [potential] "baby's" body too?

The woman has her own body with her own heart beating, and the baby has his/her own body with his/her own heart beating.