The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[Belsnickel]

(07-07-2015, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're OK with killing a full term baby that requires medical assistance?

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 02:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Everything I'd like to post in response to such an idiotic question would probably get me banned...at least for a while.

And it would almost be worth it.

:snark:

I know it would be to me.

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, silly women wanting "rights". 

Nope. I just think the "right" to kill your child is silly.

[Belsnickel]

(07-07-2015, 02:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Still semantics. You're ending the process so that the fetus will not be able to become viable on it's own. 

Rationalization.


I wanted to add this to the end of my previous post, but forgot; 
I'd have a much easier time and be less argumentative if someone just said. Here's the line. You can abort before here but not after here. Health reasons, personal reasons...whatever. But don't (anyone) try to sit there and put a pretty bow on the reasoning by trying to tell me "it's not a real person yet". BS. Just make your decision and live with it. 

Viability is what they use to determine these things. Whether or not it is a real person is something that is philosophical in nature and not something I get into a debate about. My entire stance on being pro-choice is that if an abortion happens and you consider the embryo/fetus to be a person there are rights being violated, if abortion is prohibited from happening then there are rights being violated. Therefore, since there is a guarantee of rights being violated no matter the decision it should not be a government decision but one left to the people personally involved. I abhor abortion, but that is my decision, and I live with it quite happily.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Viability is what they use to determine these things. Whether or not it is a real person is something that is philosophical in nature and not something I get into a debate about. My entire stance on being pro-choice is that if an abortion happens and you consider the embryo/fetus to be a person there are rights being violated, if abortion is prohibited from happening then there are rights being violated. Therefore, since there is a guarantee of rights being violated no matter the decision it should not be a government decision but one left to the people personally involved. I abhor abortion, but that is my decision, and I live with it quite happily.

I get that. Viability is a rationalization. A pretty bow wrapped around an unfortunate (depending on where you stand) decision.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 02:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I didn't have any trouble readin' yo shit. To your point; wow! an 8 month old fetus could survive for a matter of hours or a couple days longer than a 6 week old fetus could. That's strong, dawg.

Like i said, i get 'the line' and what it's meant to do. I disagree with the argument of 1st trimester fetus vs newborn. They both die in short order if not cared for.

(07-07-2015, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No human baby can survive on its own. Regardless of when he or she is born. So, if your only criteria for support of abortion is survivability, then let me assure you that no human child born ever was able to survive without some kind of assistance from its parents and/or caretakers.

Thus, you'll probably redefine "survive" to being able to breathe on its own or pump its own blood. Well, guess what, most babies born prematurely require some medical assistance in order to "survive". My youngest was born a month early and required an incubator. She also had jaundice and required an UV blanket. I know of other premature babies that required ventilators as well.

And what about those that are born full term but still require assistance due to some kind of illness or birth defect? It's okay to kill them because they can't survive on their own? C'mon now.

You're both confusing fetal viability with the ability of something to survive on its own without the care of anyone else.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 05:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're both confusing fetal viability with the ability of something to survive on its own without the care of anyone else.

I'm not confusing anything. I understand that point 100%. I'm saying it's bunk and a way of making someone feel better about the decision to end a "life". Rationalization.

I mean, seriously. Who would argue that a 6 week old fetus could survive outside the womb without assistance? It would be asinine to make that claim. Who would even consider trying to find out if it could happen? No one. In the same vein, it's silly to make the comparison to a 6 week old fetus and a full term baby. If the 6 week old fetus is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. 

It all, obviously comes down to where do you draw the line. I understand this as well and see it. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the ratonalization that "well....it couldn't survive on it's own outside the womb." Duh. Talk about false equivalence...

Party on Wayne.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 06:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not confusing anything. I understand that point 100%. I'm saying it's bunk and a way of making someone feel better about the decision to end a "life". Rationalization.

I mean, seriously. Who would argue that a 6 week old fetus could survive outside the womb without assistance? It would be asinine to make that claim. Who would even consider trying to find out if it could happen? No one. In the same vein, it's silly to make the comparison to a 6 week old fetus and a full term baby. If the 6 week old fetus is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. 

It all, obviously comes down to where do you draw the line. I understand this as well and see it. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the ratonalization that "well....it couldn't survive on it's own outside the womb." Duh. Talk about false equivalence...

Party on Wayne.

and if a fertilized egg is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. So is it bunk to argue for emergency contraceptives if they might prevent the fertilized egg from implanting?

And it's not a false equivalency. It's a legal standard that has existed for decades because you need to draw the line at some point when allowing people to have freedom over their bodies.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-07-2015, 02:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. I just think the "right" to kill your child is silly.

Agreed. A woman's right should end when she decides that she wants to commit murder.  That should not be a right that someone receives.

[fredtoast]

(07-07-2015, 06:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not confusing anything. I understand that point 100%. I'm saying it's bunk and a way of making someone feel better about the decision to end a "life". Rationalization.

I mean, seriously. Who would argue that a 6 week old fetus could survive outside the womb without assistance? It would be asinine to make that claim. Who would even consider trying to find out if it could happen? No one. In the same vein, it's silly to make the comparison to a 6 week old fetus and a full term baby. If the 6 week old fetus is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. 

It all, obviously comes down to where do you draw the line. I understand this as well and see it. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the ratonalization that "well....it couldn't survive on it's own outside the womb." Duh. Talk about false equivalence...

Party on Wayne.

A 6 week old fetus can not survive outside the womb EVEN WITH ASSISTANCE.  


It is POSSIBLE for a newborn to live outside the womb.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a fetus.

It is very disingenuous of you to act like you can not see the difference between "possible" and "impossible", but that just shows what silly lengths some people will go to try and act self-righteous. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 06:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and if a fertilized egg is left alone, chances are very good that it becomes a full term baby eventually. So is it bunk to argue for emergency contraceptives if they might prevent the fertilized egg from implanting?

No. I haven't been arguing about abortion, in any form.

Quote:And it's not a false equivalency. It's a legal standard that has existed for decades because you need to draw the line at some point when allowing people to have freedom over their bodies.

Legal standard has nothing to do with a terrible comparison. I don't really care that a few judges decided what was what. I'm not arguing that anyway, as i've stated several times now. 

It's not a person/human yet, so it's ok to kill it. That's what it comes down to. It's unfortunate that mature, intelligent adults take this stance as though it's logical and right. 

Like i said before. Just say "here's the line. You can abort up to here, but not after." Don't try and dress it up and justify it by claiming something dishonest.

[BmorePat87]

(07-07-2015, 09:00 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No. I haven't been arguing about abortion, in any form.



Legal standard has nothing to do with a terrible comparison. I don't really care that a few judges decided what was what. I'm not arguing that anyway, as i've stated several times now. 

It's not a person/human yet, so it's ok to kill it. That's what it comes down to. It's unfortunate that mature, intelligent adults take this stance as though it's logical and right. 

Like i said before. Just say "here's the line. You can abort up to here, but not after." Don't try and dress it up and justify it by claiming something dishonest.

The fact that you feel it is immoral doesn't make it illogical.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 07:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A 6 week old fetus can not survive outside the womb EVEN WITH ASSISTANCE.  


It is POSSIBLE for a newborn to live outside the womb.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a fetus.

It is very disingenuous of you to act like you can not see the difference between "possible" and "impossible", but that just shows what silly lengths some people will go to try and act self-righteous. 

'Self righteous' is a bull shit claim. Where have i spoken out against abortion or anyone's right? And i'll ask again. What kind of right-minded person takes a 6 week old fetus out of a womb as if it's even an option? No one. 

I'll make the point again since people seem to keep allowing their knee-jerk response against something they perceive as a disagreement to cloud their judgement/reaction.

No one believes a 6 week old fetus is a viable human outside the womb. Claiming, it's ok to abort at this time because it's not yet a viable being, is lameass BS. It's excuses. It's rationalization and it's bunk. Once an egg is fertilized it becomes something on the way to becoming a human being. Lack of TIME is the only thing that keeps it from becoming one in the case of abortion. Saying it's not i viable being to justify ending its life is BS. Just set the line and be done with it. Stop trying to dress it up all purdy.

Here's something for all you parents out there. Most of us know what a 1st and 2nd trimester fetus looks like and we know what a 3rd trimester baby looks like. Next time you look at one of your kids, imagine back to when the missus was pregnant. Imagine making the decision late 1st, early 2nd trimester to abort. Imagine some doctor pulling pieces of your kid out of your missus. No big deal right? They weren't really human beings at that time. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 09:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The fact that you feel it is immoral doesn't make it illogical.

What the hell?? Who said anything about immoral?

[fredtoast]

(07-07-2015, 09:17 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote:  Claiming, it's ok to abort at this time because it's not yet a viable being, is lameass BS. It's excuses. It's rationalization and it's bunk. Once an egg is fertilized it becomes something on the way to becoming a human being. Lack of TIME is the only thing that keeps it from becoming one in the case of abortion.

Claiming that an acorn is an oak tree is lameass BS.  It's excuses.  It's rationalization and it's bunk.

Until a fetus can live outside the womb it is just part of a woman's body. It does not have a life of its own.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-07-2015, 09:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Claiming that an acorn is an oak tree is lameass BS.  It's excuses.  It's rationalization and it's bunk.

Until a fetus can live outside the womb it is just part of a woman's body.  It does not have a life of its own.

Saying that a fetus is not alive, hell, saying that an acorn isn't alive is bunk rationalization.  You can admit that you support the rights of the woman over the rights of the child inside of her without making claims that a fetus is not alive.

[fredtoast]

(07-07-2015, 10:01 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Saying that a fetus is not alive, hell, saying that an acorn isn't alive is bunk rationalization.  You can admit that you support the rights of the woman over the rights of the child inside of her without making claims that a fetus is not alive.

A fetus is "alive" in the same way that a tumor is "alive".  It has no life of its own separate from the mother.

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 10:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A fetus is "alive" in the same way that a tumor is "alive".  It has no life of its own separate from the mother.

Does a tumor have its own heart, brain, and respiratory system?

Could a tumor grow to become a functioning member of society if left unmolested?

I am willing to bet if life were found on a distant plant that resembled that of a 6-week fetus those that are so quick to dismiss the validity of a fetus would not be so quick to dismiss that life.
 
 

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-07-2015, 09:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Claiming that an acorn is an oak tree is lameass BS.  It's excuses.  It's rationalization and it's bunk.

Until a fetus can live outside the womb it is just part of a woman's body.  It does not have a life of its own.

That's a terrible analogy.

Newborn babies can only live outside the womb as long as someone feeds and takes care of it. It has NOTHING like a life of its own.

[*bfine32*]

(07-07-2015, 10:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Newborn babies can only live outside the womb as long as someone feeds and takes care of it. It has NOTHING like a life of its own.

Hell. I don't even think they can cut their own umbilical cord.