yes... I know at least 1 if not 2 or 3...
I did not go, but I thought it was REALLY weird and a bit morbid... I felt bad for them, but...
Roberts Sides With Liberals on Abortion
- Thread starter RTH1800
- Start date
yes... I know at least 1 if not 2 or 3...
I did not go, but I thought it was REALLY weird and a bit morbid... I felt bad for them, but...
Until there is a functioning brain, nope. Sucking that little bundle of cells out of there (or going after it with a coathanger if needed) doesn't mean anything until it's got a functioning brain to be aware of the pain. Research shows that the neural pathways aren't there until 18 weeks.
My father in law was a Navy corpsman in the 1960's. He also assisted when others performed illegal abortions. The abortions were/are going to happen one way or another, I'd prefer if they were done by professionals rather than in back alleys. Restrictions limiting abortion only to those of sufficient means to travel to places where it's legal is just as bad as making ammo or gun permits so expensive that only the rich can afford it.
Fundamental rights?
Stop comparing being able to defend yourself to murdering an unborn child.
Stop comparing being able to defend yourself to murdering an unborn child.
This guy always has some good colloquial sayings:
www.foxnews.com
I'll don my flame-suit here:
So, did I just read that children inside the womb are not sentient? Really? So, I know somebody that had their child premature, 22.5 weeks. She lived albeit with a lot of NICU care. But she lived and has read more books in her short life than I'll ever read - sentient at 22.5 weeks or not, she was reading at 10th grade level in 2nd grade!!! When was she sentient? When she was delivered in emergency surgery or after the normal gestation time?
Since the argument is a baby in the womb is not sentient, at what point then, if a baby is out of the womb does said baby become sentient? Seriously, just when? One could possibly argue that a child is not sentient until 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5? How many of us remember age 2? Does that mean at 2 someone is not sentient? From what I read at times, full grown adults are not necessarily sentient. Furthermore, the definition of sentient also includes "Experiencing sensation or feeling. " It's an absolute FACT that babies in the womb feel pain. With this mentality of not sentient till out of the womb, one may as well go vote for Northam and his ilk.
Also, what is viable since this is likely a better benchmark than sentient? What baby could ever "take care of themselves?" Since they cannot take care of themselves, how viable are they? So the question for society is "at what point in time" and "who's the judge of viability?" How many days after conception is a fetus viable: day 1, 2, 3....day 30, 60, after "on time birth?" Just what is that definition of viable? One that will survive with no medical intervention whatsoever? No hospital birthing? Just where is that line? It's an interesting argument, because we know that our medical technology has kept plenty of babies alive. How many of those have gone on to do great things? These are the arguments one must make when this question of viability comes. In some aspects one could ask the question - since Homo Sapiens are, in theory, the most advanced form of life on this planet should we or should we not enhance the "viability" of the human condition, be it newborn or elderly? In my mind, one cannot break the "viability" argument just at the newborn age, because it also becomes a question when one is aging or perhaps is in a horrific accident.
I don't claim to know the actual answer here; because having been power of attorney over my father when he died, if I had to do it over again, I'd have let him die in ER when I knew the outcome was probably not going to be good - yet, I knew he was a fighter and I could not, not give him the opportunity to fight back. I did not personally want to make the call on viability, because even though I myself knew it wasn't going to be likely he got better, I wasn't going to make that call when I point blank asked him "do you want to call it quits?" I had that luxury, something a newborn/fetus does not.
Is it better a child not be born into an unloving, uncaring and possibly abusive family or not? Again, I don't have the answer. I do know, as I've aged, and have seen friends with children, the more protective of life I've become. Yet, at the same time, it breaks my heart and saddens me to know there are plenty of children in this world who never receive any love or care from their parents. Society has argued this for a long time, and will continue to argue it for a long time. Ultimately science will prove when babies feel pain and when they become sentient; but there are brain waves functioning well before actual delivery. I think when the bell tolls, life will be shown to begin either AT conception or less than 2 weeks after when brain waves start.
Kennedy slams Roberts over ruling on Louisiana abortion law: 'He flip-flopped like a banked catfish'
Kennedy criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after the court struck down a Louisiana law requiring individuals who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
www.foxnews.com
I'll don my flame-suit here:
So, did I just read that children inside the womb are not sentient? Really? So, I know somebody that had their child premature, 22.5 weeks. She lived albeit with a lot of NICU care. But she lived and has read more books in her short life than I'll ever read - sentient at 22.5 weeks or not, she was reading at 10th grade level in 2nd grade!!! When was she sentient? When she was delivered in emergency surgery or after the normal gestation time?
Since the argument is a baby in the womb is not sentient, at what point then, if a baby is out of the womb does said baby become sentient? Seriously, just when? One could possibly argue that a child is not sentient until 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5? How many of us remember age 2? Does that mean at 2 someone is not sentient? From what I read at times, full grown adults are not necessarily sentient. Furthermore, the definition of sentient also includes "Experiencing sensation or feeling. " It's an absolute FACT that babies in the womb feel pain. With this mentality of not sentient till out of the womb, one may as well go vote for Northam and his ilk.
Also, what is viable since this is likely a better benchmark than sentient? What baby could ever "take care of themselves?" Since they cannot take care of themselves, how viable are they? So the question for society is "at what point in time" and "who's the judge of viability?" How many days after conception is a fetus viable: day 1, 2, 3....day 30, 60, after "on time birth?" Just what is that definition of viable? One that will survive with no medical intervention whatsoever? No hospital birthing? Just where is that line? It's an interesting argument, because we know that our medical technology has kept plenty of babies alive. How many of those have gone on to do great things? These are the arguments one must make when this question of viability comes. In some aspects one could ask the question - since Homo Sapiens are, in theory, the most advanced form of life on this planet should we or should we not enhance the "viability" of the human condition, be it newborn or elderly? In my mind, one cannot break the "viability" argument just at the newborn age, because it also becomes a question when one is aging or perhaps is in a horrific accident.
I don't claim to know the actual answer here; because having been power of attorney over my father when he died, if I had to do it over again, I'd have let him die in ER when I knew the outcome was probably not going to be good - yet, I knew he was a fighter and I could not, not give him the opportunity to fight back. I did not personally want to make the call on viability, because even though I myself knew it wasn't going to be likely he got better, I wasn't going to make that call when I point blank asked him "do you want to call it quits?" I had that luxury, something a newborn/fetus does not.
Is it better a child not be born into an unloving, uncaring and possibly abusive family or not? Again, I don't have the answer. I do know, as I've aged, and have seen friends with children, the more protective of life I've become. Yet, at the same time, it breaks my heart and saddens me to know there are plenty of children in this world who never receive any love or care from their parents. Society has argued this for a long time, and will continue to argue it for a long time. Ultimately science will prove when babies feel pain and when they become sentient; but there are brain waves functioning well before actual delivery. I think when the bell tolls, life will be shown to begin either AT conception or less than 2 weeks after when brain waves start.
A placation to assuage the guilty subject.
They are incapabable of self reliance for several years after the magical birth canal.
Just like while in the oven.
Expunged eggs are an act of nature not a heinous act.
Your deflection arguments haven't any credence.
Person isn't the subject.
A viable baby is, we can call it a ICBM.
Still doesn't make it any different.
What difference does the trimester make?
From the second of conception It'll only be one thing.
Lol, retarded child.
How many kids do you have?
R
Well shoot.
Good stuff from many of you. Thanks.
A bit of a Rough day for me (just being a pissy bitch really) and seeing some serious strength, honor, and morals among men was the little lift I needed.
Keep it up.
Dont spend too much time or energy on these fools.
Having cradled more than one baby, both those who lived and those who did not, and worked fervently for hours trying to save more than one, they are a beautiful blessing and should not be callously discarded as an unwanted “problem”.
Good stuff from many of you. Thanks.
A bit of a Rough day for me (just being a pissy bitch really) and seeing some serious strength, honor, and morals among men was the little lift I needed.
Keep it up.
Dont spend too much time or energy on these fools.
Having cradled more than one baby, both those who lived and those who did not, and worked fervently for hours trying to save more than one, they are a beautiful blessing and should not be callously discarded as an unwanted “problem”.
I thought my answer was pretty direct, and I skimmed a couple journal articles on fetus neural development before posting 18 weeks. I agree with you that if the neural pathways are formed at 18 weeks (4.5 months) then I think that’s a fair cutoff for limiting abortion except for a defective unit or for the life/health of the mother. I disagree with abortions after 18 weeks for some of the reasons you all are arguing, so on that we agree.
This guy always has some good colloquial sayings:
Kennedy slams Roberts over ruling on Louisiana abortion law: 'He flip-flopped like a banked catfish'
Kennedy criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after the court struck down a Louisiana law requiring individuals who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
I'll don my flame-suit here:
So, did I just read that children inside the womb are not sentient? Really? So, I know somebody that had their child premature, 22.5 weeks. She lived albeit with a lot of NICU care. But she lived and has read more books in her short life than I'll ever read - sentient at 22.5 weeks or not, she was reading at 10th grade level in 2nd grade!!! When was she sentient? When she was delivered in emergency surgery or after the normal gestation time?
Since the argument is a baby in the womb is not sentient, at what point then, if a baby is out of the womb does said baby become sentient? Seriously, just when? One could possibly argue that a child is not sentient until 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5? How many of us remember age 2? Does that mean at 2 someone is not sentient? From what I read at times, full grown adults are not necessarily sentient. Furthermore, the definition of sentient also includes "Experiencing sensation or feeling. " It's an absolute FACT that babies in the womb feel pain. With this mentality of not sentient till out of the womb, one may as well go vote for Northam and his ilk.
Also, what is viable since this is likely a better benchmark than sentient? What baby could ever "take care of themselves?" Since they cannot take care of themselves, how viable are they? So the question for society is "at what point in time" and "who's the judge of viability?" How many days after conception is a fetus viable: day 1, 2, 3....day 30, 60, after "on time birth?" Just what is that definition of viable? One that will survive with no medical intervention whatsoever? No hospital birthing? Just where is that line? It's an interesting argument, because we know that our medical technology has kept plenty of babies alive. How many of those have gone on to do great things? These are the arguments one must make when this question of viability comes. In some aspects one could ask the question - since Homo Sapiens are, in theory, the most advanced form of life on this planet should we or should we not enhance the "viability" of the human condition, be it newborn or elderly? In my mind, one cannot break the "viability" argument just at the newborn age, because it also becomes a question when one is aging or perhaps is in a horrific accident.
I don't claim to know the actual answer here; because having been power of attorney over my father when he died, if I had to do it over again, I'd have let him die in ER when I knew the outcome was probably not going to be good - yet, I knew he was a fighter and I could not, not give him the opportunity to fight back. I did not personally want to make the call on viability, because even though I myself knew it wasn't going to be likely he got better, I wasn't going to make that call when I point blank asked him "do you want to call it quits?" I had that luxury, something a newborn/fetus does not.
Is it better a child not be born into an unloving, uncaring and possibly abusive family or not? Again, I don't have the answer. I do know, as I've aged, and have seen friends with children, the more protective of life I've become. Yet, at the same time, it breaks my heart and saddens me to know there are plenty of children in this world who never receive any love or care from their parents. Society has argued this for a long time, and will continue to argue it for a long time. Ultimately science will prove when babies feel pain and when they become sentient; but there are brain waves functioning well before actual delivery. I think when the bell tolls, life will be shown to begin either AT conception or less than 2 weeks after when brain waves start.
18 weeks for neural pathways, can’t feel shit before then, likely sentient from then on. 22.5 weeks is past 18, and apparently viable in that case, so we agree.
The difference the trimester makes is when are there neural pathways for potential thought or feeling pain, 18 weeks.
Retarded kids, yep that shit really ruins a life for parents. One of the nicest men I’ve ever met has a now 19 year old daughter with severe autism. I’ve had him break down in tears numerous times in conversation talking about the care his daughter requires and the bad shit that happens if she gets out of the house alone. He’s mentally and physically beat down from taking care of the child he obviously loves. It’s really hard to watch, I don’t honestly think I could do it.
No kids for me, by choice. I’m 43 and happily married, she doesn’t want kids either. I also never got anyone pregnant by being careful and using contraception.
Well said.
the parallels between abortion and 2A are so clear.
simple fact is laws about abortion don’t stop abortion. It just drives it into the shadows and people unfortunately die.
there are also times of medical necessity where abortion needs to be considered.
conservatives at times act lime women are looking forward to their future abortion. They discus late term abortions as if women for the purpose of birth control are having abortions at 35 weeks. That clearly doesn’t happen except in situations of medical necessity.
if you don’t want abortions, then educate your children. Empower them to succeed. Help them feel personal value. Teenage pregnancy rates of high school athletes is so low drive your daughters to be involved in their school.
and that planned parent hood place that you may think is the devils playground. It is literally the proof that a parent failed to have a real working relationship and dialogue with their children.
kids have sex. Fact! Sex with out protection leads to pregnancy. Uneducated people and dumb people believe stupid shit. Like if the women jumps up and down after sex she won’t get pregnant. If she is raped her body won’t allow her to get pregnant. 2020 and people believe this shit.
abortion is the result of feeling like you have no viable options after the result of an act with poor or no planning.
Liberal logic: Bacteria is life on Mars but unborn baby is not life on earth.
Check with the endangered species acts to see how they feel about Eagle eggs.
Raising children is hard, tough shit.
I guess if they had cancer or any other terminal/chronic disease it'd be the same?
As I figured, a large opinion based upon others experiences.
I've meet and know many who have experienced combat, this doesn't make me an operator.
Here is a historical graph of children born out of wedlock.
How did most of these folks avoid pregnancy in the 60's -70's?
What exactly was the change to precipitate this?
R
Something happened in 64 that had a major effect on one of these listed in the graph.
R
From the year my first thought would be the Civil Rights Act. That doesn’t explain why the number of unwed births when up for all groups like feminism does. One certainly could’ve exacerbated the other. The large expansion for specifically black unwed births would be the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, incentivizing single mothers with more kids to get more of that sweet, sweet gov’t money. We’re currently entering the fourth generation of American welfare queens.
Ok, so this is coming from an American of Mexican decent. My grandparents immigrated legally and worked the strawberry/sugar fields. No mexican flags anywhere and only spoke Spanish inside the home, English outside. That generation were proud immigrants. The current crop, the Mexican flag waving LaRaza type are just seeking handouts while their allegiance is to Mexico/not US. Its that allegiance to not the US that keeps them voting for democrats.
The democrats and the media are well versed at lingual gymnastics and the young ones and the sheep are easily swayed. What Republicans need are young people to have more of a social presence and plead our case.
I'll just leave this here. Planned parenthood at its finest. 
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/3...urs-in-organ-harvesting/#.XvuFiJyDeuk.twitter
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/3...urs-in-organ-harvesting/#.XvuFiJyDeuk.twitterI don't know why anyone gives a flying fuck.
Freedom means I get to do stuff you don't like, while others do stuff I don't like. Doesn't physically affect me, then game on.
You really want the "parents" that would turn to abbortion to be forced to have the kid? That's just another body into our fucked up worthless foster care or adoption programs that are already horribly run and overloaded.
Worse yet, they try and raise the kid, abuse the shit out of it and accidentally kill it later.
I love my kids. Doesn't mean there haven't been parents that were worthless and didn't give a single shit about theirs.
Morals and ethics are personal. Make your choices and let others make theirs.
Freedom means I get to do stuff you don't like, while others do stuff I don't like. Doesn't physically affect me, then game on.
You really want the "parents" that would turn to abbortion to be forced to have the kid? That's just another body into our fucked up worthless foster care or adoption programs that are already horribly run and overloaded.
Worse yet, they try and raise the kid, abuse the shit out of it and accidentally kill it later.
I love my kids. Doesn't mean there haven't been parents that were worthless and didn't give a single shit about theirs.
Morals and ethics are personal. Make your choices and let others make theirs.
Positions aside, this ruling was at its core one of following legal doctrine. It was about whether the Louisiana law was so similar to the already decided Texas law that the Court had ruled on earlier. Roberts felt that it was and felt that the Court had to treat the two cases alike. It’s the legal doctrine of stare decisis, meaning “to stand by things decided’. In other words, legal precedent. Labeling Roberts one thing or another is missing the point.
Last edited:
Can't imagine what the mother is going through? Then try to imagine what the baby goes through.
They over ruled it. It’s back to ten. Still bullshit though. I should have stayed in Kentucky after getting out.
I'm not entirely sure what your comment is addressing from my post.Can't imagine what the mother is going through? Then try to imagine what the baby goes through.
I'm pointing out that no matter how bad the mother has it that the baby has it worse.
Got it. And I agree.
But that's not the point of the post. The point was the dichotomy of the current situation we find ourselves in due to people choosing to engage in sex outside of wedlock or a committed relationship - is it realistically possible to not have abortion clinics and simultaneously not degrade into a welfare state given the current moral climate? As horrible as abortion is, I don't think so. And it appears to me that those who have had their hands on the levers of power for some time think along a congruent line.
It sucks but I really don't know what the other - realistic - answer would be.
But that's not the point of the post. The point was the dichotomy of the current situation we find ourselves in due to people choosing to engage in sex outside of wedlock or a committed relationship - is it realistically possible to not have abortion clinics and simultaneously not degrade into a welfare state given the current moral climate? As horrible as abortion is, I don't think so. And it appears to me that those who have had their hands on the levers of power for some time think along a congruent line.
It sucks but I really don't know what the other - realistic - answer would be.
sorry dude, but they now allow partial birth abortions and they allow killing the babies or letting them die if they botch an abortion and the baby survives.
they kill fully formed babies now, not a cluster of cells.
Can you point out which enumerated right abortion is under?
liberals promote promiscuity, and then they advocate for the killing of the products of their encouragement.
this is sick.
this is sick.
Your "philosophy" is shallower than your gene pool.
Think harder.
Let me help you out
1. How many fertilized eggs are expelled naturally from the body is irrelevant, since abortion is not a natural process and that's what we're talking about here
2. If being sentient is the criteria for deciding when something is human, well that happens long before the child comes out of the womb. I'll leave you to learn how long.
3. Many parents grieve for miscarried children. Whether you think they should or not is unimportant. In any event, whether or not society has funerals for stillborn children is irrelevant.
4. A fertilized egg cannot become anything other than a human being. Anything that man does to purposely prevent that fertilized egg from reaching birth is murder, if you take logic to its end.
5. Why is it that in many (all?) states some form of unlawful homicide charges are laid on a suspect who causes a pregnant woman to lose its child through violence?
Notice that not once I've mentioned theological teachings yet.......
One does not need to be religious to be against the murder of babies, Im atheist and think abortion is downright vile and outright murder.
We already have been too accepting (and lazy) which is why we are in the situation we are in with crybullies running the show. Our extending a olive branch to the left is why we have these ridiculous gun control laws (plus treason by rinos), it is why we have the murder of babies right up to birth, why we have a porous border, and not to mention destructive riots and looting. Im done playing nice with the libtards. Fuck them.
That is a major aspect of it. Its evil. But those that are in a government dependent social class and choose to not have abortions end up raising more dependent voters, which is still a total win for the left as the new additions will vote in politicians who take from producers a give to non-producers in exchange for more control for the left. This is the problem of not strictly controlling welfare, the Great Society and other things. A lot of chickens have come home to roost.
right, and that why the liberals love inner city public schools and defend their abject failure to teach kids anything and graduate <25% of the kids.
these are failure factories that pump out kids that have no future, adding to the rolls of democrat voters.
And this is the reason I say that abortions may indeed be required to preserve the Republic. Note that I’m not talking about getting rid of Democrats, that’s a different thing. What a shitty circumstance to be found in.
I guess if I had said, "the left picks away at gun rights as the right picks away at abortion laws", would that of gave my statement more validity?
the problem is that you white folks are being replaced. each white child killed furthers the goals of those that want you all dead and gone.
agaim ghettos and slums only exist in american because liberals want it that way.
they cannot promise to rescue the oppressed unless they ensure there are oppressed folks that need help.
these communities are the new democrat plantations.
Murder is murder any way you color it. Period.
Call it abortion, or state sponsored executions aka: death penalty, its still murder.
Once you allow it the question becomes "Where do you draw the line?" As someone mentioned above, "With seniors?". Hey now Im one of those, and fuck you.
Murder is murder, period, and always wrong.
Epstein didnt kill himself.
It was legal to kill people in concentration camps in Germany and other occupied countries at one time. That didn’t make it morally right. Neither is abortion just because it’s legal.
Your statement is more accurate. Your position isn't any more valid.
Abortion is not a right.
Whatever happened of the right of a human being to live? Mothers cannot kill their children after birth (though certain leftists would love to see that happen). Why can they kill them before birth?
If you can answer those fundamental questions, we can have a dialog.
I have changed my mind about abortion. I now think it's a good idea to kill off all lib fetuses or future welfare recipients (I know....redundant). This will solve 2 issues at once.
1. Decrease the lib heard
2. Cut back on entitlements.
Both saving billions each year for tax payers.
Wim win....
1. Decrease the lib heard
2. Cut back on entitlements.
Both saving billions each year for tax payers.
Wim win....
Bro, I would do more than that. My kind of gal right there. I would ask her for a date, and shoot for a long-term relationship. Not only is she beautiful, she is even better: intelligent and apparently pretty shrewd/wise.
Similar threads
