The NRA Is Facing A String Of Defeats In The States

[BotanyBoy]

When does a fetus become human.

When it is physiologically capable of sustaining cellular respiration on it's own.

Calling it a fetus is just done to remove the stigma on abortions of convenience.

No, calling it a fetus describes a state of physiological development.

As I pointed out way above, this is the right not to be punished for a bad decision, a pass on responsibility and the political creation of an unassailable victim class.

That's all loony toonz bullshit you've created so that you don't feel so bad about championing that big federal government to enact the socialist controls YOU approve of.

 

[WoundedKnee]

That's just an ad hominem attack. I have discussed the similarity of the two issues, the tactics and the goals of those who want to curtail your right to life. It was dragged to abortion, by who I do not know, but at not one point in this thread have I advocated for any new law, and change in law or any limitations on abortion. You should be ashamed over your poor reading comprehension skills.

 

[WoundedKnee]

What is the terminal point for the change in physiological status?
Is a premature delivery nothing more than a fetus on life support?
And what about the pain studies. Is response to external stimuli just a tissue mass function?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

When does a fetus become human. Answer me God.
Is there half a chance that it will be a puppy or a kitten?
Calling it a fetus is just done to remove the stigma on abortions of convenience.
As I pointed out way above, this is the right not to be punished for a bad decision, a pass on responsibility and the political creation of an unassailable victim class.

Tell us how you feel about fully-born Haitians again. Are they still sub-human?

https://media.giphy.com/media/12msOFU8oL1eww/giphy.gif

Ha ha ha...I'm sorry. You're "not AJ," right?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's just an ad hominem attack.

No it's not LOL

If anything it was ascription....because I assumed (apparently erroneously) that you were pro-life and seek to ban/restrict abortions.

I have discussed the similarity of the two issues, the tactics and the goals of those who want to curtail your right to life.

And you're flat out wrong because your discussion is based upon the assumption that people who support the right to privacy and equal treatment under the law are trying to curtail my right to life. Which is patently absurd.

Pro-choice, pro 4A/14A rights folks do NOT want to curtail my right to life in any way shape or form any more than the 2A rights supporters.

It was dragged to abortion, by who I do not know, but at not one point in this thread have I advocated for any new law, and change in law or any limitations on abortion. You should be ashamed over your poor reading comprehension skills.

I'm glad you're firmly in the pro-choice/abortion camp then.

So what's the beef about??

What is the terminal point for the change in physiological status?

I thought that was pretty self explanatory.

What part of 'physiologically capable of sustaining cellular respiration on it's own' do you not understand?

Is a premature delivery nothing more than a fetus on life support?

If it requires life support and it's between the zygote and infant stages of maturation then yes.

Replacing a biological womb with a mechanical one doesn't change what stage of development it's in.

And what about the pain studies. Is response to external stimuli just a tissue mass function?

Yep.....from paramecium to humans.

 

[HisArpy]

I've seen you fight over the term right. Explain to me how abortion is a right.

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1975).

Rights apply to all individuals and your rights cost nothing to any other individual.

By law a fetus is not a "human being" until AFTER it is "born alive". (1 USC sec. 8)

Abortion is a medical procedure subject to law. Right now, the law tends to be too dismissive of the basic right to life.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

 

[coachdb18]

Key word being individuals.

A fetus is not an individual.

The law in 38 states provides for sentencing as murder the taking of a pregnant woman's life as two murders, both that of the woman AND her unborn child. You can't call it murder if it isn't human. Due to the politics of it, they've excluded murder with permission, or what we call 'abortion'.

www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

For example, look at California, clearly the most liberal state in the union, and Colorado, also run by a left leaning government, so hardly red state biases:

California
Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Colorado
Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-401 (13) specifies that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of committing specified offenses against a pregnant woman, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant, to a term of at least the midpoint, but not more than twice the maximum, of the presumptive range for the punishment of the offense.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-501 (6) establishes that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of assault in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of at least six months, but not longer than the maximum sentence authorized for the offense, if the victim of the assault was a pregnant woman and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-1201 defines aggravating factors in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law defines the intentional killing of a pregnant woman with the knowledge that she was pregnant as an aggravating factor.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1975).



By law a fetus is not a "human being" until AFTER it is "born alive". (1 USC sec. 8)



This is an opinion, not a fact.

Indeed. The courts are always right? For how long did they rule for slavery and segregation?

Define born alive, because we have already been presented with the term born viable.

So, then, the right to bear arms is not subject to common-sense gun laws?

 

[WoundedKnee]

"The law in 38 states provides for sentencing as murder the taking of a pregnant woman's life as two murders, both that of the woman AND her unborn child. You can't call it murder if it isn't human."

Indeed.

 

[beew]

The reason we have a bicameral government is to keep this sort of thing from happening over all of our Rights. It's harder for the Gov to move against the people when the Gov is limited by it's own membership viewpoints and ideologies. By dividing the ideologies into pieces consensus can only be achieved after robust debate. Sometimes robust debate becomes extremely loud and raucous when the issues are dear.

Wow. A lot of good stuff to digest in this thread, but I'll start with this one:

I always wondered why, in political debates, some Americans seem so much more split on ideological lines (L-R, religion/atheism, pro-choice etc.) than others. While being more tolerant than other nationalities, outside of Politics.
I was quite critical of that, and none of my theories ('divide et impera' by Elites in order to distract from real issues etc.) fully explained it.

But your explanation puts the dots on the ii's. (and it's probably a sign of my limited understanding of Politics that I haven't thought of that): When you're born in such a system, you tend to approach political debates in this way.

And interestingly enough, your comment makes me view the L-R split in a better, less judgmental light: It actually ensures the maintenance of one of the most democratic political systems in the world.

 

[Chancellor_Palpatine]

Wow. A lot of good stuff to digest in this thread, but I'll start with this one:

No, there isn't. STFU, bewbs.

 

[beew]

That, but at an even more base level it's mostly about the money.

If the government quit funding PP, 90% of the bitching would stop.

Haha. You go, BB.
Well said.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's just an ad hominem attack. I have discussed the similarity of the two issues, the tactics and the goals of those who want to curtail your right to life. It was dragged to abortion, by who I do not know, but at not one point in this thread have I advocated for any new law, and change in law or any limitations on abortion. You should be ashamed over your poor reading comprehension skills.

http://www.prettylittlegrub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/embarassed-gif.gif

 

[Hypoxia]

The NRA backs abortions when performed by semi-auto firearms as long as the fetus isn't likely to fire back. Beware those armed embryos!

A word for the idiots: A fetus is part of the mother's body. A woman is not an incubator that you own. Keep your fucking hands off women's bodies. Go enslave your poodle.

Back to the NRA: We'll see how their foreign entanglements work out, hey?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The law in 38 states provides for sentencing as murder the taking of a pregnant woman's life as two murders, both that of the woman AND her unborn child. You can't call it murder if it isn't human. Due to the politics of it, they've excluded murder with permission, or what we call 'abortion'.

"The law in 38 states provides for sentencing as murder the taking of a pregnant woman's life as two murders, both that of the woman AND her unborn child. You can't call it murder if it isn't human."

Indeed.

That's great, doesn't make a fetus an individual.

And until it is an individual it doesn't have rights and certainly none that supersede those of the individual that it gestates within. Not the 4th and not the 14th.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

If abortions were done with guns this discussion would be different.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If abortions were done with guns this discussion would be different.

Yea, you'd look a whole lot less of a dumb cunt for bringing such an idiotic thing up.

 

[HisArpy]

Wow. A lot of good stuff to digest in this thread, but I'll start with this one:

I always wondered why, in political debates, some Americans seem so much more split on ideological lines (L-R, religion/atheism, pro-choice etc.) than others. While being more tolerant than other nationalities, outside of Politics.
I was quite critical of that, and none of my theories ('divide et impera' by Elites in order to distract from real issues etc.) fully explained it.

But your explanation puts the dots on the ii's. (and it's probably a sign of my limited understanding of Politics that I haven't thought of that): When you're born in such a system, you tend to approach political debates in this way.

And interestingly enough, your comment makes me view the L-R split in a better, less judgmental light: It actually ensures the maintenance of one of the most democratic political systems in the world.

As I have said in the past, we are at our strongest when we are a house divided. Our system is loud and raucous but it ensures that EVERYONE'S voice is heard and all viewpoints are considered. It is only then that we move forward to make changes in our society IF change is necessary.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

Yea, you'd look a whole lot less of a dumb cunt for bringing such an idiotic thing up.

Lol, you calling anyone a dumb cunt is hilariously ironic.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Lol, you calling anyone a dumb cunt is hilariously ironic.

Says the idiot who brought up doing abortions with a gun....

https://media.giphy.com/media/DFNd1yVyRjmF2/giphy.gif


You've lost your talking privileges....
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/disneycreate/images/8/82/39400-Val-Kilmer-you-may-go-now-gif-Etao.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140119020559

 

[HisArpy]

Indeed. The courts are always right? For how long did they rule for slavery and segregation?

Define born alive, because we have already been presented with the term born viable.

So, then, the right to bear arms is not subject to common-sense gun laws?

The "courts" you're talking about here is the US Sup Ct and they have determined that abortion is a CONSTITUTIONAL Right, not just a judicial decision subject to being overturned because they got it wrong somehow. SLAVERY was never a Constitutional Right, thus the analogy doesn't apply.

The definition is within the code. In a nutshell, "born alive" means birthed or removed from the mother and the infant is breathing with a beating heart. On the surface, this definition COULD BE used for abortion EXCEPT that the homicide statutes make exceptions for abortion and do not include it as a homicide. This is the law, not an opinion.

Equating the Right to bear arms to abortion Rights, is not so simplistic. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that it shall not be infringed, while the Right to an abortion has no such limiter on governmental intrusion.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

Says the idiot who brought up doing abortions with a gun....

https://media.giphy.com/media/DFNd1yVyRjmF2/giphy.gif


You've lost your talking privileges....
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/disneycreate/images/8/82/39400-Val-Kilmer-you-may-go-now-gif-Etao.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140119020559

But GUNS, moochie! Knuckle draggers like you drool over anything to do with them. It could unite your country so you dont have to repeat the same argument in every thread about guns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But GUNS, moochie! Knuckle draggers like you drool over anything to do with them. It could unite your country so you dont have to repeat the same argument in every thread about guns.

https://static2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/And+yet+youre+still+here+complaining+about+it+while+pretending+_088cf4ab767835214fc4d64432cb8b98.jpg

 

[thehaircutgirl]

That's just an ad hominem attack. I have discussed the similarity of the two issues, the tactics and the goals of those who want to curtail your right to life. It was dragged to abortion, by who I do not know, but at not one point in this thread have I advocated for any new law, and change in law or any limitations on abortion. You should be ashamed over your poor reading comprehension skills.

from reading your posts i've noticed that anyone who dares disagree with you is "attacking" you. a life of victimhood is a life not lived.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

as long as America stands and women stand up for our rights, men nor the government will dictate what we do with our bodies. if you disagree, then it's a religious issue which immediately gets defeated by the people, for the people. you cannot trumpet rights for owning guns and then tell others how they should behave when their behavior is protected by our rights.