Alabama Supreme court rules embryos are children

[HisArpy]

All I'm doing is trying to understand your position.

I get that the typical hostility and irrational nature of many here can put you on the defensive, but I'm not trying for any kind of 'gotcha'.

Alrighty, you've further clarified your position, but it sounds like I was absolutely correct in concluding you would do everything possible to avoid a pro abortion woman when dealing with your own potential children.

I'm not judging or arguing your position, just establishing it and saying I find it logically consistent.

You're playing gotcha word games and you know it.

For instance, as the father I have no voice whatsoever in whether the mother aborts the fetus. Thus I cannot be said to have done anything toward eliminating my genetics from society.

If one wishes to examine this in depth, then one must realize that for every abortion there are at least 2 "victims." The fetus and the father.

Your argument would place both into the role of perpetrator along with the mother. Which is stupid both rationally and legally.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You're playing gotcha word games and you know it.

For instance, as the father I have no voice whatsoever in whether the mother aborts the fetus. Thus I cannot be said to have done anything toward eliminating my genetics from society.

If one wishes to examine this in depth, then one must realize that for every abortion there are at least 2 "victims." The fetus and the father.

Your argument would place both into the role of perpetrator along with the mother. Which is stupid both rationally and legally.

If a man is of sound mind, I don’t think his wife should have veto power over his medical decisions.

 

[HisArpy]

If a man is of sound mind, I don’t think his wife should have veto power over his medical decisions.

Show me where this is the case. What jurisdiction?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Show me where this is the case. What jurisdiction?

A wife has never been given veto power over her husband’s medical decisions.

 

[HisArpy]

A wife has never been given veto power over her husband’s medical decisions.

And?

How does this relate to my position that if you wish to have an abortion, and it's legal where you are, then you can do so if that's your desire. Are you attempting to say that I'm somehow "giving permission" by acknowledging that someone can do what the law doesn't prohibit?

That's idiotic at the very least.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

And?

How does this relate to my position that if you wish to have an abortion, and it's legal where you are, then you can do so if that's your desire. Are you attempting to say that I'm somehow "giving permission" by acknowledging that someone can do what the law doesn't prohibit?

That's idiotic at the very least.

You're playing gotcha word games and you know it.

For instance, as the father I have no voice whatsoever in whether the mother aborts the fetus. Thus I cannot be said to have done anything toward eliminating my genetics from society.

If one wishes to examine this in depth, then one must realize that for every abortion there are at least 2 "victims." The fetus and the father.

Your argument would place both into the role of perpetrator along with the mother. Which is stupid both rationally and legally.

By calling the father a “victim” in an abortion, you’re arguing that a husband should have veto power over his wife’s medical decisions.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You're playing gotcha word games and you know it.

Just an empty assertion on your part.

For instance, as the father I have no voice whatsoever in whether the mother aborts the fetus.

Actually, that's up to the woman. She can consider his viewpoint if she wishes.

Thus I cannot be said to have done anything toward eliminating my genetics from society.

My point originally there was not having kids at all produces the same outcome regarding genetics.

If one wishes to examine this in depth, then one must realize that for every abortion there are at least 2 "victims." The fetus and the father.

I don't see how the potential father is any kind of victim here.

Your argument would place both into the role of perpetrator along with the mother.

Incomprehensible how you think I've in any way argued or suggested a fetus or potential father are perpetrators of anything.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You cannot murder an ant. Or a tree. Yet both are undeniably life. Therefore in order to commit murder, one must take the life of a human being. That requires, under acknowledged laws dating back to the dawn of time, that the one being murdered be "born alive."

Because if the one supposedly murdered isn't "alive" to begin with, you can't commit murder and if that victim hasn't been born they are not yet a human being.

This is basic logic. Twist it all you wish to but it is basic logic and cannot be denied.

Your reply here has nothing to do with what my point was, which is that life/alive, human and human being are terms that don't mean the same thing.

 

[wizzard426]

It's a child. You made your choice.

 

[HisArpy]

Your reply here has nothing to do with what my point was, which is that life/alive, human and human being are terms that don't mean the same thing.

Now you're contradicting your own posts. Which is fine because it shows that you're evolving on the issues.

 

[HisArpy]

Just an empty assertion on your part.

Actually, that's up to the woman. She can consider his viewpoint if she wishes.

My point originally there was not having kids at all produces the same outcome regarding genetics.

I don't see how the potential father is any kind of victim here.

Incomprehensible how you think I've in any way argued or suggested a fetus or potential father are perpetrators of anything.

None of this is true.

 

[HisArpy]

By calling the father a “victim” in an abortion, you’re arguing that a husband should have veto power over his wife’s medical decisions.

Nope.

Go back and read what I actually posted without trying to find fault with it first.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Now you're contradicting your own posts. Which is fine because it shows that you're evolving on the issues.

I've contradicted nothing. I've asserted that life/alive, human and human being are terms that don't mean the same thing for as long as I can remember.

If we can't agree on the definition of basic words, we're not going to get anywhere.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Nope.

Go back and read what I actually posted without trying to find fault with it first.

Are you actually pro choice? If so please accept my apologies for mischaracterizing you as being anti-abortion.

 

[HisArpy]

I've contradicted nothing. I've asserted that life/alive, human and human being are terms that don't mean the same thing for as long as I can remember.

If we can't agree on the definition of basic words, we're not going to get anywhere.

1. That's not actually what you said. Nor does it relate to what I posted about being "born alive" because this is an esoteric point. All living things are "alive." That doesn't make them human and therefore the point you're trying to make is meaningless in the context of the discussion.

Your heart is a collection of living cells. It's a part of your body yet cannot exist on its own without medical assistance/science. Attempting to equate that to be the same as a "human being" is nonsensical.


2. We don't have to agree on anything. You are free to believe in whatever fantasy you wish, that doesn't mean I have to go along with you.

 

[HisArpy]

Are you actually pro choice? If so please accept my apologies for mischaracterizing you as being anti-abortion.

I have no idea how you manage to continue to survive without a caregiver or functioning life support system. Honestly, if you cannot do the required basic reading to first inform yourself about what's going on, then how the hell can you form a reliable and truthful opinion on what's being discussed?

Go read my post #160. It's not like I hid it from anyone. Nor is it a new position on my part, I've stated my beliefs more than once on this website (and others) much to the chagrin of several who agree with me on most other issues.

 

[TastySuckToy]

That's not actually what you said.

We're not going to get anywhere. You don't understand my posts or the words I write. Until you demonstrate otherwise, no further point in attempting discussion.

 

[HisArpy]

We're not going to get anywhere. You don't understand my posts or the words I write. Until you demonstrate otherwise, no further point in attempting discussion.

The words you write are unfocused and nearly unintelligible as a result. You think but your thinking isn't disciplined enough to stay on the subject. This allows you to wander in your thoughts and attempt to apply other ideas and subjects which don't belong as part of the thought process. The end result is that your conclusions are muddy and unclear.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The words you write are unfocused and nearly unintelligible as a result. You think but your thinking isn't disciplined enough to stay on the subject. This allows you to wander in your thoughts and attempt to apply other ideas and subjects which don't belong as part of the thought process. The end result is that your conclusions are muddy and unclear.

Do you understand the following sentence?

"no further point in attempting discussion"

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I have no idea how you manage to continue to survive without a caregiver or functioning life support system. Honestly, if you cannot do the required basic reading to first inform yourself about what's going on, then how the hell can you form a reliable and truthful opinion on what's being discussed?

Go read my post #160. It's not like I hid it from anyone. Nor is it a new position on my part, I've stated my beliefs more than once on this website (and others) much to the chagrin of several who agree with me on most other issues.

Once again you're inserting your beliefs in place of facts. ANYONE with half the available wit of the human brain can search and discover my position on abortion. Fuck, you can even ask me and I'll tell you because it's not exactly a secret here.

Except maybe to you. You know the guy who uses his feelings and beliefs in place of facts and then ascribes motives to others based on the results.

For the record (AGAIN!): If abortion is legal where you are, and you're good with killing your progeny, then I have no objection to you doing whatever you believe is best for you because eventually you will remove your genetics from the gene pool and the world will be free of your insanity FOREVER.

Conversely, if it's not legal wherever you are, and you still insist on the above course of genetic removal, then move to where it is legal and continue your course of self elimination.

So, whatever you think your counter argument to my supposed position on abortion is, it, like EVERYTHING ELSE you expound upon here, is wrong because your beliefs are counter to the facts. Something which is a daily occurrence with you, has been pointed out quite frequently, which you cannot seem to understand, thereby underscoring your continual and ongoing stupidity.

In post #160, you merely state that if abortion is legal, it's legal.

I, however, want abortion to be made legal, even where it currently isn't.

The question is "What do you think the law should be?"

Passively accepting the status quo is not holding a position, hence my confusion on where you stood on the matter.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

TST and BSG have way more patience for HisArpy's apparent reading/learning disabilities than I ever had.

 

[TastySuckToy]

TST and BSG have way more patience for HisArpy's apparent reading/learning disabilities than I ever had.

*shrugs* I'll just be ignoring any and all posts, replies or comments from him now. He may as well be speaking Mandarin at this point.

 

[HisArpy]

In post #160, you merely state that if abortion is legal, it's legal.

I, however, want abortion to be made legal, even where it currently isn't.

The question is "What do you think the law should be?"

Passively accepting the status quo is not holding a position, hence my confusion on where you stood on the matter.

I have given my position on this in the past - I stand for the law.

As a lawyer I cannot advocate for disobedience or subversion of the law. I MUST accept what the law is unless I can argue a good faith basis for changing it.

I don't have a good faith basis for changing abortion law. Currently the law says that abortion is the province of the individual States and there's no Federal Constitutional right to abortion. The States have legislated on the basis of what their constituency as a whole wants.

Therefore, under the current status of the law, my position is that if abortion is legal where you are, and you desire to kill your progeny, then you can do so. If it isn't legal where you are and you still desire to kill your progeny, then move to where it is legal.


From a personal and rational perspective, any government which allows for the wholesale killing of the citizenry at whim (a la "The Purge") isn't a government fulfilling its duty to govern for the good of the people. There are several reasons for this; the tax base shrinks, the costs to the people socially increase through stigma and peer pressure, society as a whole degrades into savagery as a result, civility in other areas disappears as the population becomes more and more argumentative and violent, and unwarranted dependency by the populace increases as individual liberties are usurped.

This is where we are and where we have been for 50 years. On a personal level I cannot condone ANY of that because the spillover affects me even though I'm not female. All I can do is say as I already have and add that eventually those who engage in this behavior will eventually remove their flawed genetics from the gene pool. At that point mankind can once again begin to move forward.

If you believe differently, that's your problem.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you understand the following sentence?

"no further point in attempting discussion"

I don't care if you want to run away and hide because my responses don't require your presence or input and you aren't the only other person here.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I have given my position on this in the past - I stand for the law.

As a lawyer I cannot advocate for disobedience or subversion of the law. I MUST accept what the law is unless I can argue a good faith basis for changing it.

I don't have a good faith basis for changing abortion law. Currently the law says that abortion is the province of the individual States and there's no Federal Constitutional right to abortion. The States have legislated on the basis of what their constituency as a whole wants.

Therefore, under the current status of the law, my position is that if abortion is legal where you are, and you desire to kill your progeny, then you can do so. If it isn't legal where you are and you still desire to kill your progeny, then move to where it is legal.


From a personal and rational perspective, any government which allows for the wholesale killing of the citizenry at whim (a la "The Purge") isn't a government fulfilling its duty to govern for the good of the people. There are several reasons for this; the tax base shrinks, the costs to the people socially increase through stigma and peer pressure, society as a whole degrades into savagery as a result, civility in other areas disappears as the population becomes more and more argumentative and violent, and unwarranted dependency by the populace increases as individual liberties are usurped.

This is where we are and where we have been for 50 years. On a personal level I cannot condone ANY of that because the spillover affects me even though I'm not female. All I can do is say as I already have and add that eventually those who engage in this behavior will eventually remove their flawed genetics from the gene pool. At that point mankind can once again begin to move forward.

If you believe differently, that's your problem.

Do you believe the current United States legal code is perfect in all respects, or are there some laws that should be changed?