RIP Lindsey Graham

[SkyBubble]

Okay, at what point is fetus a person?

Try reading this article. It's full of good information you eugenicists won't like.

https://naapc.org/when-does-a-human-being-begin/why-life-begins-at-conception/

 

[SkyBubble]

Interesting, when does that occur exactly?

Often within 24 hours of unprotected sex. The sperm cell meets teh egg, bonds with it, implants, and fertilizes it, and a new human life is created. This is simply science.

 

[badbabysitter]

I want them to be able to fend off mass shooters. You apparently don't, which does not surprise me in the least.

Or the police could do it, just saying, I know your country doesnt have a good record with police stopping mass shootings, but it is kind of their job. What would happen, for instance, if somoene had to be licensed to carry a gun, registered that gun, and had to be trained to use that gun...do you think there would be more or less shootings?

 

[badbabysitter]

Often within 24 hours of unprotected sex. The sperm cell meets teh egg, bonds with it, implants, and fertilizes it, and a new human life is created. This is simply science.

Incorrect, conception can occur within a two week period. Now, lets say your initial false answer was correct, at that point it has nerves, no brain, no organs, no skin, its got nothing. it is simply a fertilized egg..how is that viable human being?

 

[YDB95]

Sorry, but that claim is simply false.

Nope. I explained it all in post 317. I don't think you even read all your links. For one thing, if you had, you'd know they were really all regurgitating the same flawed study.

Also wrong. It's a living, growing member of the species homo sapiens. That's a human.

If you want me to take your concern for babies seriously, let's see you support better access to contraceptives to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies, and policies that would help children after they're born. Accessible and affordable health care for infants and children and their parents alike, paid daycare so Mom can go back to work, better funding for our public schools, school lunch for kids who can't afford their own, a robust safety net for families when a parent loses hir job...we all know you're staunchly opposed to every last one of those things. All you care about is making damn sure every pregnancy is carried to term. That's why I don't buy your argument here.

You simply want to be able to kill for convenience.

No one wants that. And your attitude here is why a productive dialogue on this issue is impossible.

Many teachers are trained shots and gun owners who know what they're doing, so yes, that should be an option for them. Do you want more mass shooters to go on a rampage unopposed?

What I want is fewer mass shooters, like every other industrialized country on Earth has. If they can do it, so can the US.

 

[badbabysitter]

Try reading this article. It's full of good information you eugenicists won't like.

https://naapc.org/when-does-a-human-being-begin/why-life-begins-at-conception/

I said reputable, that is not reputable. I'm not a eugenicist, I'm a woman who does not think her womb should be property of the state

 

[SkyBubble]

Or the police could do it, just saying, I know your country doesnt have a good record with police stopping mass shootings, but it is kind of their job. What would happen, for instance, if somoene had to be licensed to carry a gun, registered that gun, and had to be trained to use that gun...do you think there would be more or less shootings?

By the time the police get there, several people have already been killed. Call 911. They'll be around in several minutes. But it's a situation where seconds matter, not minutes.

 

[SkyBubble]

Nope. I explained it all in post 317. I don't think you even read all your links. For one thing, if you had, you'd know they were really all regurgitating the same flawed study.

You explained nothing, just doubled down on your false position.

I said reputable, that is not reputable.

Your definition of reputable appears to be that it agrees with you. Typical.

I'm not a eugenicist

Yet you take their position. The abortion movement came from eugenics.

I'm a woman who does not think her womb should be property of the state

Which literally nobody is suggesting. But someone has to look out for the defenseless, voiceless children whom you and yours think it's OK to just kill for convenience.

 

[SkyBubble]

Incorrect, conception can occur within a two week period. Now, lets say your initial false answer was correct, at that point it has nerves, no brain, no organs, no skin, its got nothing. it is simply a fertilized egg..how is that viable human being?

It can. But it most often occurs within 24 hours.

Within mere weeks, we're able to detect a heartbeat, independent brain waves, and various other signs.

 

[badbabysitter]

It can. But it most often occurs within 24 hours.

Within mere weeks, we're able to detect a heartbeat, independent brain waves, and various other signs.

At what point do the brain, the heart, the lungs, the nervous sytem, or organs form. Since you werent correct on conception you're giving vague mentions of other developments

 

[badbabysitter]

You explained nothing, just doubled down on your false position.

Your definition of reputable appears to be that it agrees with you. Typical.

Yet you take their position. The abortion movement came from eugenics.

Which literally nobody is suggesting. But someone has to look out for the defenseless, voiceless children whom you and yours think it's OK to just kill for convenience.

Any law that prevents a woman doing what she so choses with her own body is state control. Growing wheat also came from eugenics, the word doesn't mean what you think it means. My definition of repuatable is from accredited medical institutes, that's a pro-birth advocacy group. So far the only proof a fetus is a human being is that the egg gets fertilized.

 

[SkyBubble]

At what point do the brain, the heart, the lungs, the nervous sytem, or organs form. Since you werent correct on conception you're giving vague mentions of other developments

That is not really the point. By your standards, we should be able to kill children since they're not yet fully developed. The FACT is that that life, independent of its mother and father, alive and growing, is genetically a human being. He or she is one of us. You can talk around it all you want; the fact remains.

Any line you draw, and time you set, is arbitrary. There is no scientific or rational way to say now it isn't human, now it is. So in the absence of that, the only rational way to properly protect children is to do so from the beginning.

 

[SkyBubble]

Any law that prevents a woman doing what she so choses with her own body is state control. Growing wheat also came from eugenics, the word doesn't mean what you think it means. My definition of repuatable is from accredited medical institutes, that's a pro-birth advocacy group. So far the only proof a fetus is a human being is that the egg gets fertilized.

Nobody is proposing to stop a woman from doing what she wants with her body, but from doing whatever she wants to anotehr person's body.

No, growing wheat did NOT come from eugenics. You shoudl be embarrassed to post that. Wheat long predates eugenics.

Agan, your definition of reputable appears to be that it agrees with you, ass is standard on your side of the aisle. I posted credible information from reputable professionals. You dismissed it without even bothering to red it. Standard operating procedure.

 

[YDB95]

You explained nothing, just doubled down on your false position.

Project, project, project. Did you even read my post? I know that's a tall order when you obviously didn't read your own links (not all of them anyway). In any event, I most certainly did explain how they all boil down to one paper written by an untrustworthy source who literally thinks plagiarism isn't plagiarism if you agree with what you're stealing.

Your definition of reputable appears to be that it agrees with you. Typical.

It's a luxury you have when all reputable sources do agree with you.

The abortion movement came from eugenics.

Nope. For one thing, abortion has been around much, much longer.

But someone has to look out for the defenseless, voiceless children whom you and yours think it's OK to just kill for convenience.

No one ever said abortion should be used strictly for a matter of convenience. You are boiling down an extremely complex, emotionally fraught issue (which you will NEVER under any circumstances have to grapple with directly yourself) to something far simpler than anyone actually sees it as.

And I'll point out again here, you still haven't ever shown an iota of concern for children's well-being after they're born.

 

[badbabysitter]

That is not really the point. By your standards, we should be able to kill children since they're not yet fully developed. The FACT is that that life, independent of its mother and father, alive and growing, is genetically a human being. He or she is one of us. You can talk around it all you want; the fact remains.

Any line you draw, and time you set, is arbitrary. There is no scientific or rational way to say now it isn't human, now it is. So in the absence of that, the only rational way to properly protect children is to do so from the beginning.

A fetus is not growing independently of its mother. Cancer is also genetically a human being.


so if something has no brain , lungs or nervous system; its a human being . The actual medical community believes a fetus is a person is when it can survive outside the womb. Your belief is just that; a belief. And your feelings shouldnt trump another person's rights, no matter how sure you are about the moral high ground.

 

[badbabysitter]

Nobody is proposing to stop a woman from doing what she wants with her body, but from doing whatever she wants to anotehr person's body.

No, growing wheat did NOT come from eugenics. You shoudl be embarrassed to post that. Wheat long predates eugenics.

Agan, your definition of reputable appears to be that it agrees with you, ass is standard on your side of the aisle. I posted credible information from reputable professionals. You dismissed it without even bothering to red it. Standard operating procedure.

It's. Not. Another. Persons .Body.

Eugenics originally formed in the schools of thoughts and sciences of modifying genes through selective interbreeding, including those of plants aka wheat as an example. Yes, ancient greeks also had thier form of eugenics as to who should live or die, but the thought of actually applying it to humans in the way we view eugenics now was in the late 19th century; people like Churchill and teddy Roosevelt were also on the eugenics train. Nazism and its actual utilization of eugenic selection thankfully destroyed eugenics as as anything viable and was displayed to be the pseudo science it is considered now

My idea of reputable is what the medical community , thought the highest medical stations of the land deem as credible through decades of study, research and documentation. Yours is partisan organization


Is there a chance one day your 18th century understanding of the fetus will be proven scientifically acccurate as to what a person is? Perhaps, after all science is ever advancing and this could be all proven wrong. But till then, I'll listen to a doctor

 

[HisArpy]

Okay, at what point is fetus a person?

Legally, that happens when it's born alive.

 

[HisArpy]

I want them to be able to fend off mass shooters. You apparently don't, which does not surprise me in the least.

She doesn't give a fuck about rights, wrongs, or anything except pushing her narrative of hate, oppression, and tyranny.

You should stop engaging.

 

[rachaelwillguideyou]

Lindsey said Trump's candidacy was 'like being shot in the head.'

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...range-and-consequential-friendship-with-trump

 

[SkyBubble]

A fetus is not growing independently of its mother.

It is a distinct and separate living being. Killing it is not within your rights.

Cancer is also genetically a human being.

What a dumb statement.

I most certainly did explain how they all boil down to one paper written by an untrustworthy source who literally thinks plagiarism isn't plagiarism if you agree with what you're stealing.

You literally did no such thing. I've read ALL your posts. Unlike you, I actually read what other people have to say.

It's a luxury you have when all reputable sources do agree with you.

Taht's easy when you define "reputable" as "agreeing with you," which your side does.

For one thing, abortion has been around much, much longer.

Your ignorance of history is astounding, but not the least surprising. The modern abortion movement is directly rooted in eugenics. Sanger is the primary, but far from the only, example. The purpose was to weed out "undesirables," primarily minorities. That is simply historical fact. No wonder you support it.

No one ever said abortion should be used strictly for a matter of convenience.

They're smart enough not to say it outright, but just as an example, Massachusetts just enacted a law allowing aobrtion up to the moment of birth, which is well beyond what you folks like to dismiss as "viability." You would allow abortions at any time for any reason. A former Governor of Virginia said that under his policy, if a baby was born alive from an abortion, it would receive no treatment. That's babykilling for personal convenience.

That is a dangerous door to open.

You are boiling down an extremely complex, emotionally fraught issue to something far simpler than anyone actually sees it as.

You're the only ones making it complex. It's a straightforward matter of saving lives. I realize women have emotional reactions; the repurcussions stay with them sometimes forever. I know women who have had abortions and I see that. But the issue isn't emotional reactions or how someone feels afterwards. The issue is saving children. The issue is human life.

I'll point out again here, you still haven't ever shown an iota of concern for children's well-being after they're born.

A standard-issue lie propounded by the pro-aborts.

The actual medical community believes a fetus is a person is when it can survive outside the womb.

"The actual medical community." OK. I can show you doctors who agree with me and scientists who agree with me, but you'll just treat them the way you treated doctors who dissented during COVID -- dismiss them and try to shut them down because they dare disagree with the officially permitted view. In your side's view, that merits destroying their lives. #TheyCallitCompassion

your feelings shouldnt trump another person's rights, no matter how sure you are about the moral high ground.

You say that, yet that is exactly what you're doing.

It's. Not. Another. Persons .Body.

What is it, then? a dog? A tree? Some kind of cockroach you can stomp on? Again, a human entity that is individualized and is not its mother or father or anyone else but is of the species homo sapiens. And you just dismiss it as "a clump of cells" becuase you find that life inconvenient.

the thought of actually applying it to humans in the way we view eugenics now was in the late 19th century

And into the 20th. It was closely tied in with the progressive movement and was open about "improving the human race" by weeding out "undesirables." Largely, that consisted of minorities and the disabled.

Nazism and its actual utilization of eugenic selection thankfully destroyed eugenics as as anything viable and was displayed to be the pseudo science it is considered now

The Nazis derived numerous ideas form progressives and vice versa. In fact, the progressives' "one drop" rule was considered too strict bey the Nazis. But the Nazis (and the Communists, who did the same thing) are the logical extension of eugenics theory, the same theory that gave rise to the modern abortion movement. It was founded in deep racism.

My idea of reputable is what the medical community , thought the highest medical stations of the land deem as credible through decades of study, research and documentation.

See above. Plenty of doctors and scientists share my view on this.

Yours is partisan organization

You are projecting.

She doesn't give a fuck about rights, wrongs, or anything except pushing her narrative of hate, oppression, and tyranny.

True.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Legally, that happens when it's born alive.

So abortion up until the moment of birth should be legal. Right?

 

[bijedi]

Try reading this article. It's full of good information you eugenicists won't like.

https://naapc.org/when-does-a-human-being-begin/why-life-begins-at-conception/

Categorical fallacy. A scientific answer to when does life begin is not the same as a philosophical or political or ethical answer to when human life begins. The abortion debate is ultimately a philosophical or ethical debate not subject to purely scientific methods.

 

[bijedi]

Any line you draw, and time you set, is arbitrary. There is no scientific or rational way to say now it isn't human, now it is. So in the absence of that, the only rational way to properly protect children is to do so from the beginning.

Drawing the line at conception is just as arbitrary. Your definition is not the only valid definition, it is just dogma.

 

[bijedi]

They're smart enough not to say it outright, but just as an example, Massachusetts just enacted a law allowing aobrtion up to the moment of birth, which is well beyond what you folks like to dismiss as "viability." You would allow abortions at any time for any reason. A former Governor of Virginia said that under his policy, if a baby was born alive from an abortion, it would receive no treatment. That's babykilling for personal convenience.

This is lacking context. The reason states like Massachusetts enact laws allowing abortions up to the moment of birth is because late pregnancy abortions are ALWAYS medical decisions. There are no examples of someone in a late pregnancy deciding they changed their mind and electing to abort a healthy pregnancy. Any abortion law banning late abortions is addressing a non-issue and used purely for emotional appeals to elicit political support. Your comment indicates that you are far more concerned with controlling women or punishing them for their moral failing than you are concerned about the unborn child.

See above. Plenty of doctors and scientists share my view on this.

Again, this is a category error. Most doctors and/or scientist agree that from a scientific perspective human life begins at conception. But there is a little agreement among them about when that human life is morally or ethically or philosophically a person.

 

[YDB95]

It is a distinct and separate living being. Killing it is not within your rights.

When you're the one who's pregnant, you'll be within your rights to make that decision. Not before then, and not for anyone else.

You literally did no such thing. I've read ALL your posts.

But you tend to see what you want to see in them, rather than what I actually wrote.

Unlike you, I actually read what other people have to say.

Don't assume I don't inform myself on other people's opinions just because I can explain why those opinions are wrong. Quite the contrary, actually.

Taht's easy when you define "reputable" as "agreeing with you," which your side does.

No, we don't. Look, the first rule of any sort of productive dialogue with people who disagree with you is that you ought to be able to explain their opinion back to them in terms that they agree with. For example, I know you believe life begins at conception, end of story. I don't agree with that opinion, but I understand it. The way you are always telling your opponents what their side thinks shows you've never even really tried to understand. The fact is, science is on my side. At conception and through the first trimester at the very least, an embryo is not viable outside the uterus. And that's when well over 90% of abortions take place (and the number would be even higher if not for the various roadblocks put up by anti-choice politicians in many states).

Your ignorance of history is astounding, but not the least surprising.

I have a degree in history from a very highly rated college, and I've been on the front lines of the war on a woman's right to choose. I know the truth - that abortion has been around for as long as pregnancy has - and I am also very familiar with the anti-choice revisionism out there. Bottom line: abortion precedes eugenics by centuries at least.

The modern abortion movement is directly rooted in eugenics. Sanger is the primary, but far from the only, example.

Nearly everything you think you know about Margaret Sanger is a lie. It is true that she supported eugenics - a well-deserved mark on her record - as did a lot of otherwise-admirable people of that era. It is also true that she supported abortion rights. They are two unrelated issues.

The purpose was to weed out "undesirables," primarily minorities. That is simply historical fact. No wonder you support it.

Nope. I could post dozens of links debunking that claim, but everyone here knows you wouldn't read them (although you would probably claim to have done so).

They're smart enough not to say it outright, but just as an example, Massachusetts just enacted a law allowing aobrtion up to the moment of birth, which is well beyond what you folks like to dismiss as "viability."

This has already been addressed, but I'll reiterate: there has never been a single example - ever - of an elective late-term abortion. It only happens with wanted pregnancies, usually in cases where the parents have already bought furniture for the baby's room, when it's been discovered there is something horribly wrong and there's no chance at all of survival. It simply does not happen otherwise. But it's been very popular on your side of the aisle, for a long time now, to pretend otherwise. Hence terms like "partial-birth abortion", which do not appear in any reputable medical text but which sound suitably horrifying. That new law is simply to ensure couples already living through a waking nightmare will at least be assured of getting the medical attention they need. There is absolutely no need to outlaw elective third-trimester abortions, because it absolutely positively never happens.

You would allow abortions at any time for any reason.

In other words, we trust women with their own bodies. Guilty as charged.

A former Governor of Virginia said that under his policy, if a baby was born alive from an abortion, it would receive no treatment. That's babykilling for personal convenience.

Well, it would be that if that really were what he had said. You forgot the part where he was talking about the sort of situation I refer to above, where there is absolutely no chance of viability and the chances of a live birth were just about nil to begin with. So the scenario at hand is an anomaly within an anomaly, the most extreme case imaginable, and something that has literally never once happened with a healthy, viable birth (and there's no reason to think that ever would happen).

Since you claim to listen to other people, SkyBubble, I wish you could talk to some couples who have been in a situation where a late-term abortion proved necessary. I'd pay good money to see you tell them to their face that they killed their baby for personal convenience. Maybe I'd even drive you to the hospital afterward.

I realize women have emotional reactions; the repurcussions stay with them sometimes forever. I know women who have had abortions and I see that.

In many such cases, those "repercussions" are only because people like you spend so much time encouraging them to feel guilty. Either way, though, I assure you those repercussions are small potatoes with what they'd likely be dealing with if they'd had a back-alley abortion instead. Assuming it didn't kill them, that is.

But the issue isn't emotional reactions or how someone feels afterwards. The issue is saving children. The issue is human life.

For the third time at least, I'll take you seriously on that point when I see you supporting policies that would help children after they're born. All I've seen to date is the exact opposite.

A standard-issue lie propounded by the pro-aborts.

Then prove me wrong. Where have you ever advocated for a stronger safety net, paid daycare, more affordable health care, better-funded schools, free lunch programs for kids whose parents are poor, etc? As I just said, everything I've ever seen from you on any of the above has been calling them communistic or worse.

"The actual medical community." OK. I can show you doctors who agree with me and scientists who agree with me, but you'll just treat them the way you treated doctors who dissented during COVID -- dismiss them and try to shut them down because they dare disagree with the officially permitted view.

There is no "officially permitted view", and I've explained why the doctor who wrote the one and only paper that you keep pretending is several different ones was untrustworthy.

The Nazis derived numerous ideas form progressives and vice versa.

But they were on your side when it comes to abortion.