Is Roe V Wade going to be overturned?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

Seriously? Do you not understand the difference between deliberately extinguishing a life that if left alone would continue vs. letting an individual die of natural causes? Can you really be that dense?

To protect a zygote you will put the agency of an otherwise free american to task to keep it alive.

To protect the life of a poor kid with cancer who needs expensive treatment, you will put to task the agency of…who exactly?

No! That’s absurd. To protect the life if the zygote, all that is required is to leave it in the womb until it is ready to come out.

And again, stop with the strawman arguments. Abortion has nothing to do with treating kids who have cancer or any other fatal disease.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

For the same reason that the well-being of her born children are.

But largely, and particularly in the conservative ideology, ‘well being’ is a very narrowly defined thing.

One glaring example- does the state make sure every kid has access to life saving treatments for curable illnesses?

We are not talking about a diseased child, we are talking about developing humans who need no treatment beyond what nature provides to keep them alive and well. Your onslaught of strawmen is becoming tedious.

[Samm]

@vaard

@Samm

@vaard

@Samm

@vaard

Give it to the state then. Let the state take care of the human being until another person can adopt them. If the woman signs the baby over to the state, she is no longer responsible for the well being of the baby…

The State cannot provide for the well-being of a zygote either. ONLY the mother within whom it was conceived can do that.

If she signs away her rights to the baby that is no longer her problem.

That is the states problem that wont let her abort it but cant force her to carry it…

If she signs away her rights, she no longer has the responsibility to care for it any more than she would be required to save any other human that could die without her help…

Wrong. She still has the responsibility to assure that baby is alive until such time that it is physically transferred to the adopting parents. She cannot have the zygote removed from her womb, i.e. aborted, and the shredded lifeless tissue handed over with a “here ya go, it’s your responsibility now.”

I never said abort. The human can be removed gently and handed over to the state to take care of until they find someone to adopt…

A human has no responsibility to have their body forced to sustain another body. If we did, organ donation would be compulsive…

What nonsense. You are ignoring one vital fact … viability. At no point is a zygote viable outside the womb.

Fundamentally, biologically, and in many cases, legally, the entire responsibility for the well-being of a human living in it’s mother’s womb rests with the mother. It is hers and hers alone because nobody else can do for the growing human what she is equipped to do.

[Guvnah]

@Samm

And again, stop with the strawman arguments. Abortion has nothing to do with treating kids who have cancer or any other fatal disease.

Funny how libs need to stretch to absurd deflections to defend the evils of abortion.

They haven’t even tapped the most absurd ones yet.

[Samm]

@vaard

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

ONLY the mother within whom it was conceived can do that.

They why is it the state’s business?

For the same reason that the well-being of her born children are.

A person that gives a human in their care to the state has no responsibility to care for them…

Don’t play stupid. The State is not equipped to care for a zygote and probably never will be, therefore, it cannot take possession or responsibility for that human. But the State can establish laws that require that the mother live up to her innate responsibility for the life of her offspring. That’s what we are really discussing here, State enforced responsibility for the well-being of a human life.

[Samm]

@tnt

@zantax

I don’t see how we aren’t, if you can’t afford health insurance, Obama care is free.

And also - is it now your position that the federal government should provide health care to all citizens?

Quite a shift.

Talking about health care is quite the shift.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Guvnah

It has already been pointed out to you that biology says otherwise.

Your insistence to the contrary is deliberate dishonesty.

Believe the science.

I should be more clear on two fronts -

1. This is my opinion on this matter.

2. It is human life, it is not A human, prescient, conscious, life. It’s the caterpillar, not the butterfly.

For many - I suspect you - that is a distinction without a difference. But on that we disagree.

And 95% of biologists disagree with you. Science denier.

[Samm]

@JayJay

@Samm

@Guvnah

@JayJay

If in the womb the fertilized egg devours the other fertilized egg (as sometimes happen), is that little human guilty of murder?

Damn. The libs are really stretching today!

He played too much Pac Man as a kid.

It’s called Vanishing Twin Syndrome and it happens.

Shouldn’t say murder…should say cannibalism because what happens is one embryo stops developing and either the other embryo or the uterus itself absorbs the embryonic tissue.

I wonder where that little embryo’s soul goes when that happens?

Yes, but the surviving fertilized egg does not devour the one that disappears. That assertion was pure ■■■■■■■■■

And if you want to discuss theology, start a parallel thread in the religion forum.

[vaard]

@Samm

@vaard

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

ONLY the mother within whom it was conceived can do that.

They why is it the state’s business?

For the same reason that the well-being of her born children are.

A person that gives a human in their care to the state has no responsibility to care for them…

Don’t play stupid. The State is not equipped to care for a zygote and probably never will be, therefore, it cannot take possession or responsibility for that human. But the State can establish laws that require that the mother live up to her innate responsibility for the life of her offspring. That’s what we are really discussing here, State enforced responsibility for the well-being of a human life.

Then a woman should be able to abort the human up until the time it is viable if she does not want to keep it. Once viable, it can be removed and given to the state.

Establishing laws that force a person against their will to have their body directly sustain another body is immoral…

[Dem]

@Samm

@tnt

@Guvnah

It has already been pointed out to you that biology says otherwise.

Your insistence to the contrary is deliberate dishonesty.

Believe the science.

I should be more clear on two fronts -

1. This is my opinion on this matter.

2. It is human life, it is not A human, prescient, conscious, life. It’s the caterpillar, not the butterfly.

For many - I suspect you - that is a distinction without a difference. But on that we disagree.

And 95% of biologists disagree with you. Science denier.

Where do you get this number that 95 percent of biologists consider zygotes to be human beings?

[Samm]

@Guvnah

@Samm

And again, stop with the strawman arguments. Abortion has nothing to do with treating kids who have cancer or any other fatal disease.

Funny how libs need to stretch to absurd deflections to defend the evils of abortion.

They haven’t even tapped the most absurd ones yet.

I wouldn’t use the word “funny” to describe it. Pathetic is more like it.

I have not taken any hard stance on any law that would restrict or ban abortions. I am not so naive as to believe that under any such law that abortions will cease, nor do I think that the decision to have an abortion or not is black and white. “Sofie’s Choice” is a real life situation for many people, and I do not judge them for that, nor do I want the State to judge them in my name.

All I ask of the pro-abortion folks is for them to be honest and acknowledge that what abortions do … what they are designed to do … is to destroy a unique human life. But most of them refuse to admit that even to themselves.

[Samm]

@vaard

@Samm

@vaard

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

ONLY the mother within whom it was conceived can do that.

They why is it the state’s business?

For the same reason that the well-being of her born children are.

A person that gives a human in their care to the state has no responsibility to care for them…

Don’t play stupid. The State is not equipped to care for a zygote and probably never will be, therefore, it cannot take possession or responsibility for that human. But the State can establish laws that require that the mother live up to her innate responsibility for the life of her offspring. That’s what we are really discussing here, State enforced responsibility for the well-being of a human life.

Then a woman should be able to abort the human up until the time it is viable if she does not want to keep it. Once viable, it can be removed and given to the state.

Establishing laws that force a person against their will to have their body directly sustain another body is immoral…

That’s a pretty callus point of view. It completely ignores the life involved. And that’s what we are actually talking about … human life.

Dehumanizing is a very useful tool to help people through the mental effects of killing others … it has been successfully used for millennia. But the gig is up … a blastocyst, zygote, and/or a fetus is just as human as a baby fresh from it’s mother’s womb.

[Samm]

@Dem

@Samm

@tnt

@Guvnah

It has already been pointed out to you that biology says otherwise.

Your insistence to the contrary is deliberate dishonesty.

Believe the science.

I should be more clear on two fronts -

1. This is my opinion on this matter.

2. It is human life, it is not A human, prescient, conscious, life. It’s the caterpillar, not the butterfly.

For many - I suspect you - that is a distinction without a difference. But on that we disagree.

And 95% of biologists disagree with you. Science denier.

Where do you get this number that 95 percent of biologists consider zygotes to be human beings?

The claim is about when life begins, not that a zygote is a human being. That it is human is indisputable. “Being” is subjective. The link to the study was posted above. You can search the thread or Google “95% of biologists concur on life.” You will get many hits.

[tnt]

@Samm

Talking about health care is quite the shift.

I didn’t bring it up.

[tnt]

@Samm

And 95% of biologists disagree with you. Science denier.

Fire Faucci!

[tnt]

@Samm

That’s a pretty callus point of view. It completely ignores the life involved. And that’s what we are actually talking about … human life.

Dehumanizing is a very useful tool to help people through the mental effects of killing others … it has been successfully used for millennia. But the gig is up … a blastocyst, zygote, and/or a fetus is just as human as a baby fresh from it’s mother’s womb.

What would you say if the state demanded you, Samm, to take in an orphan and sustain them?

[tnt]

@Samm

Being” is subjective.

This is what i have been addressing. Not life. Not human life. But human, sentient, conscious being.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

Talking about health care is quite the shift.

I didn’t bring it up.

But you relished in it.

[tnt]

@Samm

Just stop! We are only talking about human life.

My point is, definitions matter. We are not just talking about generic life.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

And 95% of biologists disagree with you. Science denier.

Fire Faucci!

Why? Is he part of the 5%?