SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

 

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate."

 

Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare.

 

And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?"

The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs.

That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

(facepalm)

 

Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people.

Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying.

 

All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns.

 

I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it.

 

I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need.

No, you really don't, but just to hopefully educate you, I'll bite.

 

There is a difference between government socialist programs and government taxation to build infrastructure.

 

Yes, helping the poor is a good thing to do, but the government should not be Robin Hood. People should have the freedom to choose to give money to the poor or not.

And if people choose not to give money, should we just let them die?

Terrible case of hyperbole.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Sooner than 6 weeks? I don't believe so. I think they are just beginning to develop at 6 weeks.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

 

 

 

Is it to terminate their life against their will?

 

Anyways, red dead, I just asked you what WAS the standard for life? Didn't ask you to refute how a heart isn't.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

 

 

And the reason is?...

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

And the reason is?...

Because it's not immoral or unethical to end the life of something that has no consciousness. Unless you want to bring notions of religion into it, which have no real place in political morality and ethics, at least in the country.

[TonyStalloni]

In 1972 Congress initiated the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act which provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof."

 

There is a maximum fine of a $100,000 and one year of imprisonment for first conviction. If second conviction occurs, a $100,000,000 and ten years of imprisonment.

 

Oddly 1 year later Congress declared open season on baby humans.

[cm husker]

Clearly the solution is to allow hunting of bald eagles.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

And the reason is?...

Because it's not immoral or unethical to end the life of something that has no consciousness. Unless you want to bring notions of religion into it, which have no real place in political morality and ethics, at least in the country.

 

 

That's not the reason. The reason is because when a person is a "vegetable" they normally have severe brain trauma and are going to die or never wake up, so their loved-ones pull the plug to end their pain and suffering.

 

An unborn baby (barring irregular events) isn't going to pass away. It's a completely separate issue altogether.

[knapplc]

I'd say that in order to start living, a consenting mother is required. To reach a point where there's a "you" who can have rights -- which, if female, should include lifelong agency over her own body -- there has to first be a woman who carries the pregnancy. In any civilized society, she only does this of her own accord, and becomes a mother to have this child for herself -- not for the government, not for an adoption agency, not for anybody else.

 

JMO -- I know it's a difficult, and fraught subject. I'm sure I've expressed myself more eloquently past times this has come up than I am doing currently, also.

 

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a hazy boundary; when can you consider them two separate lives? But impelling women who do not want their pregnancies to go through with them is a non starter for me.

Women have the unenviable role of hosting babies inside their bodies. Among all the other indignities they suffer, they must harbor and protect a whole 'nother person inside them for 3/4 of a year before they're born. It's invasive and depersonalizing - not unlike sex to many, many women.

 

When that pregnancy is foisted upon them against their will, the already great burden of sharing one's own body becomes even more unpalatable - and yes, that's a massive understatement. It's horrifying in a way men will never imagine.

 

But that horror, no matter how great, can't override another person's right to life.

 

Let's say for every woman who's horrified at a wanted pregnancy - and there are many - we execute a person. Just some random person, walking down the street, living their life. We take that person and POW! they're dead. Because some woman they don't know wants their life to end.

 

That's what we're saying here, giving women carte blanche decision-making ability over their body. Another whole person is dead. Gone.

 

Yes, it sucks to have an unwanted whole other person inside you. Yes it sucks that a lot of times that whole 'nother person was put there against their will.

 

But giving a woman the right to choose what happens to her own body, we take away that right from the unborn person. And if that person is another woman, Woman 1 gets more rights than Woman 2.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. But the "right to choose" argument means one person decides for two. And if we're OK with that, why not let a judge decide? And if that judge decides "keep the baby" then is that OK because they had the "right to choose?"

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

 

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

 

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

 

 

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.