Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there life without food? No. Does that mean that food is life? Your premise is truly stupid. Sperm is only half of the DNA required to create a human life. Sperm is not a human all by itself. How do you not understand this basic reality?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

---

If Adam, then you answered your question - there is life without ejaculation. Your infinite regress argument failed.

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

---

Why are you so obsessed with ejaculation? I think you need some professional help... or maybe a small blue pill or something.

We are trying to have a mature, intelligent conversation about life and abortion, but all you want to talk about is ejaculation.... ridiculous.

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

---

If Adam, then you answered your question - there is life without ejaculation. Your infinite regress argument failed.

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

---

Why are you so obsessed with ejaculation? I think you need some professional help... .

---

He has found his raison d'etre

Quote:

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

---

Irrelevant. Your argument - "since conception is dependent on sperm, then sperm is the more correct starting point of human life than conception is" is about the dumbest argument I've ever heard on this topic. So since sperm is dependent on a man eating food, because without the nutrients from food he can't produce sperm.....that means the food your father ate and digested is an even more correct starting point of your life? And so on, and so on in infinite regress? What complete and utter nonsense. You have zero understanding of even the basics, so your view is completely invalid.

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

---

If Adam, then you answered your question - there is life without ejaculation. Your infinite regress argument failed.

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

---

Why are you so obsessed with ejaculation? I think you need some professional help... or maybe a small blue pill or something.

We are trying to have a mature, intelligent conversation about life and abortion, but all you want to talk about is ejaculation.... ridiculous.

---

How is it more ridiculous than "Life begins at conception?"

This isn't an intelligent conversation. This is an echo chamber of MEN who'd force a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term but would never give up one gun right to reduce a shooting in a classroom.

Quote:

---

This isn't an intelligent conversation. This is an echo chamber of MEN who'd force a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term but would never give up one gun right to reduce a shooting in a classroom.

---

Remove all the "sperm is a human life" people, then the level of intelligence in the conversation would rise dramatically.

Quote:

---

How is it more ridiculous than "Life begins at conception?"

---

Good grief, you are so completely clueless, and what's worse, you don't even bother to try and get a clue. It's been explained to you logically and scientifically over and over, and instead of trying to understand it you are completely content in your denial and your astoundingly stupid insistence that "sperm is a human life". The fact you think conception and ejaculation are equally valid starting points where human life begins is a perfect example of your earlier statement - "this isn't an intelligent conversation".

Redbrickbear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

---

Why are you so obsessed with ejaculation? I think you need some professional help... .

---

He has found his raison d'etre

---

Apparently his raison d'etre is raisin' da peter.

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly are ignorant.

If a fertilized egg does not implant or is otherwise lost through some form of miscarriage... it is a tragedy. Murder requires intent. Even a small child understands the difference between murder and the loss of life through random chance.

Abortion is the intentional act of ending a human life... even Bill Maher can admit this.
A miscarriage is not intentional.

The idea that you continue to claim that sperm is life... wow... you really are one of the most un-intelligent people on these boards. Go read a BASIC biology text on human reproduction.

NEW: Room goes silent as Bill Maher admits that he thinks abortion is murder but says he is okay with that because “there's 8 billion people in the world.”

Yikes.

“I scold the left on when they say: ‘oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life, they… pic.twitter.com/A2ps5CNNtG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2024

---

The ignorance is on you.

A fertilized egg that doesn't implant isn't a tragedy. It just is. Every egg does t become life. Every sperm doesn't become life. Every zygote doesn't become life.

In most cases, I suppose, most people don't even know that there was a fertilized egg unless they are running blood tests.

The estimation is 15% of fertilized eggs don't attach to the uterus. Its failure to attach means life didn't begin in those cases and another large percentage of successful conceptions don't survive.

Besides, I've never shared my opinion on abortion here. I'll leave this here. My bet is Trump and many "Christians" arguing with me have paid for more abortions than me.

---

No, you are the ignorant one. You asked if an egg that didn't implant should result in the woman being charged with murder. That shows a severe level of ignorance.
No one has ever suggested that a miscarriage should result in a murder charge. Murder requires intent.

---

Life begins at conception and continues to develop until natural death.

For some, natural death occurs in from metabolic exhaustion in extreme old age. For others, it occurs when an egg, for whatever reason(s), fails to implant. Or it might occur from trauma of birth. Or from trauma in an bicycle accident joy-riding at age 15. Or a car accident at age 25. Or a car-jacking gone bad at 35. Or from breaking one's neck at age 45 falling from a ladder doing some chore an experienced professional should have been hired to do. Or lingering for months at age 55 from some quiet, sudden, unnatural, uncontrolled cellular division which ultimately overwhelms the entire metabolism. Or......

At any point in the life process, one could make a rational case for euthanasia. Why allow the old to live when they can no longer produce? Why treat the seriously ill for anything, if the odds are long? (The underwriters have charts on such things, you know....) Why do we care for the infirm of mind or body at any age? Why have that unplanned fourth child when you can barely afford the three you already have? And if we can make that call at 6mos of pregnancy, why can we not make it at 6 months of age....or 6 years of age? Why should society carry the costs of public assistance for young people who cannot or will not work? Why incarcerate a murderer for life, if one is prepared to terminate a 6 month old fetus for pure convenience? For that matter, why should we incarcerate anyone at all? Just fine them, and if they cannot pay, well.....we have several billion to many people on the planet anyway, right? etc.....

Life is a process. And it should be protected from conception to natural death. Because the alternative leads to grotesque inhumanity.

More young adults opted for vasectomies and tubal ligations after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a new study finds. https://t.co/qLAGxNoJfB

— Axios (@axios) April 16, 2024

Tube tying prevents millions of living sperm from performing the duty which God created them to do. What a slap in the face. Imagine being a grown sperm swimming along, eager to hook up, then running into a dead end. Satanic. Every sperm is a sacred living creature. Some will live up to five days struggling to continue to perform its duty. Murder. Might as well pull out and shoot into her hair. You know how the big guy feels about wasting seed.

boognish_bear said:

---

More young adults opted for vasectomies and tubal ligations after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a new study finds. https://t.co/qLAGxNoJfB

— Axios (@axios) April 16, 2024

---

too much soy in their diet

Get these people a charcoal grilled Tbone steak!

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Tube tying prevents millions of living sperm from performing the duty which God created them to do. What a slap in the face. Imagine being a grown sperm swimming along, eager to hook up, then running into a dead end. Satanic. Every sperm is a sacred living creature. Some will live up to five days struggling to continue to perform its duty. Murder. Might as well pull out and shoot into her hair. You know how the big guy feels about wasting seed.

---

Biden does know a thing or two about (sniffing) hair

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Yes, human life, but personhood is the legal question, and there is no real indication of when it begins. You are wrong, the starting point is when is a person a person, with the natural right to life. That is the starting and ending point of the discussion.

---

"Personhood" is a legal and semantic question. However, the question of abortion is a moral one. Answering a moral question with legalese and semantics is woefully inadequate and thus invalid.

So no, the starting point can't be legalese and semantics.

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Yes, human life, but personhood is the legal question, and there is no real indication of when it begins. You are wrong, the starting point is when is a person a person, with the natural right to life. That is the starting and ending point of the discussion.

---

"Personhood" is a legal and semantic question. However, the question of abortion is a moral one. Answering a moral question with legalese and semantics is woefully inadequate and thus invalid.

So no, the starting point can't be legalese and semantics.

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Laws are based on morals. The founding fathers recognized that ultimately, natural rights like the right to life are not endowed by the State but rather by something higher - by our Creator. Therefore, by dismissing morals as "irrelevant" when settling the issue of abortion and insisting that it should instead start with State-sanctioned legal definitions of "personhood", you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?

---

I have often seen this idea brought up since 2015 and the new (horribly lame) debate about the the civil war era.

But technically the U.S. Constitution never made a statement on negro personhood or citizenship.

It simple was not spoken of in the Constitution (well technically slaves and non slaves are called "persons")

What the Constitution did was determine how slaves would be counted toward representation in Congress…that's all.

A slave was not 3/5ths of a person. A slave was just 3/5th of a single voting freeman for the purpose of representation in the Congress.

Of course it was Slave owners that wanted their slaves FULLY counted as a freeman for the purpose of representation in Congress…and abolitionists that opposed that.

It was the abolitionists who wanted slaves not counted at all!!!

It was abolitionists who wanted a slave counted as Zero percent of a free man.


[WHY THE 3/5THS COMPROMISE WAS ANTI-SLAVERY
CAROL SWAIN
One of the most misunderstood clauses in the United States Constitution is found in Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."
Known as "the three-fifths compromise," it raises an obvious question: How could the Founding Fathers who endorsed the idea that all men are created equal also endorse the idea that some men aren't?
In 2013, James Wagner, President of Emory University, answered the question this way: the three-fifths compromise was an example of difficult, but necessary, political bargaining. Without it, Wagner argued, the northern and southern states would never have agreed to form a single union. No three-fifths compromise; no United States of America.

Let's look at the text again.
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."

Note that the Constitution does not say that a slave is not a person; it explicitly says that they are "persons." And it also does not say that a slave is three-fifths of a person, as many today mistakenly believe. The "three-fifths" description had nothing to do with the human worth of an individual slave, but everything to do with how many representatives each state would have in the U.S. Congress. For that purpose, states could only claim three-fifths of their slave population.

The three-fifths compromise was devised by those who opposed slavery, not by those who were for slavery. Or, to put it another way, it wasn't the racists of the South who wanted to count slave populations less than white populations it was the abolitionists of the North.

The framers of the Constitution were deeply divided on the issue of slavery. The free states of the North wanted to abolish it. The slave states of the South wanted to expand it. You might say that the southern slave states wanted to have it both ways: They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation..]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?

---

I have often seen this idea brought up since 2015 and the new (horribly lame) debate about the the civil war era.

But technically the U.S. Constitution never made a statement on negro personhood or citizenship.

It simple was not spoken of in the Constitution (well technically slaves and non slaves are called "persons")

What the Constitution did was determine how slaves would be counted toward representation in Congress…that's all.

A slave was not 3/5ths of a person. A slave was just 3/5th of a single voting freeman for the purpose of representation in the Congress.

Of course it was Slave owners that wanted their slaves FULLY counted as a freeman for the purpose of representation in Congress…and abolitionists that opposed that.

It was the abolitionists who wanted slaves not counted at all!!!

It was abolitionists who wanted a slave counted as Zero percent of a free man.


[WHY THE 3/5THS COMPROMISE WAS ANTI-SLAVERY
CAROL SWAIN
One of the most misunderstood clauses in the United States Constitution is found in Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."
Known as "the three-fifths compromise," it raises an obvious question: How could the Founding Fathers who endorsed the idea that all men are created equal also endorse the idea that some men aren't?
In 2013, James Wagner, President of Emory University, answered the question this way: the three-fifths compromise was an example of difficult, but necessary, political bargaining. Without it, Wagner argued, the northern and southern states would never have agreed to form a single union. No three-fifths compromise; no United States of America.

Let's look at the text again.
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."

Note that the Constitution does not say that a slave is not a person; it explicitly says that they are "persons." And it also does not say that a slave is three-fifths of a person, as many today mistakenly believe. The "three-fifths" description had nothing to do with the human worth of an individual slave, but everything to do with how many representatives each state would have in the U.S. Congress. For that purpose, states could only claim three-fifths of their slave population.

The three-fifths compromise was devised by those who opposed slavery, not by those who were for slavery. Or, to put it another way, it wasn't the racists of the South who wanted to count slave populations less than white populations it was the abolitionists of the North.

The framers of the Constitution were deeply divided on the issue of slavery. The free states of the North wanted to abolish it. The slave states of the South wanted to expand it. You might say that the southern slave states wanted to have it both ways: They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation..]

---

Similar to when trump was trying to block counting illegal aliens invading your cities for the purposes of defending representatives. It's funny what socialists and those that vote for them do that negatively affects one's life. But the people are generally too ignorant to know who to be mad at and how to get revenge.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

How is it more ridiculous than "Life begins at conception?"

---

Good grief, you are so completely clueless, and what's worse, you don't even bother to try and get a clue. It's been explained to you logically and scientifically over and over, and instead of trying to understand it you are completely content in your denial and your astoundingly stupid insistence that "sperm is a human life". The fact you think conception and ejaculation are equally valid starting points where human life begins is a perfect example of your earlier statement - "this isn't an intelligent conversation".

---

Don't pick on the mouth-breather.

boognish_bear said:

---

More young adults opted for vasectomies and tubal ligations after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a new study finds. https://t.co/qLAGxNoJfB

— Axios (@axios) April 16, 2024

---

Fewer mouth-breathing regards reproducing is a good thing. We don't need more Karens mating with man-buns.

Redbrickbear said:

---

I have often seen this idea brought up since 2015 and the new (horribly lame) debate about the the civil war era.

But technically the U.S. Constitution never made a statement on negro personhood or citizenship.

It simple was not spoken of in the Constitution (well technically slaves and non slaves are called "persons")

What the Constitution did was determine how slaves would be counted toward representation in Congress…that's all.

A slave was not 3/5ths of a person. A slave was just 3/5th of a single voting freeman for the purpose of representation in the Congress.

Of course it was Slave owners that wanted their slaves FULLY counted as a freeman for the purpose of representation in Congress…and abolitionists that opposed that.

It was the abolitionists who wanted slaves not counted at all!!!

It was abolitionists who wanted a slave counted as Zero percent of a free man.


[WHY THE 3/5THS COMPROMISE WAS ANTI-SLAVERY
CAROL SWAIN
One of the most misunderstood clauses in the United States Constitution is found in Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."
Known as "the three-fifths compromise," it raises an obvious question: How could the Founding Fathers who endorsed the idea that all men are created equal also endorse the idea that some men aren't?
In 2013, James Wagner, President of Emory University, answered the question this way: the three-fifths compromise was an example of difficult, but necessary, political bargaining. Without it, Wagner argued, the northern and southern states would never have agreed to form a single union. No three-fifths compromise; no United States of America.

Let's look at the text again.
"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the... States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons."

Note that the Constitution does not say that a slave is not a person; it explicitly says that they are "persons." And it also does not say that a slave is three-fifths of a person, as many today mistakenly believe. The "three-fifths" description had nothing to do with the human worth of an individual slave, but everything to do with how many representatives each state would have in the U.S. Congress. For that purpose, states could only claim three-fifths of their slave population.

The three-fifths compromise was devised by those who opposed slavery, not by those who were for slavery. Or, to put it another way, it wasn't the racists of the South who wanted to count slave populations less than white populations it was the abolitionists of the North.

The framers of the Constitution were deeply divided on the issue of slavery. The free states of the North wanted to abolish it. The slave states of the South wanted to expand it. You might say that the southern slave states wanted to have it both ways: They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation..]

---

Thank you for the correction. It's been a hot minute since I took Pre-Civil War history. I forgot about that aspect of the Missouri Compromise.

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

Porteroso said:

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Aren't we all just clumps of cells?

Those clumps of cells (zygotes, embryos, fetus) are all just different names for humans in different stages of development (just like the terms - infant, toddler, teenager, adult, etc.)

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Aren't we all just clumps of cells?

Those clumps of cells (zygotes, embryos, fetus) are all just different names for humans in different stages of development (just like the terms - infant, toddler, teenager, adult, etc.)

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters…

---

Another reason these questions belong to the States and NOT to the Federal government in DC

Massachusetts might decide that a 90 year old "vegetable" or a young embryo are human but not persons and are able to be terminated.

Utah might just decide the exact opposite on both counts and say no these are humans and persons and that it is illegal to kill them.

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.

---

We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

---

The natural right to life is not too shallow. Tell me a better solution and I'll parrot it.

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.

---

You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

---

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.

---

We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

---

There is no state sanctioned definition of personhood. There can't be.

We absolutely let families pull the plug when a person cannot be a person any longer, no matter the intervention of science and medicine.

Ectreme medical intervention will never be a bar for personhood. If it were, personhood would change as science and medicine improve.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.

---

Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

---

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.

---

If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

---

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.

---

Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

---

The natural right to life is not too shallow. Tell me a better solution and I'll parrot it.

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.

---

The "natural right to life" is not your argument. Your argument is that the natural right to life should only be limited to those you decide are "persons". That is definitionally/legally derived, thus too shallow.

If your argument was really the "natural right to life", then you would be against killing embryos, given that you believe they are human lives.