Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

how is 7-10 not just as arbitrary ? How about we base it on whether or not it is a "Person" and/or "Living Human" matters not which one to me.. at least something we can define ..and somewhat measure.

What is your definition of Personhood ? as there are many..

Mine is when the soul arrives or more scientifically - when the vessle is capable of actualizing the soul - or if you want to get religous about things .. the "I AM" moment

 

At some point we will have the tech to extract it and put it in someone else.

 

A "control," is not keeping people from collecting, "damages," based on somebody else's having had an abortion. You have no conception of what, "reap what one sows," actually means. By your definition, Christian persecution, by the Romans, would be a valid reaping of what any Christian sowed. After all, they only needed to renounce their faith, & the Romans would release them. I believe the bulk of unbiased, scholarly opinion is that the majority of Christians did just that. So, do you agree, that those who were eaten by lions or killed by other wild beasts, were simply reaping what they had sown?

An primer example of reaping what one sowed would be someone who customarily had extra cash, but anytime one of his/her friends asked to borrow any money, to help them out of a spot, he'd responded that he felt it was a bad policy, to make loans to friends. Then, one day, this person who is sitting on an investment that he's sure is going to go through the roof, any day, gets a margin call, from his brokerage, because of an overall bad day in the market. It he can't come up with the shortfall, they will automatically sell stock to cover it, on which he will take a loss, besides losing out on the huge gains, he anticipates. So he goes to his many friends, each of which would only need come up with a relatively small amount, which all are capable of sparing, to save him from taking this financial bath. But every one quotes back to him, his idea that it is unwise for friends to loan money to friends. This would be reaping what he had sown. Can you understand how that has no application, in the manner you are trying to misuse it?

 

Please .. spare me this mindless nonsense .. coupled with moving the goal post and thinking you are sneaky - or just not thinking. .. then posting a bunch of stuff in tribute to the big strawman you just built.

"Starts Developing" - is a bit different than having a functioning brain .. something we can measure - representative of a Person.

The wiring is not complete until 22 weeks give or take a few -- at which point the vessel can actualize the soul... the "I AM" moment.

 

Since there doesn't seem to be any barriers against making false claims, that is what the opponents of the Taliban should do. Make constant reports on all of the politicians wives and daughters and do the same against all of the religious nuts who open their yaps. And report all of the judges, DAs, and sheriffs and police chiefs as well.

 

Something you can define and measure... Then you mention the soul... I feel like you are trolling me

 

I wouldn't take any issue with this.

 

Tucker was on point.

 

Not at all .. and regardless of whether or not you believe in a soul or not .. there are measurements that can be applied to what ever you want to define as comprising personhood

What you missed in previous post - were many things.

I qualified "the soul" - more scientifically - when the vessle is capable of actualizing the soul - or if you want to get religous about things .. the "I AM" moment

Regardless of how you define the soul .. either religiously or not religiously - once you define it - the question of the vessle being able to take this soul exists. I think - therefor I am .. is not a religious way of looking at things ... this was a Pun on the biblical "I AM" but also a blessed union.

Define Personhood

 

Your completely uninformed guess as to what weighs on my conscience is, unsurprisingly, wrong.

I do not feel that it is my right to tell another, what course they must take in their life, generally, much less to decide for a stranger, what they must do about their pregnancy.

IF I were supporting the imposing of some narrow constriction upon their choice, that would weigh on my conscience. I imagine that this is like speaking Greek to you.

Perhaps it is your way of justifying your abdication of all responsibility, for yourself, over the ramifications, for both the mother, as well as the child (and who knows how many others that this decision will affect?), of their complying with your moral choice, rather than their own. This way, you merely tell yourself, they got only what their own actions brought upon them; or, in the argument being put forth by Crank, "they reaped what they sowed."

I know that I would have a tough time, swallowing that bullshyte, but what do I know of you? Maybe you find it easy to wash all sense of your own complicity away, when you advocate for others being compelled, in their own lives, to satisfy your ideas of right & wrong, as if you are somehow entitled to that.

The only 2 things I am sure of, are:
1) I am not troubled by people making this important choice, for themselves (since I would have no way to guess what would be the best choice, in any particular case), and

2) you were the one who brought the idea of a, "coping mechanism," to our conversation, and have repeated some form of that term like a parrot, over a half-dozen times, in fewer than that many posts. It seems stuck in your head, for some reason.

 

Of course they are:

 

So you don't understand the difference between pregnancy and a communicable disease. Got it.

 

Your words say I'm wrong but your need to keep restating that which I've already rejected and says that I'm right we're trying to convince yourself.

well it's not just your right it's your obligation to say something if the course of action is murder.

I don't believe murder is ever a proper course of action.

 

No, folks, he's not talking about Republicans, who are limiting a woman's choices (as any reasonable person would assume he was). Crank is saying that the Democrats-- who want to leave this decision to the pregnant woman-- are the ones who, "want to reduce female power and autonomy...no more able to make decisions for themselves..."

My nomination for this month's DoubleTHINK, detachment from reality, Award.

 

Somebody's got "trannies on the brain!"

And he cares about their well-being, too--

Awwwww.

 

No they don't think it is. That's why they'll argue that it's not a human being.

It's easier to advocate for killing it if you think of it like a toaster. That's why they are so adamant about these special words that dehumanize it.

This means they have some morality they're just trying to justify immoral Behavior.

 

People cheering this on clearly don't.

But we all know what it is it's an effort to try and show how wrong the conservatives are and if hundreds of thousands of people kill themselves into it well that's just cost of your politics.

Who gives a crap about all this human suffering as long as you can show those stupid conservatives.

This is my nothing you say about abortion is there any validity. You seem to be very much pro-death and suffering.

 

That is not a valid reason to edit someone's post, who you are quoting. You are supposed to "reject," it through your argument, not by limiting it to one word quotes.

You apparently don't understand, even after all this time, how a debate forum works. If you keep throwing out the same B.S. arguments, that's what your co-debater will answer, if they reply at all.

At this point, though, it's like slam dunking against a toddler.

 

the only thing I would expect out of a woman is the same thing I expect out of a man.

If a man doesn't want to be a father he has to have forethought.

I guess you don't think women are smart enough to do that. The misogyny of you leftist is astounding. You think women need the government to be their mommy because they're not capable of thinking.

Right so think before you act that way you don't have to rely on something within 85% effectiveness rate.

Why don't you think women can do that do you think they're lower life forms than men?

 

I don't need to edit it their differentiated they're just all in a great big box if you can use that as an excuse to back out of the argument I don't blame you.

 

Then you can erase your answer, explanation, about why you don't need to edit, and reuse that box for your next post, if it's almost ready.

 

I think Texas state government should be financially responsible for the cost of raising the children for forcing pregnant women to give birth to babies.

Can't claim it's not the state's responsibility when it's the state that forces women to do it.

 

Are right? Yeah I know. It's really simple just think that killing people is wrong.

 

so you have to keep getting rid of child support from the father?

I'm not much for the Communist approach

Yeah you can the state doesn't Force women to get pregnant. If they did for swimming to get pregnant then yeah the state should take responsibility for their children but if you're doing the thing that gets you pregnant or get your girlfriend pregnant then it should be and is completely your responsibility.

I would also support the state taking the child from that mother and adopting it to a couple that want it that can't be.

So the state should only take responsibility if they can get something out of it.