WakeandBake
Well-known member
Well, I really don't believe that you do given your canon of posts over the years. This is about your religion and politics. You display zero compassion for born babies as far as I can tell. just sayin
Pretty low, frankly, given that I think most of the arguments in defense of this practice are ad hoc at best. If you argued that full citizenship is contingent on live birth, you would have a very reasonable argument and one confirmed in several aspects of our law (and contradicted by others), Even if true that does not mean a developing human (in the most defenseless state of its entire life cycle) is devoid of the State's interest in protecting it. Our government affords protection to classes of living things beneath the threshold of "a live-born human": animals, private property and Dook fans. Since when did full-citizenship become a prerequisite to protection from cruelty?
it.
Well, I really don't believe that you do given your canon of posts over the years. This is about your religion and politics. You display zero compassion for born babies as far as I can tell. just sayin
That is a logically consistent position to take, although I disagree with it. Is it fair to say that you disagree with our buddy RC107 in that you share my belief that life is "possible" before live birth, then?
Sure anything is possible. RC107 didn't say that life isn't possible before live birth either, he said (separately) 1) that he doesn't think personhood is possible before 28/29 weeks (apparently on the basis that he finds sentience/viability as a cut off for "personhood") and 2) that there's a difference between being inside the womb and still reliant on the mother and actually being born. I don't have a strong opinion on the latter from a criminal law perspective and I'm not sure I really care because I wouldn't use birth as a legal cut off point.
My position is that personhood is not possible without consciousness which requires a certain level of brain function which a fetus obtains (at the very earliest, in reality it probably comes much later) around 28 weeks. No matter how many times you try and mis-state it.
2016: when you disagree with someone about the best policies, you almost certainly hate babies.
Over the top about "hating babies" but I think there's a lot of credence to WakeandBake's point that there's one hell of a lot of interest invested into the pro-life movement - a level of compassion which is unmatched post-birth. The views underlying the pro-life vantage point on moral grounds are not very consistent vis-a-vis other areas (namely war) for most conservatives, and from your posts on here JHMD, not very consistent for you either.
We should use this thread to talk about the pros and cons of terminating (potential?) human life on demand. We should use other threads to talk about the Iraq War or whether or not you and I agree that the Welfare State has created a system that does intergenerational damage to family structures (including the babies that live in them).
This is the thread where you guys dazzle me with the upside of the War on the Inconvenient.
Pointing out ideological inconsistencies underlying your views on abortion relative to other issues is within the purview of this thread's topic. It's probing at what the actual crux of the issue is on which you're basing your decision. WnB seems to be pointing out that your alleged position "protecting people from barbaric murder" does not gel with other areas where you do not seem to be as interested as you are here in "protecting people from barbaric murder." That's certainly on topic and pertinent.
Forgive me for being confused by this post:
Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
oh I don't know, birth maybe. Let's not pretend that going from being inside the womb, totally dependent on another specific human to breathing on your own out in the real world is comparable to crossing the street.
Regardless of whether you think a 39 week old fetus is a person, you can't deny that birth brings about a fundamental change in the existence of that being.
You also, at multiple times in the past which may have all be tongue in cheek, advocated for an essential "carpet bombing" of a large portion of the Middle East which would assuredly result in a large number of "barbaric murders" of persons.
...
And of course full personhood isn't necessary to receive state protection, no one has argued otherwise.
I have argued that. What the hell is partial personhood?
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
JH is an expert
I have argued that. What the hell is partial personhood?
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk