When does life begin? Can you chop up a baby, suck its brains out and sell its body parts 5 minutes before birth?
Article on mask effectiveness...
- Thread starter DentonAg80
- Start date
This is an excuse. We should all learn to discern information for ourselves. I don't care how many degrees you have, I will take the given information and decide for myself.
@rougueaggie I’m sure you would tell battle tested soldiers your opinion on what it’s like to be in the heat of battle and defer to your opinion of instead theirs.
Conversely, if you’re a battle tested soldier, I’m sure you would hold the opinions on what a battle is like from civilians who’ve never been in the trenches or shot at at the same or greater level than yours.
That sounds like your approach to life.
Last edited:
My doctor didn't have me put my mask on when I was in his office last week although I had it near me. Last I checked he had a medical degree too. Or do we just listen to the doctors that agree with you and the rest are quacks?
Except that I'm a battle tested marine, so your set up sucks.
Further, just because you haven't been in battle, doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter.
To your point, it is always a good idea to listen to those with experience, but that shouldn't stop you from developing your own opinion.
Just because someone has experience or education, doesn't make them right.
Thinking people are still justified in coming to their own conclusions.
My response captures both sides.
And my point is 2 fold.
1) no one listens to both sides. They pick a side and form an opinion based what they’ve been told by the side they trust.
2) we’re entitled to opinions but it’s upon us as reasonable people to defer to the opinion from those who actually know. I can have an opinion all day about being a marine or being in battle and it will have value but will not have the value that your opinion carries nor it shouldn’t.
same shit with Covid or mask wearing. As a doctor on AY stated before, this is the first time in his career where patients visiting his office CLAIM to know the disease and how it works more than he does. It’s asinine and insane.
It has very little to do with religion honestly although almost every law on the books can trace it's origin back to a religion - murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. I will always default to protecting the innocent or those who cannot defend themselves, and this is the case with babies. FTR, I am against the death penalty because of my pro-life values. The criminals are generally neither innocent nor defenseless, but I don't think the government should be in the business of executing it's citizens in either the womb or the electric chair.
It is not about 1968 but the science of 1968. In 1968, we had very little ability to help a premature baby. Most babies born before 34 weeks died. I could not find any exact numbers for survival rates of premature babies from 1968, but I think you will agree that a baby born at 24 weeks in 1968 had NO chance of survival.
Contrast that with this statement
"However, according to this 2016 analysis of more than 8,300 deliveries in the United States, babies born at 24 weeks had a 68 percent chance of survival. A 2016 cohort study of more than 6,000 births found a survival rate of 60 percent"
source - https://www.healthline.com/health/baby/premature-baby-survival-rate#24-weeks
Knowing what we know now, the 'viability' of an unborn baby went from 34 weeks in 1968 to around 24 weeks in 2016. To allow 1968 science to drive 2021 decisions is irrational. Who knows what it will be 2068?
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state babies born before 23 weeks have a survival rate of just 5% to 6%. The current 15 week statute by Mississippi and especially the 6 week statute by Texas are not justified arguing a 2021 standard of viability outside the mother- quite frankly, they aren't meant to be. It's strategic provocation to challenge and disqualify the standard of viability altogether.
Correct. I was mainly pointing out that unlimited abortion as it current stands from the original Roe vs Wade was made based on science we had at the time which is woefully out of date considering the modern technology we have now. The Texas and Mississippi laws are meant to draw a line in the sand of when life begins like a heartbeat which will need to be decided by SCOTUS. It would no different than using laws from the same time to define internet usage or laws from before cars to define car laws.
As a pro-life proponent, I am willing to discuss options for rape, incest, or even serious genetic issues with unborn babies which make up between 1% and 2% of abortions, but I will never support the 'convenience abortion' because someone forgot to take their pill/wear a condom/etc. In my opinion, having unprotected sex is when you made the choice of the 'my body, my choice' argument. I don't see the 'my body, my choice' crowd advocating for the eliminating of child support when women have the sole right to have an abortion but can make the man pay for the next 18 years for a having the baby.
Personal Accountability folks. We need more of it on the masks, abortion, etc. This country has been removing it from the population for years in the hopes of stripping your freedoms.
Except there is no "unlimited abortion as it current [sic] stands", and the timeline of "viability" is critical in that Roe v Wade held the constitutional right of a woman to obtain an abortion before viability is reached and states may regulate or prohibit abortions after that time. At the time of ruling, the timeline of viability was made in good faith and justified in multiple respects. The same can't be said for the state legislations ruling 15 and 6 weeks as they are medically unfeasible and not even based in the science of today.
I’m not sure how I feel about abortion as I’ve been told my whole life I don’t really get an opinion. With my job I have seen some miracles and have seen some premies grow up to be normal happy kids running around having fun when many would think they had no chance. In 1968 they wouldn’t have had that chance. The thought and scene of a baby in the womb trying to get away from the crushing of their body parts to be vacuumed out is despicable if anyone would take the time to actually watch it and understand what is truly going on. That being said we as a society have said it’s perfectly fine but ignore the actual procedure and it’s brutality. It’s is ending a life. Period. I have always understood how people wouldn’t want their tax dollars funding these killings and have little faith that Planned Parenthood isn’t being funded federally for abortions but with most things democrats love it’s covered up.
@CheekySchneider
Message won't quote but:
That is such an insanely stupid response I don't even know what to say. I'm talking about biology and your definition of life is "the ability to love"? So how do you determine when that is?
And yes a heartbeat does equate life and you obviously ignored or didn't comprehend everything else I posted regarding that, not surprising. What happens when a woman goes for an ultrasound and there is no heartbeat found? There is no longer a life growing inside of her and it's a miscarriage.
You live in some strange fantasyland and your definition hinges more on convenience and whether you want it or not than any real definition. If a woman has a miscarriage at 20 weeks most normal people would mourn the loss of that life.
Message won't quote but:
That is such an insanely stupid response I don't even know what to say. I'm talking about biology and your definition of life is "the ability to love"? So how do you determine when that is?
And yes a heartbeat does equate life and you obviously ignored or didn't comprehend everything else I posted regarding that, not surprising. What happens when a woman goes for an ultrasound and there is no heartbeat found? There is no longer a life growing inside of her and it's a miscarriage.
You live in some strange fantasyland and your definition hinges more on convenience and whether you want it or not than any real definition. If a woman has a miscarriage at 20 weeks most normal people would mourn the loss of that life.
Explain that to NY that passed a law allowing abortions up delivery of the child or the states that allow partial birth abortions. It is clear that states define viability different, so why are so you against Texas and Miss defining it at 6 and 15 weeks when a lot of states allow it well past statistically viable times like 24 weeks where the chances of survival are above 50%. Seems strange to single out those laws based on your argument. You should be equally pissed at states that put viability to 'moment of delivery' or well past 34 weeks.
Thanks for proving my point though.
Okay first, let's not mistake fetal viability and statistical viability. The former is the ability to survive outside the womb and what I've been referring to.
New York's law does not challenge the viability timeline but essentially codified Roe v Wade and added that past the 24 week mark, a woman could terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is nonviable. That could be due to a number of medical maladies, and that determination is upon licensed health practitioners- that's hardly "unlimited" and your statement lacks any consideration of context.
Why did I single out the Texas and Mississippi legislation? They seek to severely restrict or effectively eliminate the constitutional protection of a woman's right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. Mississippi seeks to allow any prohibition within that time while Texas seeks to strike it from consideration. Even so, no prudent or reasonable person may argue that what is birthed at 6 or 15 weeks will survive outside the womb even with the every modern medical option available. It's absolutely impossible and the definition on nonviability.
Texas is different in that it implicitly wants a definition when life starts- no doubt a chasm of subjectivity. What will become the heartbeat is one suggestion, but so is the emergence of a human specific brainwave pattern. It's worth noting the lack of either qualify as part of the legal standard for human death and the latter occurs at 24 to 27 weeks so that's quite a spread.
How did I prove your point, though?
Not jumping in the debate, but you’re confusing the concepts. A state can give you more rights than the constitution guarantees. But it can’t give you less. That’s the explanation for NY.
The state gave women more rights at the expense of a viable human beings which the government should be in the business of doing. The government should be in the business of protecting rights especially those who have no voice the most. This is the failure of states like NY, etc.
So when exactly does a baby have life?? Why can we start killing unborn babies because they are judged not to be worthy of life. These are the profound and important questions?
Roe vs. Wade decision was made over 50 years ago and is very dated much like the Dredd Scott decision, so just because the SCOTUS ruled abortion legal at the time doesn't mean it is still the correct law. Last time I checked, there has no federal laws codifying abortion on demand. In fact, the SCOTUS has walked back the 'rights' of abortion in several cases in recent years.
In regards to NY specifically, the same doctors who perform abortions are allowed to make a decision of whether the abortion is performed seems a lot like the fox watching the hen house. There are several high profile cases of botched abortions, so to say 'this only happens when the fetus (baby) has health issues' is a convenient lie to make people feel better. The same reason why abortionists fight tooth and nail against sonogram laws - making a person understand they are aborting a human and not a 'clump of cells' is outrageous in their world view.
You proved my point by coming out against Texas and Mississippi while ignoring laws that allow abortions like 'partial birth abortions' where babies are literally born and have their brains sucked out or torn apart in the womb and harvested for parts. Those children were both statistically and fetal viable in most cases. The point is determine when a person is alive whether it starts at conception or after birth or some place in between. States like NY clearly come down on after birth although they have opened the door for abortion after birth (i.e. murder) which is just evil vs Texas who says it starts at six weeks. The reality outside the lens of religion is somewhere in between. Why is it justified to abort a baby at 30+ weeks but not justified to extend protection earlier in the term? You can't speak outside of both sides of your mouth by saying 'reasonable person believes a fetus at six weeks is non-viable' by science while allowing a woman to abort a baby after 30 weeks that is both statistically and fetal viable (your terms) that science affirms. Pick a point of viability and set the personhood.
I’m sorry. I thought I was talking to someone semi intelligent. My bad.
Continue with you mostly incoherent babble.
so many studies on kids not affected or spreaders but go on with schools. if you are worried get your vaccine and then you are safe as kittens according to Pfizer etc. what is the issue? how many studies show risk factors and natural immunity is better than vax? and there are choices to be made, you want to mandate masks or vax passports in your store, go ahead.
Similar threads
