Hatred saturated GOP absolutists - Fetal Heart Beat Laws

Politics and Social Issues
81

@TimB

So you’re saying a fetus becomes a live human when its brain develops to the equivalent of that of a person in what is commonly referred to as a vegetative state?
Possibly. Terms like coma and vegetative state have various meanings, symptoms, and implications. But something like that, yes.

We each experience an unconscious state when we sleep without dreaming. I once had a bicycle collision from which I woke up in the hospital a couple days later with no memories whatsoever of the intervene time. I really don’t think it would have been OK to cut me up into little pieces while I was unconscious and today I am kind of glad nobody decided to do that, even though it will come as no surprise to you that I can be a pain in the ass from time to time and perhaps my absence from this world would have been met with approval by some.

After all, if I had been dismembered during my unconscious state I never would have realized it then or now, because I would not have felt it happening and I would not exist as a person now to realize anything.

Still, I think the vast majority of us find that prospect to be wrong, so we have empowered the state through the consent of the governed to take an interest in defending the defenseless, including the unconscious.

 

 

 

 

82

I’m curious what does all this have to do with the right of woman of sovereignty over her own body.

How about the notion that it’s none of the governments, it’s an agonizing personal situation for a mother and her family and support structure to deal with. Not the states.

The point isn’t when is a fetus viable, or what makes a human. Get real. We kill each other all the time, and men can always justify why they kill legally.

What the fuk?

It’s about respecting a woman’s right to self-defense and self-determination - and it’s about appreciating that the woman holding that fetal knows more about humanity and what’s happening inside of her and any of us pompous men who presume to make the moral rules woman must live by, while breathlessly creating every more horrendous and way and excuse to kill each other.

How rationalist lefties never managed to make that clear will always astound me, well, along with so many thing about my failed generations and nightmares we are springing into. Oh but we got the time to tell a poor scared challenged young woman what she must do with her body and the rest of her. Oh and then offer any fuking support with raising that kid.

…

{see ya pals.

Got through Saturday, rock’n roll, gets smoother every year, still nonstop. But, you know the Strater lobby scene and energy just ain’t what it used to be, just as well, need sleep. But it was time to jump in on this train wreck and bring it back to fundamentals. A woman’ right to self-determination. No one says it’s nice, or that it’s not killing a life. It is, it is damned serious and any guy who believe they appreciate that more than a mother carrying that little developing life inside of her, is truly a deluded arse hole and worse. }

83

@CC

I’m curious what does all this have to do with the right of woman of sovereignty over her own body.
An in utero human being is not a part of the mother's body and his or her right to life supersedes the right of sovereignty of the mother over her own body.

1 functioning human brain per person. The mother does not get to claim 2. When there are 2 functioning human brains there are 2 individual human beings, 2 individual persons, each with their own rights, the right to life being the supreme right.

The point isn’t when is a fetus viable, or what makes a human. Get real. We kill each other all the time, and men can always justify why they kill legally.
Is that supposed to be some kind of rational argument? Learn how to think.
It’s about respecting a woman’s right to self-defense and self-determination
A living human being in utero has an equal right to self-defense and self-determination. Step one in self defense, don't allow others to cut you into little bloody pieces because you are unwanted by them.
it’s about appreciating that the woman holding that fetal knows more about humanity and what’s happening inside of her and any of us pompous men
Your male self loathing is nauseating, grow a pair (of hemispheres, that is).
while breathlessly creating every more horrendous and way and excuse to kill each other.
I, and the vast majority of men haven't killed anybody. Misandry from a male is particularly contemptible.
Oh but we got the time to tell a poor scared challenged young woman what she must do with her body and the rest of her.
The elective killing of a human being is not justified by the low socioeconomic status of the killer. Again, learn how to think.
A woman’ right to self-determination.
...is superseded by an innocent human being's right to life.
No one says it’s nice, or that it’s not killing a life.
Truly bizarre, you admit that killing a living human being is destroying a person, a human life. How is that anything but murder when done with premeditation, electively, and not in defense of ones own life?
it is damned serious and any guy who believe they appreciate that more than a mother carrying that little developing life inside of her, is truly a deluded arse hole
Your self loathing misandry has led you to a delusion of female wisdom that is not justified by the fact of so many women who do in fact kill a living human being by getting an abortion.

Women who appreciate that they are carrying a human life don’t need to be told not to kill it, they know that already and they don’t, because most women are compassionate that way, but not all.

For those women who lack either the intelligence, insight, emotional stability, empathy, or appreciation needed to realize that it is not ok to kill a living human being, we the people, by the consent of the governed, have empowered our government to take an interest in defending the lives of the defenseless innocents who would otherwise be destroyed by those unwilling to preserve innocent life.

The question is not IF a human being becomes a human being in utero, even you, a self loathing misandry speaking male have admitted this is the case, the question is WHEN a human being becomes a human being in utero. I say that threshold is crossed when the brain begins to function at a minimal human level, a level that would be considered to be a live human being if tests for the diagnosis of brain death were applied to born person.

If somebody has some actual arguments to the contrary, great. This is an atheist site, primarily, right? Reason and rationality are the order of the day, supposedly, although I have not been able to detect it from CC here today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

OK. CC uses woman’s rights.

I was not really thinking of it in the terms of woman’s rights. More in the terms of “Mothers” rights. Give birth to, have, deliver, bear, produce, bring forth; birth.

In California for example, there is no presumption that a mother is entitled to custody of her child. Yet, a parent may be deemed unfit if they have been abusive, neglected, or failed to provide proper care for the child.

This is like trying to understand the new wireless security system I am installing and connecting it to the phone and TV. New words, new ideas and it makes you feel old as the whole system is so different. A long way from the wooden phone and party line I was born into. Back then we understood what a mother was, and never had to give it a second thought.

I try and make things as simple as possible and get the job done and move on. Most items that are used over a long period of time are part of some sort of system.

The legal systems and civilization systems are the Laws of God. Or today, Laws of Nature. We know what the rules were with Abraham.

CC is talking rights. Stardusty is also talking rights. Thus, common factor is “Rights”. Star is talking core rights of life and CC is talking subcategory of Mother’s rights. And California is talking rights controlled by the state.

On a timeline. Only the mother and father had the rights. The unborn and state’s rights like California’s are new to the civilization. On the Laws of Nature, we must consider 2 laws, we would have to deal with “Rules of Laws”. That would be California and the unborn rights. And the Mother’s rights. The second law would be “Happiness”. Do these laws help create happiness? Remember all successful civilizations were fat and happy. The facts could be that the California and unborn rights should be discarded if this is going to create unhappiness with the Mothers for the sake of our civilization. On the human factor issues the good of the civilization comes first. That’s why the Laws of Nature was created, to help mankind stay on the pathway of successful civilizations.

My question is. What is going to make the mothers happy?

85

Mike: ““Mothers” rights.”

What the hell right’s are you talking about ? Male dominance demands - rights?

86

Does a mother have rights over her children? I tried to bring that point home by bringing up Abraham. Abraham was sacrificing his son to god. Obviously, the son does not have any rights. The parents have all the rights. Husbands and wives to be one (Eph. 5:31). What you are doing CC is separating the laws into male and female. They were never understood that way when it was about the subject of children.

So, yes, a lot of people recognize the Mothers as having certain rights over their children. I know I do. The female rights you are talking about really need to be decided on. But how can that be done without first establishing where the laws are with the unborn. We are working our way to your points of issue.

At issue are the rights.

Does the unborn have rights? If yes, when?

Does the mother have rights? Maybe not in California.

87

@Mike

Does a mother have rights over her children?
Yes, so does a father, for example, I can pull the plug on the TV, tell my child to do his/her homework and chores, ground my child or give him/her a time out.

I do not have the right to kill my child, or to neglect my child, or to fail to support my child, and neither does a mother, either in utero or after birth.

A child has a right to life that a parent is not empowered to electively violate.

Abraham was sacrificing his son to god. Obviously, the son does not have any rights.
The ancient Jews were a murderous superstitious, genocidal tribe, which was not unusual for that period in history. We don't kill our children to appease some fantasy ghost skydaddy anymore. That's against the law now.
Does the unborn have rights? If yes, when?
Yes, under the law in most states in the USA, but not all. In most states an unborn child has a right to life after viability, or some number of weeks used as a proxy for viability. Roe used a trimester framework, which has been overturned and replaced with the viability standard.

But states are not required to pass such restrictions and the federal government has passed no such laws so a few states allow elective 3rd trimester post viability abortions, a truly grotesque, monstrous, violent, and sick process.

Here is the epicenter of the American Abortion Holocaust, where women pay to have their babies killed electively up to 32 weeks some 2.5 months after viability, and later on a “case by case basis”

Albuquerque NM USA, Holocaust Epicenter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

Child Custody Rights for Mothers in California

Presumption. In California, there is no presumption that a mother is entitled to custody of her child. There really is no such thing as “fathers’ rights” when it comes to custody in California. I know this is custody, but it gives us an idea where the mothers stand in California.

As far as Abraham. The Laws of God and The Laws of Nature are the same thing. The laws Abraham was using were the same backbone laws of civilization that America was built on. The point being, this is a moral issue. Moral issues will vary with the political environment the people live under. We live in a civilization environment. Therefore, we need civilization laws. Or put another way. The human factor is heavier the bigger the civilization. And our civilization was started and built on the Laws of Nature. But was not finished. For the Laws of Nature to work smoothly, it requires the people to have a certain level of morals. Captain Jack Sparrow once said: “The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.” In other words, to have a sophisticated civilization. The people must understand the difference between good and bad. Laws can’t do that. Laws don’t teach morals. Point being, we don’t know if the story of Abraham is true or not. Religion is not about deities; it is about civilizations.

No doubt you will make a moral judgement about my points of view here. May I ask where you got the skills to be able to make a moral judgement? Was it from your Mother? In the past it was the civilizations that controlled the moral teachings. Not the Mothers. Point being, Jefferson never got the moral part of our government up and running. Therefore, you mother is filling in for what the government is supposed to be doing. In other words, Abraham civilization was more up and running than ours is today. You don’t get to heaven by knowing what Abraham did. That was a moral story to be good and follow gods’ laws.

Next issue, Roe ruling. I was to busy working when all that went on to get into any details. Playing catch up here. Thanks for the great data and ideas.

89

@Mike

May I ask where you got the skills to be able to make a moral judgement?
Morality is an individual sensibility. Human beings are social animals. Social animals do not kill each other very much, as that would lead to the extinction of the species. The only kind of social animal that can survive and reproduce is the kind that exhibits a sort of herd morality behavior.

It can’t be that the Jews brought us our morality because peoples around the world had there own moralities which were largely the same and in some cases arguably superior. Further, the ancient Jews were a highly immoral tribe by today’s standards.

We ignore most of the over 600 Jewish commandments, so very obviously we derive our morality from our innate sensibilities.

Thanks for the great data and ideas.
Your welcome. If you just search on abortion laws, viability standard, and 32 week premature baby you will quickly find out that most states have adapted to the changes in SCOTUS rulings by passing viability related legislation, and that there is SCOTUS precedent in a ruling that allowed a state to use 20 weeks as a proxy for viability, so, since 1973 the limit has been pushed down by about 6 weeks as neonatal care technology has greatly improved in the last 46 years.

Here are a few facts

A baby born at 32 weeks usually survives and grows to a normal, healthy adult.

A live birth at 32 weeks is just that, the birth of a live human being.

If you electively kill a live born human being you have committed a terrible crime.

If you wish to electively kill a human being of the same age you can travel to Albuquerque NM, USA 522 Lomas Blvd NE, and you can pay to have your baby murdered legally in utero.

 

 

 

90

I put together an answer about the morals. But it is to long and may contrasts many opinions, so I didn’t post it. I still don’t have a good point of view that I can say, I back 100%. And I should not have to if the government was doing its job. This should be a civilization issue on the point of morality. And I don’t mean a here today and gone tomorrow point of law. It should be cut in stone and not have to be changed because it is the right choice for mankind.

An issue that need to be addressed and factored into what is right. Is the maximum population the earth can sustain. Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the years 2040 and 2050. The average age of Americans today is 37.7 years. Meaning we better have a plan.

91

Abraham was sacrificing his son to god. - sorry dude I deal with the reality of the physical world and how evolution’s made us and all the wonderful things in between. You quote from an ancient tribal text as though - they actually personally knew god - they did not! *

 

That’s why you’re so good at delusional thinking and dependent contriving a very limited selection of facts to support your politically driven contrarianism. Constantly reassuring yourself climate science isn’t plenty enough settled. This is because you deal in mental games and myths driven by your self-interest, rather than an objective understanding of our place on this planet and in the natural order of things.

 

  • No more than today’s self-certain screaming evangelist, with the pick pocket hands, preaching about his EGO and not any actual “God” that’s interested in interacting with humans. Let alone intervening in people’s lives.

Not that I don’t believe divine intervening - it simply way more subtile and driven by other things than some man-god sitting on a golden throne on a cloud, listening for who’s worshiping him the best. The conceited arrogance is beyond me at this point. Oh, fuk, yes, I’m digressing but so what. I wonder how many Christians actually stop to ponder this thought of an eternal heaven in some idilic place for ever and ever, even though your physical body has long ago gone back to where it came from, that would be EARTH. Oh yeah, religious writers have fixed that little problems, seems there’s a wardrobe up in heaven full of spare bodies hanging for you to slip into after you lose the one that’s gotten you through your life. Hello? Anybody in there? Sounds like the ultimate torture, heaven that is - I’ll take my long sleep anytime. Imagine for example, the food that excites you the most, then be left to eat only that item for a month, See how long you love it.

 

Excuse me, I dismiss your Abrahamic shit, it’s done plenty enough damage to the world and sane society already. Enough is enough, time for the faithful to do some real spiritual growth and transcend this toddler-ship so many people seem trapped within. Although I fear we’ve run out of time for that. Earth’s trajectory is just like god - it don’t give a shit what people imagine for themselves.

92
"The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the years 2040 and 2050."
You're making the assumption that all other factors will remain equal. Is that a realistic assumption? Are you aware that around half the countries on this planet have been seeing birthrates stagnate and a turn down?
Fertility Rates Fall as Population Soars While the birthrate in some countries has been declining, more countries are experiencing a baby boom. By Alexa Lardieri, Staff Writer Nov. 8, 2018,

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-11-08/global-population-growing-despite-falling-fertility


Unfortunately the population growth that’s happening, is where it can be least sustained.

Conflict expected to deepen Africa's hunger crisis in 2019 | Devex

https://www.devex.com/news/conflict-expected-to-deepen-africa-s-hunger-crisis-in-2019-94195

Feb 8, 2019 - The FAO/WFP report highlights an increasing number of conflicts globally, which are also lasting longer, exacerbating hunger crises.
Increasing number of people face severe food shortages in South Sudan

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/increasing-number-people-face-severe-food-shortages-south-sudan
Feb 22, 2019 - There is a real risk of famine in those areas which are already very food … “Food insecurity is increasing in 2019,” said Simon Cammelbeeck, …


 

93

When they have no response they hide.

Mentally healthy people choose to learn.

94

@CC
<div class=“bbp-reply-content”>

When they have no response they hide.
You mean like after my post of April 14, 2019 at 4:06 am?</div>
Mentally healthy people choose to learn.
So, if people who do not respond are the opposite of a mentally healthy person then by your own logic you are a mentally unhealthy person due to your lack of response.

 

 

 

 

95

Hi Stardusty, I got tied up with the political postings. I still have to many unanswered questions. Of course, from a political or populist point of view the answer is easy. I would rather do it right than take the easy way out.

I don’t like killing any animals, hunters each year kill thousands of animals. More animals are alive today because of hunting. That’s a fact. And if the hunters did not kill them the government does. And that brings up the question. In the pre-history stories, there were seven times the earth was overpopulated and then went through a mass population reduction. It is thought to be plagues that reduced the populations.

In history the overpopulation has also been changed by plagues. Science points out the bones show that the people were much healthier after the plagues do to more protein being available.

Claiming that famines are ultimately caused by overpopulation are still going on in Africa are still being made today. About 30M died from hunger between 1958 and 1962 in China. The United Nations is saying that more than 20 million people in four countries are teetering on the edge of famine, calling the situation “the worst humanitarian crisis” since the end of World War II.

Should we be looking at this in our conclusion of the right choice about abortion? CC, says that people just stop having babies and overpopulation is not a problem. I don’t see where that is the overall result.

Overall, having kids is a form of social security in many counties. If the kids don’t take care of them, then go to America. The Americans are rich and will take care of all the old people in the world.

In America, chain migration is going to be responsible for almost all of Americas long-term population growth and environmental stability problems. By the numbers, if no more babies were born in America, we still end up overpopulated by the cause of chain migration. We may need to implement abortions and limit the number of kids just to make room for all the chain migration that the Democrats are fighting for. It took nine years for chain migration to double the population of migration.

In California for example in 2016, 27% of its population was foreign born. And that does not count the millions of illegals. Trump is trying to be able to count all the people, so we know who is living here. But the Democrats thinks that is a bad idea. Point being. Laws can be moral, enforced by states or federal. I think it may get so bad that abortion may need to become a federal controlled issue all the way because of migration.

What I think is missing from all these articles is the possibility that many of the immigrants will chose to go back to their country because living in an overpopulated America will be no pretty picture.

Stardusty, as you can see. I still have many issues as to what I think should be the direction of abortion. The government may stop abortion to shore up the affects of American birth rate.

96

Ok, you can make America Great Again by criminalizing abortion, but only for white women who were impregnated by white men. All the rest can get abortion on demand. Trump, Steven Miller, and the alt-right will probably be giddy at such a policy.

97
MikeYohe: "More animals are alive today because of hunting. That’s a fact."
How divorced from reality does something have to be before some people won't say it? Or do those people say it because it's so obviously, provably, logically, and factually, wrong, thus pushing the buttons of everyone else? Whatever the reason, it's not worth anyone's time responding to.

As for the stuff everyone else said, because emotions, beliefs, and morals are involved, there will never be anything close to a consensus on this topic. What the government has to do is to weigh everyone’s rights (yes, including an unborn child’s), and make laws that are backed by science and reason, and to provide as much help as is required to those who need it.

We’ll never capture the demands of the extreme anti-abortionists, so they are irrelevant (other than their contradictory lack of concern for the living). Almost zero people are advocating for full-term abortions (unless they’re to save one or both lives involved), so that’s not even a position to look at. It’s where to draw the line to satisfy the rest of us that government needs to think about.

Lots of people will be unhappy, no matter where the line is, but that’s pretty much the case with every decision a government makes.

98

Over a dozen species of animals have been hunted to extinction by man over the past 1 to 2 hundred yrs alone. If they had not been hunted to extinction by man, how many might there be today? If not for unregulated or poorly regulated hunting, we could have Dodo bird filet, occasionally, instead of always just chicken, chicken, chicken. Talk about the atrocity of abortion, how about the atrocity of wiping out entire species? A fair amount of those animals were probably pregnant when they were hunted to extinction. Their fetuses may have even had developed brains. Oh the humanity!

99

Funny the direction these threads take.

100

Stardusty Psyche@CC

SP: When they have no response they hide.

You mean like after my post of April 14, 2019 at 4:06 am?

CC - It’s been a couple very busy weeks for me, but thank you so much for bringing it to my attention and the invitation.

SP:

cc wrote: “Mentally healthy people choose to learn.”

“So, if people who do not respond are the opposite of a mentally healthy person then by your own logic you are a mentally unhealthy person due to your lack of response.”

No, please don’t twist it! What I said was mentally healthy people choose to learn, I was not referring to anyone in particular, simply making an observation.

Though that attitudes comes from decades of attempting to discuss important issues with people who totally tune out to supportable explainable down to Earth facts. People who seem to never listen to or processes outside information. Ten years later and they repeat the same lies and stupid claims and they really couldn’t careless. How that works, I’ll never fathom, though I keep trying.

That is, a rejection of learning, see for someone like me with my passion for experiencing life and learning from it, it seem a genuine sickness plain and simple. (If a Universal God there be, she gave us bodies and brains to use!) And you got to admit the cornerstone of hardline Christianity (and every other religion) is never ever learn anything new - it’s blasphemy blahblah.

Climate science in particularly, but also regarding this ruthlessly cynical evangelical power game using the unborn and woman in crisis as a brainwashing tool is abhorrent.

Give ‘em something to get so lathered up about that they become absolutists - who better to do it to than people who have convinced themselves they are God almighty’s specially chosen people on a war footing with the rest of humanity.

I’ll get back to April 14, 2019 at 4:06 am in a moment.