Democratic Party Senators voted 47 - 0 against confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett: Had 3 more Democrats won seats in 2018, Barrett would not be a Supre

[Zake]

Sorry, those are all synonyms for a person.

In your opinion. Of course it would need a proper, secular definition of a person.

Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is historically justified.

As I said, this is not disputed. The “shoe” was on their foot, and “might makes right”. When the “shoe” will be on the foot they had better take it in stride.

But the point was not that. It was the hypocrisy of the republicans in “justifying” the delay in one case, and hurrying it in another. If they would have been honest, and said: “We have the power, so shut up!” that would have been different.

 

[KMC]

It might lead to an interesting and mutually beneficial conversation, if you guys would

1. refrain from emotional arguments
2. use the proper terminology to describe the actions and their legal status
3. would use the proper distinction between zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and child.

1. I agree
2. “legal” does not necessarily reflect morality or reality. Legally speaking, black people were considered property just over a century ago. Legally speaking, Jews were considered rats by the German government, just less than a century ago. Some times laws are unjust. Any law that denies a human being its basic human dignity is an unjust law.
3. In reality, the terms you use are all descriptors of human beings. Every human being alive today started their journey as a unique individual at conception, and went through various stages of growth to be where they are today. What pro-abortion rights advocates want to maintain is the right to kill human beings at their earliest stages of life.

 

[Victoria33]

Come on, google is your friend. Type in “governor of virginia infanticide” and you will get plenty of links

Obama, Buttigieg, NY State, VA. State, how infanticide and the racial disparities of abortion can be ignored is beyond me.

In my personal opinion, Planned Parenthood exerts great control on the Democratic party, voting for them is like voting for PP.

Infanticide is another subject that it’s pretty clear, Democrats may condone.

 

[Zake]

“legal” does not necessarily reflect morality or reality.

Of course not. But we live in a secular society, where the “Law of the Land” is paramount.

In reality, the terms you use are all descriptors of human beings.

Nope. A cell is NOT a human being. A conglomerate of cells is not a human being. Up until the point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity reaches a certain point, there is no human “being”. All we have is “human tissue” - at best. It could be a point of discussion when the “cut-off” point is.

What pro-abortion rights advocates want to maintain is the right to kill human beings at their earliest stages of life.

Well, you agreed that emotionally charged arguments should be avoided. There are no “pro-abortion” people. There are “pro-choice” advocates.

 

[Victoria33]

Even if we go with the clump of cells argument, one can easily say infanticide is in their sights since they are so subservient to Planned Parenthood.

Same thing is true in that their enablers, the voters are voting for these atrocious racial disparities, perhaps, half of all African American unborn being aborted and hey, don’t tell me the women choose it, Planned Parenthood makes sure those clinics are more available in minority neighborhoods or very nearby.

This is immorality and a true evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I find it interesting (and very sad) that you seem to have more of an issue with killing a mosquito than you do with murdering an innocent child in the womb.

As I recall it, Lenin directed the killing of political opponents whom he called “harmful insects”. I don’t know that the left has changed much from his day.

 

[upant]

A conglomerate of cells is not a human being.

Yet. It is life that is being killed, even at the earliest stage

There are no “pro-abortion” people. There are “pro-choice” advocates.

Nonsense, the decision is to abort or not. Pro-abortion or anti-abortion. You support abortion or you don’t.

 

[KMC]

Of course not. But we live in a secular society, where the “Law of the Land” is paramount.

I agree to an extent. I hope you would agree that not all laws are just. So we are are on the same page:

• would you agree that legalized slavery is unjust, and not a “paramount” law of the land that should have been blindly followed?

Nope. A cell is NOT a human being. A conglomerate of cells is not a human being. Up until the point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity reaches a certain point, there is no human “being”. All we have is “human tissue” - at best. It could be a point of discussion when the “cut-off” point is.

Perhaps to assist with the conversation we should use science. Here is a white paper by Dr. Maureen Condic, Senior Fellow Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine. In it she shows the science says

1. life begins at sperm-egg fusion
2. The zygote is an organism…a human being that is different from just “human cells” or as you say “human tissue”

From the paper:

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

Well, you agreed that emotionally charged arguments should be avoided. There are no “pro-abortion” people. There are “pro-choice” advocates.

You misquoted me. I said “pro-abortion rights advocates”…I did not say “pro-abortion people.” My statement is accurate. If you support Roe V Wade, you want to the right to procure an abortion…thus pro-abortion RIGHTS advocate.

 

[KMC]

I almost forgot: 95% of biologists from 1058 academic institutions affirm the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins' by Steven Andrew Jacobs :: SSRN).

 

[1cthlctrth]

A conglomerate of cells is not a human being.

Is a baby born from a botched abortion a human being?
Democratic Senators voted 41-3 AGAINST the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in February of this year. Had just 7 Democrats voted in favor, a baby born alive during an abortion must be given the same degree of medical care that any other baby born at the same gestational age would, including transportation to a hospital. It also would enforce punishing doctors who refuse to provide basic medical care to infants.

All 53 Republican Senators voted in favor of protecting babies born from botched abortions.

 

[Zake]

As I recall it, Lenin directed the killing of political opponents whom he called “harmful insects”. I don’t know that the left has changed much from his day.

Why should we care about what Lenin said? Should we also include the burning of Giordano Bruno?

You support abortion or you don’t.

If you don’t know the difference between supporting the choice and not the result of a choice… there is no reason to continue.

I agree to an extent. I hope you would agree that not all laws are just.

Of course I agree. Of course it depends on how one defines a “just” law.

would you agree that legalized slavery is unjust, and not a “paramount” law of the land that should have been blindly followed?

In our day and age and our society. But it was perfectly acceptable in the biblical times, even if we call it “indentured servitude”. The point is that there in no absolute morality and no absolute “just” laws. Just like there is no universal ethical system.

life begins at sperm-egg fusion

This is sloppy and incorrect. The egg and the sperm are already alive. And it is possible to “nudge” an egg and start to grow into a new being. It will always be a “female”, of course. Virgin birth can only produce females. And with already existing technology we can perform cloning - so this new human being does not start as a fertilized egg - aka zygote.

The zygote is an organism…a human being that is different from just “human cells” or as you say “human tissue”

Yes, it is different. What is the difference? A clump of cells may be a blastocyst or a cancerous growth. Both are composed of human cells. I guess I must be more precise, because otherwise I will be accused of calling a “baby” a “cancer”. (The number of intentional (?) misunderstandings is scary. Many of my posts are flagged to death, even when they are polite and follow the the forum rules, but they are not politically correct… or should I say, “catholically” correct ) I do NOT confuse a blastocyst with cancer. But I insist on being more precise. The difference is that one MAY grow into something we call a human being, while the other one cannot. So the difference is what they MAY become, not what they ARE.

If you support Roe V Wade, you want to the right to procure an abortion…thus pro-abortion RIGHTS advocate.

I stand corrected. Yes, I would like to see abortion eliminated, but keep the right to have one.

I almost forgot: 95% of biologists from 1058 academic institutions affirm the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization

So what? Every chicken begins as an egg, and still we don’t confuse a “fried egg” with “fried chicken”. The differences are substantial, not just quantitative but also qualitative.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you don’t know the difference between supporting the choice and not the result of a choice

If you know the outcome of the choice in advance, there’s no difference.

 

[1cthlctrth]

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 2016.

“Elections have consequences,” then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. “The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”

“The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent,” Joe Biden wrote in a New York Times op-ed in 2016.
“It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend,” he wrote.

Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year | Blaze Media

 

[Theo520]

CNN Mourns ACB Confirmation By Flying Chinese Flag At Half-Mast | Babylon Bee

 

[Zake]

If you know the outcome of the choice in advance, there’s no difference.

That is the point. You DON’T know the outcome. Only the possible outcome. One person will choose “possible outcome #1”, the other person will choose “possible outcome #2”. You know… that ominous “free will” that is held in such a high esteem. Would you rather have a “reproductive slavery”?

 

[Zake]

The Babylon Bee is a SATIRE!!!

 

[KMC]

The point is that there in no absolute morality and no absolute “just” laws. Just like there is no universal ethical system.

I would disagree. Examples: would you agree that it is a universal moral truth that children should not be raped and molested? Would you agree that it is a universal moral truth that we should not intentionally kill innocent people?

There are absolute moral truths…but some people will always choose to ignore them.

This is sloppy and incorrect.

Could you provide some peer-review study to back up your claims?

So what?

Hmmm…what is your level of expertise in this field of study? BS? MS? PhD? In other words, why should I give weight to your opinion when the seem in conflict with the scientific white paper I cited?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You DON’T know the outcome.

Oh, I think we do. Support for abortion is support for abortion. It’s not support for “something or other, but I don’t know what”. There is only one outcome of an abortion; the death of the child. And only one is intended.

 

[MikeInVA]

Would you rather have a “reproductive slavery”?

I would prefer that people who create a child allow it to be born.

You know… that ominous “free will” that is held in such a high esteem.

How many children have Planned Parenthood placed into adoptive homes this year?

 

[Zake]

I would disagree. Examples: would you agree that it is a universal moral truth that children should not be raped and molested? Would you agree that it is a universal moral truth that we should not intentionally kill innocent people?

No, I don’t. In our day and age, and in our society we can agree. But not universally. We have many divergent ethical systems.

Could you provide some peer-review study to back up your claims?

What is there to question? That the sperm and the egg are already alive?

Hmmm…what is your level of expertise in this field of study?

It does not need a scientific endeavor to understand the difference between a “fried egg” and a “fried chicken”.

Oh, I think we do. Support for abortion is support for abortion.

Final note. A support for a choice is not a support for ONLY one of the possible outcomes.

I would prefer that people who create a child allow it to be born.

If you don’t support “reproductive slavery”, then you support “reproductive choice”.