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

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Of course, majoritarianism eliminates the need for a constitution.

Good, now we can counterfeit money. Oh wait…

Majoritarianism is counterfeit.

 

[ProVobis]

Good, let’s see what they do with Alabama’s law which bans all abortions.

 

[ProVobis]

So what’s the purpose of voting Republican when we can just vote for Federalists?

 

[JonNC]

Ridgerunner:

It’s just that more people recognize that killing actually means killing.

Tell that to the people who allow abortion for whatever passes for rape and incest.

99.7% or more of abortions do not involve rape or incest. Are you suggesting an elimination of all of this to allow for those of rape and incest?

 

[JonNC]

So what’s the purpose of voting Republican when we can just vote for Federalists?

I’m in favor of federalism.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Conception, fetus, New Born, Baby, Infant, child, teen, young adult, adult, middle age and old. All of those are the same person.

They, however, do not appear to be recognized as a person according to the law. Zygotes or embryos are not assigned social security numbers by the country. They do not receive that personhood until birth.

So in the unfortunate scenario of a future mother intentionally ending her 2 week pregnancy by taking a tumble down the stairs, there is not a criminal investigation done because no one else knows the embryo exists.

It becomes difficult to say that if the mother asks for a safe, medical process for ending her pregnancy is illegal, but doing it herself in a potentially dangerous manner is not against the law.

 

[Rockoh22]

Zygotes or embryos are not assigned social security numbers by the country. They do not receive that personhood until birth.

This is also equally unintelligent. You see, many people are illegal immigrants in the United States, and do not have a social security either. What about a person in India? Do they have Social Security numbers? Or in Uganda?

So in the unfortunate scenario of a future mother intentionally ending her 2 week pregnancy by taking a tumble down the stairs, there is not a criminal investigation done because no one else knows the embryo exists.

It becomes difficult to say that if the mother asks for a safe, medical process for ending her pregnancy is illegal, but doing it herself in a potentially dangerous manner is not against the law.

As for this one. If a person kills another in the desert and no one knows about it. Was that a murder?

 

[ForeverLearn]

This is also equally unintelligent. You see, many people are illegal immigrants in the United States, and do not have a social security either. What about a person in India? Do they have Social Security numbers? Or in Uganda?

We are talking about United States law. You start by labelling a comment as unintelligent, only to proceed to blabbering off subject with comments that could only charitably be labeled as coherent, much less intelligent.

 

[ForeverLearn]

As for this one. If a person kills another in the desert and no one knows about it. Was that a murder?

Legally? No, can’t be legally charged with something that is not known to have occurred.

 

[Rockoh22]

Legally? No, can’t be legally charged with something that is not known to have occurred.

Legally, they can not be accused. Sure. However both are murder.

Now to be clear. I blame more the men than the women. My body, My choice is wrong as men saying that is her problem. No sir. You need to man up and grow a pair.

The reasons women choose to end life, do not fall solely on her. She did not make the baby alone.

I also disagree that women get to “decide” to abort or to not, and men have no say so, in accords with the law.

Abortion kills a person and wounds a woman.

Edit: The use of the word unintelligent, comes from me not knowing what word to use to describe how I see the statement you made. Was not an attack on you.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Now to be clear. I blame more the men than the women. My body, My choice is wrong as men saying that is her problem. No sir. You need to man up and grow a pair.

The reasons women choose to end life, do not fall solely on her. She did not make the baby alone.

I also disagree that women get to “decide” to abort or to not, and men have no say so, in accords with the law.

Abortion kills a person and wounds a woman.

All these are appeals to emotion and morality, which can be good, but are not particularly relevant in the case of legality. The right to choose is a legal matter in the United States. The point I was attempting to make above is that it appears the US DOES treat embryos differently from born infants from a LEGAL standpoint. I was agreeing with the previous poster @Zake , that this should be recognized as a starting point in discussions, instead of being dismissed as though it is not an important distinction.

 

[Rockoh22]

All these are appeals to emotion and morality, which can be good, but are not particularly relevant in the case of legality

Why not? I can make the same argument about slave ownership and legality in the past. It is not about emotion or morality. It is about the truth. Simple. Are you committing a murder? Yes.

That sounds “emotional;” because for many people, abortion is nothing. Literally just a procedure equal to removing a wart from your knee. But that does not mean that abortion is not murder.

How is it that, a completely innocent person, gets to be torn apart at the womb, and people see this as bad as popping a pimple? Well, sin. Sin blinds us.

 

[Zake]

You are basing your “not a person” argument in a measurement done with instruments?

Of course. And the process to prove it is very simple. Start with a healthy adult. Gradually remove his organs and replace them (approximately) identically acting prostheses or transplants. The person is same. She acts/works the same way, has her emotions the same, her likes and dislikes are the same. She may be somewhat impaired, or maybe a tad like the million-dollar man, but basically she is pretty much what she used to be before the operation.

Now leave her intact, and remove her brain. Put her of a life-sustaining apparatus, artificial lung and heart to circulate her blood, artificial kidney… and so one. She will be a dead body, artificially kept in a status, which looks like living, but is definitely not. She cannot think, communicate, do anything that a person is expected to do. Paraphrasing Forrest Gump: “a person is as a person does.”

Irrespective of the body her brain occupies. You can call her a cyborg, but she is still - basically - the same. Medically, it is now possible to transplant a brain into a new body, and she will still be essentially the same.

Now, let’s examine someone who was lobotomized. This ex-person is just now a “nobody”. No thoughts, no desires. Because our personality - which is essential to be a person - was in the frontal lobe. No frontal lobe → no personality → no personhood.

As I said, simple!

 

[Rockoh22]

Now leave her intact, and remove her brain

You removed the brain, that is not the same. With the way medicine is advancing, do you not see a brain transplant in future times? Still falls within the same logic. I can not see the world is round, therefore we live in a flat earth.

 

[Zake]

You removed the brain, that is not the same.

So she gets a glass eye, or a denture, or an artificial heart - and she is still the same PERSON. Removing the brain will render her a non-PERSON. That is exactly what I was talking about. The personhood cannot be separated from a working brain. THEREFORE a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo are NOT persons.

 

[stpurl]

And what of the person whose brain ‘fails”? What of the elderly with dementia? Are they ‘not persons” too?

 

[ForeverLearn]

Why not? I can make the same argument about slave ownership and legality in the past. It is not about emotion or morality. It is about the truth. Simple. Are you committing a murder? Yes.

That sounds “emotional;” because for many people, abortion is nothing. Literally just a procedure equal to removing a wart from your knee. But that does not mean that abortion is not murder.

How is it that, a completely innocent person, gets to be torn apart at the womb, and people see this as bad as popping a pimple? Well, sin. Sin blinds us.

I will not further discuss the issue of abortion in this thread, and possibly not on the entire forum, because it always leads to the same unhelpful back-and-forth.

My view of abortion is that it is an extremely complex problem, that does not have a clear moral solution. My quarrel is with those who insist on a simple, unalterable answer. I think Christopher Hitchens possibly described it better than I ever could:

“By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about. The irresoluble conflict of right with right was Hegel’s definition of tragedy, and tragedy is inseparable from human life, and no advance in science or medicine is ever going to enable us to evade that.”

What makes me almost as sad as the potential humans that were lost, is the politicization of the issue. The utter donation of one’s vote, by groves of tribal humans in favor of a single issue, has lead to the rise of truly abhorrent political candidates to further their agenda and cause significant harm to the future of the United States of America. Of that, we ought not turn a blind eye to.

 

[upant]

The utter donation of one’s vote, by groves of tribal humans in favor of a single issue, has lead to the rise of truly abhorrent political candidates to further their agenda and cause significant harm to the future of the United States of America.

It isn’t just one issue.

The Democrats have pushed an anti-Catholic platform

abortion, 50 million kids a year die worldwide , 60 million in the USA since RvW
the LGBT agenda,
euthanasia,
embryonic stem cell research,
transgenderism,
identity politics,
the destruction of the family,
contraception,
socialism,
breaking the seal of the confession,
federal funds to pay for abortions,
forced abortions in Catholic hospitals,
the selection of liberal judges who will uphold these policies,
the anti-family welfare system,
etc

 

[Annie]

The point I was attempting to make above is that it appears the US DOES treat embryos differently from born infants from a LEGAL standpoint. I was agreeing with the previous poster @Zake , that this should be recognized as a starting point in discussions, instead of being dismissed as though it is not an important distinction.

Zake suggested that because we do not give the unborn Social Security numbers that we should be allowed to kill them.

We do not have to apply for Social Security numbers for children when they are born; it is just a process set up in 1987 to make it easier for parents, since the law had recently mandated a Social Security number for those claimed as dependents.

In the 1960s, it was still common for people not to get Social Security cards until they got a job.

Does that mean they were clearly not recognized as living humans before that, and therefore it would have been all right to kill them?

I think not.

 

[JonNC]

In the 1960s, it was still common for people not to get Social Security cards until they got a job.

Does that mean they were clearly not recognized as living humans before that, and therefore it would have been all right to kill them?

Good question. I didn’t get my social security card until I was 12 years old in 1966 when I got a paper route.
Social security numbers are not supposed to be for identification. My card says as much right on the front. They are certainly not a means of determining personhood.