Impeachment Collection

[JonNC]

Does not matter. Your assertion was: “ No one is forcing anyone to do that which causes a human being.” I pointed out that you are in error. Instead of accepting it, you try to change the goalposts. How typical.

@ProVobis. I think this supports what I wrote to you. I conceded those 5,000 or so innocents, but that didn’t matter. Rape really is really just an irrelevant distraction.

The DNA cannot determine if something is a human being , because it would make the mutants non-human. The problem for you is that there is no definition of “ what makes an entity a human being .” The biological concept of the “species” depends on the idea that members of the same species are able to procreate with each other. If a mutation prevents this, we have a brand new species. A mule is neither a horse, nor a donkey, even though they share a lot of DNA.

And the science of DNA doesn’t matter, either.
I think the intervening parts are answered by others.

Now to the end:

No, they don’t. And the expression “pro-abortionist” is incorrect. Pro-choice is the correct word. Besides, the difference between potential and actual is not a political question.

You say it is not the same, then continue to use the same basic premise: they are really not human, which was the excuse 200+ years ago.
When the soon to be born human being has a choice to live, then it will be pro-choice.

I have no problem to read and respond to your incorrect definitions and assertions. I hope that others will learn from them. And besides it is “for amusement only”, as the old pinball machines used to say.

The killing of 800,000 human beings. I don’t see that as “for amusement only”. But then, you’ve expressed the belief they’re not humans, so who cares.

 

[Economist]

So it is the severing of the umbilical cord that suddenly makes a baby human?

Legally, yes. Just like the receiving of a diploma is what “suddenly” changes the medical student into a physician. And there is good reason for that. That is the point when the potential is realized and becomes actual. A “being” is a biologically independently existing like-form, which does not have to rely on a specific being’s bodily resources.

Yet both are human life.

So is a tumor. Or an organ waiting to be transplanted.

So please explain to me what reproductive freedom means to you.

Simple. If the woman wishes to become a mother, her wish must be respected. If she does not wish to become a mother, her wish also has to be respected. She might get pregnant either accidentally, or purposefully. The act leading to the pregnancy is either consensual, or forced. She may or may not have used a prevention method.

Regardless, it must be her choice to carry the pregnancy to term. That is what reproductive freedom means.

Rape really is really just an irrelevant distraction.

Not irrelevant, since some of these new laws do not take it into account. It speaks well of you, that at least you would make it an exception.

And the science of DNA doesn’t matter, either.

Well, then what does? It is a frequent argument that the zygote has a new DNA and therefore it is a new human being.

You say it is not the same, then continue to use the same basic premise: they are really not human, which was the excuse 200+ years ago.

That was based upon the Bible. Be careful about your sources.

I don’t see that as “for amusement only”.

You either intentionally, or purposefully misunderstand what I said. The “amusement” belongs to this and other conversations. Not the referents of those conversations.

To be continued.

 

[Economist]

I guess, a short summary is in order. In this thread there is an ongoing argument that the “progressives” (read liberals, read freedom-lovers) want extend the power of the government at the expense of the individual liberties. That is incorrect. It is the “regressives” (read ultra-conservatives, read enemies of reproductive freedom) who want to impose their ideas upon the women, who want lead their lives without governmental interference. I understand their motives, even if I disagree with them.

However, I blame them for being hypocrites. It is they (not the progressives) who want to extend the power of the government, and who want to take away the reproductive freedom of the women. Disagreement does not have to be intellectually dishonest. You want to turn women into breeding sacks? You want to change the US into Gilead? I disagree with you, but accept that this is your desire. But at least be intellectually honest about it. There are those so-called “mortal sins”. In my eyes, there is only one mortal sin: hypocrisy.

The unresolved question: “just who is a human being” is a good topic for a conversation. It is mostly a philosophical issue, sprinkled with some biology and legal questions. It might be a good topic to explore. But there are several impediments. One major impediment it the confusion of “potential” and “actual”, which was well documented in the works of Aquinas. Another is the hopscotch type of jumping among the DNA, the zygote, the organ and the organism. These categories are not arbitrary and they must be separated. Yet another one is the infusion of histrionics, bringing in emotional “arguments”. The next one is to bring in the arguments of “others”. If you wish to conduct a conversation, restrict it to I say, not what others (allegedly) say.

And, of course, please stay away from the “But Mommy, Johnny did it, too!” types of “non-arguments”. State your views, and I will be happy to discuss them, respectfully, even if I disagree with them. There is a wonderful book: “May it please the Court”, which contains the most important and most controversial cases brought to the Supreme Court. It is a fascinating read. One thing is common across all the arguments. Neither side can be accused of speaking in an attempt to persuade in a misleading nonsensical way; they both presented their case well and properly. Even if one strongly agreed with one side, and vehemently disagreed with the other, neither side could be accused of grandstanding, of using emotional arguments.

 

[grotto]

Although my coffee curdled reading the long dissertation defense of a college attendee, it seems clear that the author is a pro-abort feminist.
A stand up man, with the backbone of courage, and driven by his nature to protect and provide, doesn’t profess support for killing babies in the womb and selling their body parts. (Serial killers would).
The most twisted support is found in women with higher education and misleading those women with less.

 

[7_Sorrows]

@Economist - did you address the scenario
I presented in my previous post?

What about learning to accept responsibility for one’s actions as compared to reproductive freedom. I think reproductive freedom has gone down an extreme road.
Is it considered old fashioned to see the womb
as sacred and motherhood as a blessing and
a gift God gave women? Is it old fashioned
for women to respect their bodies and their
moral character?

 

[JonNC]

Yet both are human life.

Name a tumor that can, in time, live on its own.

So please explain to me what reproductive freedom means to you.

That choice comes prior to the existence of another human being. But again here you reveal the phony pretense that coercion (rape) is of any importance. The issue comes down to the existence of another human being, which above you compare to a tumor.
Further, it is this “decision “ to not be a mother which can be used to allow a live born child to die. It is, after all, the woman’s choice.
How long after birth? Who knows? It is her choice.

Not irrelevant, since some of these new laws do not take it into account. It speaks well of you, that at least you would make it an exception.

Above you make it clear it is irrelevant.

She might get pregnant either accidentally, or purposefully. The act leading to the pregnancy is either consensual, or forced. She may or may not have used a prevention method.

Regardless, it must be her choice to carry the pregnancy to term. That is what reproductive freedom means.

Regardless. Your word.

Well, then what does? It is a frequent argument that the zygote has a new DNA and therefore it is a new human being.

And so it is. The DNA of the not yet born human is the same they will live with their entire life.

That was based upon the Bible. Be careful about your sources.

The source that claims an unborn human is equivalent to a tumor is the same as the one that Sanger used. It is a source of human arrogance and identity politics.

You either intentionally, or purposefully misunderstand what I said. The “amusement” belongs to this and other conversations. Not the referents of those conversations.

A conversation about the sanctity of human life is amusement. Disturbing indeed.

 

[PaulinVA]

Mueller’s Seething Message: This Isn’t a Hoax, This Is a Crime

The special counsel is too reserved to say what he really means: Russia attacked America and Trump broke the law.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Economist]

Although my coffee curdled reading the long dissertation defense of a college attendee, it seems clear that the author is a pro-abort feminist.

Switch over to tea, or stop reading what others say. You also drew incorrect conclusions. I an not a pro-abort feminist, I am a pro-choice humanist. As a joke, I can attest that I am a lesbian, who was mistakenly born into a male body. But I still prefer women, as any good lesbian would. (Maybe you understand the humor).

did you address the scenario I presented in my previous post?

I responded to your question. In detail.

I think reproductive freedom has gone down an extreme road.

It is your opinion, which is respected, but not accepted.

Is it considered old fashioned to see the womb as sacred and motherhood as a blessing and a gift God gave women?

Again, your opinion is respected, but rejected. Can’t be more honest about it.

Name a tumor that can, in time, live on its own.

Name a zygote that can live on its own - before it changes into a being that is born.

That choice comes prior to the existence of another human being.

Just be honest about it. In your eyes the women loses her right to self-determination when a conception occurs. She is degraded into the role of a breeding sack. I accept that this is your opinion, but be honest and up-front about it. Preferably go out to demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic, and hold up a big sign: “You are now declared to be breeding sacks, who lost their right to self-determination, and who must be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.” Try it, and see what will happen. Let us know when you will do it. I would love to see the result.

And so it is. The DNA of the not yet born human is the same they will live with their entire life.

What about the mutants?

A conversation about the sanctity of human life is amusement.

No one forces you to participate.

 

[Economist]

Mueller’s Seething Message: This Isn’t a Hoax, This Is a Crime​

The special counsel is too reserved to say what he really means: Russia attacked America and Trump broke the law.

Every word is true. Let’s see Congress do its job. Let it conduct the necessary investigation, let is assert the “inherent contempt” and throw the guilty parties into jail.

Even to start the inquiries will have a wonderful effect, strip the phony executive privilege and ensure the real transparency. It would be interesting to see the phony academic results of the “very stable genius” and his fake bone-spurs. It would be a great start.

 

[vz71]

@Economist - did you address the scenario
I presented in my previous post?

I have seen a pattern here of placing the same argument, having it soundly refuted, and then dropping everything and moving to another thread.

 

[vz71]

So is a tumor. Or an organ waiting to be transplanted.

A tumor, properly supported, will simply cause disease to worsen.
An organ is simply a part of another.

Neither is a proper comparison to the life that appears at conception.

This was addressed in several other threads.

 

[F_Marturana]

My husbsnd had a tumor that was removed. If it wasn’t removed it would have spread, and eventually killed him I assume.

We have 3 kids, that started off as one cell and now are teens and preteens. None of them are malignant.

 

[PaulinVA]

teens and preteens. None of them are malignant.

Well, not yet…

 

[7_Sorrows]

what are you talking about? @ vz71

 

[vz71]

what are you talking about?

I have seen these same arguments put forward by the same person.
Then the same arguments refuted well.
Then the same person leaves the thread and tries the same arguments again elsewhere.

 

[Divine3]

Published on Oct 7, 2018

"Thirty years after the decision in Morrison v. Olson, questions raised in Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent continue to inform legal debate on the separation of powers and the unitary executive. Some scholars consider Justice Scalia’s dissent to be his finest opinion. What can today’s law school students learn from Scalia’s dissent? Did Justice Scalia err in his reasoning? How do the issues still resonate in American politics today? "

Professor Gary Lawson of Boston University School of Law, Professor Richard Pildes of New York University School of Law, and Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher discuss Morrison v. Olson and the lasting impact of Justice Scalia’s lone dissent.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/morrison-v-olson-bad-law

“And she quoted Walter Dellinger, who observed that “[t]he parade of horribles envisioned by Justice Scalia is now marching right down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Justice Scalia’s dissent, of course, was based on constitutional objections; even his parade of horribles was no freestanding policy critique, but a claim that when the constitutional mechanism is deliberately thrown out of kilter, serious institutional damage will predictably occur.”

…" always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker."

 

[JonNC]

From the article:

Mueller spoke for the first time—and what he apparently hopes will be the last time—about his report. He seemed determined to avoid further delay and political gamesmanship, suggesting that all he has to say appears in his report. Translation: You don’t need me to testify if you will just read the [darn] report!

And here it is, Mueller’s attempt to inoculate himself from having to testify and defend his incompetent actions, his failure to properly do his job.
He doesn’t want to face cross examination into how he carried out his investigation.

 

[JonNC]

Name a tumor that can, in time, live on its own.

In time, virtually all of them.

Just be honest about it. In your eyes the women loses her right to self-determination when a conception occurs.

In my eyes, the father does, too. Leaving the rare instance of rape and incest involving a minor aside, They chose to do that which brings about a living human being. They have exercised their rights without interference by government.

She is degraded into the role of a breeding sack.

Those are your words and you view of child birth. I consider it an honorable event. Mothers should be held in high esteem and regard, not demeaned as you have done here.

“You are now declared to be breeding sacks, who lost their right to self-determination, and who must be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.”

Your words. Your position regarding women and child birth.

What about the mutants?

Wow. You seem to have no regard for human life at all. Birth defects are not the fault of the child or parents, typically. Compassion and love are required, not dismissal and disregard.

No one forces you to participate.

Those of us who believe in speaking against the evil practice of abortion.

 

[PaulinVA]

And here it is, Mueller’s attempt to inoculate himself from having to testify and defend his incompetent actions, his failure to properly do his job.

Jon, I think he did exactly what he meant to do, and was not incompetent. The fact you disagree with how he interpreted his mandate and how he interpreted the OLC rule’s affect on his work just means you disagree. It has nothing to do with his competence…

 

[7_Sorrows]

Oh, I understand now. Thanks for
clarifying. We will see if the poster returns to reply.