JayL

iTrader: (12)

The problem is how the entire argument is framed, it's truly an argument about where life begins.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

No. I will refer you back to that thread, but to give a TL;DR version: If this were truly the case, first trimester abortions wouldn't be an issue. There is no scientific or even logical argument for that case, only religious.

JayL

iTrader: (12)

That's just one side of it. If you could convince everyone to believe that then there wouldn't be much of an argument.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

23 weeks is the earliest scientific evidence of what you argue, Jay.

It's not "one side of it", that's just the flat out scientifically supported evidence.

The earliest argument you can logically make involves the formation of the fetus, which is still (approximately) the start of the second trimester.

This also does not excuse the logic of "Let the mother die!" There's no scientific, medical, moral, or ethical grounds for not allowing abortion if the mother would otherwise die from carrying the child. Only religious.

Here's an in-depth article as to why it is absolutely ------- ridiculous to even try to argue life begins at conception: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

JayL

iTrader: (12)

That's the issue, you feel that you have a logical argument when it's only "logical" in a person who thinks the same way as you do.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Except that I'm arguing from a legal and scientific perspective.

Or are you stating that you wish laws made and interpreted based on religion, rather than scientific and legal facts? My argument has nothing to do with personal biases or beliefs, simply scientific and legal facts. Even the heavily pro-life duo of scientists that set out to try to prove fetuses felt pain and were conscious at 8 weeks at all costs not only were unable to prove that, but they themselves came up with very ironclad proof putting 8 months as the earliest supporting evidence the pro-life crowd can trot out (See article I linked in my previous post for more detail).

I have no interest in personal beliefs or religious dogma on this topic. If you know of scientific or legal facts that I am unaware of, please, educate me. But I certainly pray our legislators do not further step into the insanity that is legislating beliefs over contradictory legal and scientific fact. Every scientific and legal fact that has been established - even by the pro-life crowd that tries to approach it scientifically, instead of religiously - supports this. I'm not arguing my personal beliefs here, as I have intentionally constrained myself to keep all statements I make limited to scientific fact I have sources readily available to quote as needed.

P.S. The first amendment applies both ways. It keeps the government out of religious dogma - but religious dogma is also supposed to stay out of government, and is supposed to be an absolute guard against enforcing one group's beliefs on others.

JayL

iTrader: (12)

There isn't a clear cut legal and scientific perspective. There's a belief on both sides of the argument that fuels the debate. That's why this is an issue that will never be resolved.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

No, it's very clearcut.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on personhood (In the terms of the time: viability, Roe v. Wade. Calling it "personhood" is merely a similar tactic to calling "creationism" "Intelligent Design", people are trying to get around the Roe v. Wade decision with incredibly stupid semantics.) See my previous linked article that elaborates on it, and for ***** sake, please read it already.

All that is left on the debate is to define what personhood specifically is. Even the most hardcore pro-life advocates were only able to, if using strict peer-reviewed science, come to a definition that started at around ~8 months. You might be able to make an argument for the 22-23 week range. If you revert to the Fetus argument, okay, beginning of second trimester.

Anything else is pure religious dogma, nothing more.

JayL

iTrader: (12)

It's not clearcut, hence why there's an argument.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, you are saying we get to discard supreme court decisions and ignore them at will? Are you going to suggest I ignore the IRS next and never pay my taxes because I believe I shouldn't have to pay taxes?

We already have a legal metric to define personhood (Actually, viability), and it's been decided by the Supreme Court.

If anyone says "From conception", they are frankly an idiot with no idea whatsoever behind how our legal system works. The Supreme Court has already set a specific legal framework to define "personhood", or "viability". It's existed for decades. The whole bullshit behind "Personhood" is merely people trying to play a thinly veiled game of semantics to get around the Roe v. Wade decision.

JayL

iTrader: (12)

A Supreme Court decision doesn't change an individuals mind. It establishes a precedence that future courts may follow when looking/deciding how to interpret a law. This has no bearing on how an individual views the world and the laws that surround it.

If anyone who looks at "from conception" is an idiot, then I feel you fail to understand the root argument. Once again, a court is free to decide the framework for "personhood" or "viability", that doesn't imply that the court is right and everyone will agree with the decision.

A court can decide any which way it likes, but an individual can have a belief that sides with either side of that judgment. A lack of understanding for how the opposition thinks is what I find the offensive.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And I'm going to quote myself in response to this, as I already covered your entire post (As well as successfully predicted the content of it) prior.

This is a cut and dry, well-settled legal and scientific situation. This whole deal is nothing more than a thinly-veiled religious movement trying to push a religious agenda on the nation. However, the religious folks cannot push it as religion due to the First Amendment because there is no legal or scientific basis behind them, so they thinly veil it in obvious bullshit, such as "personal beliefs" (Aka, religious beliefs) and concern over "personhood". This is the exact same BS we see over "Intelligent Design" not being "Creationism".

P.S. Anyone who believes "Intelligent Design" is not "Creationism" is also an idiot. Feel free to get offended by that too. However, even our courts have held that ID is Creationism.
P.P.S. The religious nutjobs pushing this also realize there are only two ways around Roe v. Wade - a constitutional amendment, or a later supreme court decision overturning it. As a result, that's why they spread the "Personhood" BS, because they know neither will happen, and they need a way around it.
P.P.P.S. One of the greatest tragedies of our system due to ------- Political Correctness is that people lost the ***** to call out an idiot for being an idiot. This whole situation is one of the greatest illustrations of that.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Roe has since changed her mind on the subject, will the supreme court not then drop the case?



and god id love to be so self-absorbed that if i think something it has to be gospel and everyone is wrong and stupid.

JayL

iTrader: (12)

Saying that this is a "cut and dry, well-settled legal and scientific situation" implies that there's a consensus on the issue. Whatever the reason may be, there isn't an understanding on either side and that's why this will continue forever.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

nonono. blaen99 said it's cut and dry, therefore it's cut and dry. When he voices his opinion, its done.

the only people that make it no so cut-and-dry are the cult members they are the only people who disagree and make it a big deal. the only ones. everything one thinks exactly like blaen. even myself.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You are right, there are only multiple supreme court decisions on the issue and a large amount of scientific research on the topic, all with near-universal consensus.

It must not be a cut and dry, very well-settled legal or scientific situation then! Even though it has more court decisions and scientific study done on it than any other topic we've brought up in the past few months on here! Or, maybe, just maybe we've got a group of religious people trying to push religious beliefs as legislation, while trying to pretend they aren't religious beliefs and trying to push them in such a fashion as to try to override the science and legal background on it. I mean, maybe, just theoretically, they are using the exact same method with this as they did and do with creationism/ID.

Our courts are deciders of fact, Jay. "Personal" beliefs (Read: Religious beliefs) have no place in legislation or in our courts. Pushing your religious beliefs on me via legislation is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Brainy can run up and down with his hands in the air flapping them wildly all he wants. But it doesn't change the situation. The First Amendment does not apply only when you want it to. It applies universally.

But if you have some factual evidence that is not just your personal/religious belief, let me know. However, I think the article I linked absolutely killed any argument you want to try to make before you even try to make it.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

so i guess it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

These are the disconnects you are either failing to appreciate or are implicitly ignoring:

A) The Supreme Court has changed their decisions on things during different time periods.

B) You are assuming a secular answer is automatically superior to a spiritual/religious one, ipso facto.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

capitalists are the best friends of workers.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)