Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Attila
2017-02-05 09:48:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
Not interested, because not pertinent.
Because they disagree with your position? Awkward isn't it?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:14:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify. A fetus cannot
inherit, be counted in a census, be a tax deduction, obtain a
passport, own property, or be required to buy an airline ticket just
to mention a few.
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Is a cloned human life a person?
The law has not addressed clones directly but if it survived live
'birth' it would probably be considered a human being. That is too
general a statement to directly answer. Was it implanted in a woman
who cried it to term and then gave birth? If it survived, yes. Is it
still a speck in a petri dish? No.
Is a human life that is frozen via cryogenics before death a person?
If the individual ha not been legally pronounced dead, yes. Once live
birth has been survived only death can end that status.
Since we have no way as yet to thaw and revive them yet.... are they NOT
a person until we have that technology or not a person while frozen.
That would depend on what the local courts have ruled.
When are they a person? If the law is there that can define then someone
can point to the power in the constitution that allows for it.
In the 14th amendment is says "All persons born" meaning that a citizen
is first a person in the uterus and NOT born. Then when that person is
born in the U.S. they are a citizen.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."
So the person in the uterus that is born in the U.S. is a citizen. and
a person born elsewhere can become a U.S. citizen. But it says they were
a all persons first, before being born
Are you aware of how stupid you sound in making such a statement?
and that when born in the U.S.
the person is a citizen instantly upon birth. They aren't a fetus and
then a person and then a citizen since being born in the U.S. makes you
a citizen so abortions in the U.S. not only violate the rights of a
person it violates their exercising their right to become a citizen that
is guaranteed by the constitution by being born.
More abject stupidity. No need to continue any further.
Citizens and persons
who are future citizens have a right to their birth which makes them a
citizen otherwise you're discriminating against blacks and the prisoners
babies/persons inside the uterus that were guaranteed the right to
exercise their right to be born citizens.
The whole point of that was to make slaves that were NOT Naturalized or
born here into persons able to have children that were citizens. You're
violating the civil rights of black babies in the uterus that are
persons, and have a right to become citizens and their right is spelled
out in the constitution in the 14th Amendment.
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not a
liberal. I do not agree with the Republicans at all on the issue of
abortion or the influence of religion (or the inclusion of religion in
public life) but other than that if I have an opinion it is usually so
far to the right you can't find it with radar.

For example, I see no need for a multi-million dollar fence along the
Southern border. Just put up two chain link fences about a quarter
mile apart and turn the separation area into a kill zone with land
mines, radar controlled automatic weapons, mortars, artillery, and
armed drones. Make it a test bed for any new weapon systems. Do
whatever is needed to insure nothing bigger than a rabbit could
survive long enough to cross it.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify.
Begging the question. There is no *reason* that ought to be the law.
You've been asked - and have fled in terror from answering - why that
*ought* to be the law. As always, you lazily and sophomorically fall
back on believing that what is the law ought to be the law...until
something that the law is discomfits you. That's what sophists and
hypocrites always do.
Post by Attila
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.

You will now spout your bullshit about morality being entirely
subjective. You are wrong.
Post by Attila
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not a
liberal
Your signature is the biggest steaming, reeking pile of horseshit ever
used as a signature. It's pure narcissism. You fancy yourself at some
uniquely superior vantage point on the political spectrum such that you
can see great truths better than anyone else. Bullshit - fucking
bullshit. What you are is a sophist, and a talentless one at that.

Your lack of talent extends to the fact that you don't know how properly
to append your signature sophistry to your bespoke sophistry. When
people have done it correctly, the signature is not automatically
included in the responses of those who want to apply to your bespoke
sophistry. You've fucked it up and done it incorrectly.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-05 17:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:32:11 -0700, Just Wondering
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of
meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms
are used for
various stages of development - the most common being
fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it
dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term
"human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely
socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered
members of
the community and given names until they survived their
first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify.
Begging the question. There is no *reason* that ought to be the law.
You've been asked - and have fled in terror from answering - why that
*ought* to be the law. As always, you lazily and sophomorically fall
back on believing that what is the law ought to be the law...until
something that the law is discomfits you. That's what sophists and
hypocrites always do.
Post by Attila
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS? And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus? The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life wthin the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Post by Mike Kuhn
You will now spout your bullshit about morality being entirely
subjective. You are wrong.
Post by Attila
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not a
liberal
If it walks and talks like a duck...


Why do Liberals hate blacks so much?
--
That's Karma
Dr. T.T. Liams
2017-02-05 20:42:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:32:11 -0700, Just Wondering
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of
meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms
are used for
various stages of development - the most common being
fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it
dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term
"human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely
socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered
members of
the community and given names until they survived their
first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify.
Begging the question. There is no *reason* that ought to be the law.
You've been asked - and have fled in terror from answering - why that
*ought* to be the law. As always, you lazily and sophomorically fall
back on believing that what is the law ought to be the law...until
something that the law is discomfits you. That's what sophists and
hypocrites always do.
Post by Attila
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS? And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus? The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life wthin the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Post by Mike Kuhn
You will now spout your bullshit about morality being entirely
subjective. You are wrong.
Post by Attila
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not a
liberal
If it walks and talks like a duck...
Why do Liberals hate blacks so much?
I beg to differ, Dr. Scotty. We know it is Trump and the Republicans
that hate blacks. As regards the foetus, it is not human until born.
As a Scientist, I can make that statement with authority.
--
Oppression is not a right.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-05 21:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:32:11 -0700, Just Wondering
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of
meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms
are used for
various stages of development - the most common being
fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it
dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being"
that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term
"human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely
socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered
members of
the community and given names until they survived their
first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized
egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify.
Begging the question. There is no *reason* that ought to be the law.
You've been asked - and have fled in terror from answering - why that
*ought* to be the law. As always, you lazily and sophomorically fall
back on believing that what is the law ought to be the law...until
something that the law is discomfits you. That's what sophists and
hypocrites always do.
Post by Attila
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS? And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus? The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life wthin the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Post by Mike Kuhn
You will now spout your bullshit about morality being entirely
subjective. You are wrong.
Post by Attila
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not a
liberal
If it walks and talks like a duck...
Why do Liberals hate blacks so much?
I beg to differ, Dr. Scotty. We know it is Trump and the Republicans
that hate blacks. As regards the foetus, it is not human until born.
As a Scientist, I can make that statement with authority.
What authority, I never voted for you....?????
--
That's Karma
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-02-05 23:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:21:08 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:32:11 -0700, Just Wondering
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of
meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms
are used for
various stages of development - the most common being
fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it
dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being"
that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term
"human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely
socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered
members of
the community and given names until they survived their
first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized
egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete
possible future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus
permits without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person
and which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?
Many laws require a born alive person to qualify.
Begging the question. There is no *reason* that ought to be the law.
You've been asked - and have fled in terror from answering - why that
*ought* to be the law. As always, you lazily and sophomorically fall
back on believing that what is the law ought to be the law...until
something that the law is discomfits you. That's what sophists and
hypocrites always do.
Post by Attila
Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until
it's delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person
so they also have no rights?
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS? And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus? The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life wthin the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Post by Mike Kuhn
You will now spout your bullshit about morality being entirely
subjective. You are wrong.
Post by Attila
Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
If you would bother to read my signature you would see that I am not
a liberal
If it walks and talks like a duck...
Why do Liberals hate blacks so much?
I beg to differ, Dr. Scotty. We know it is Trump and the Republicans
that hate blacks. As regards the foetus, it is not human until born.
As a Scientist, I can make that statement with authority.
Political scientist?

Sorry bunkie, but science, as I learned it was objective. Oddly, against
all reason most modern science seems to follow the prog party line. A lot
like Nazi science.
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
--
Oppression is not a right.
It's a duty.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Attila
2017-02-05 21:36:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus?
I see you consider a Back human life completely different from a
regular human life and in a completely separate category.

Interesting.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life wthin the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Whatever that means.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-05 21:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus?
I see you consider a Back human life completely different from a
regular human life and in a completely separate category.
NO I just see Democrats see it that way so I have to relate to Democrats
why their view of blacks and their view of human life in a uterus is
contradictory.
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Interesting.
NO it's tedious that Democrats are so simplistic and unable to view
things an many levels at the same time.
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life within the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Whatever that means.
The point you just made is you are stuck with linear (One dimensional)
thinking.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-02-06 09:20:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And if NOT then why should we do that to a tiny human
life or a black human life inside a uterus?
I see you consider a Back human life completely different from a
regular human life and in a completely separate category.
NO I just see Democrats see it that way so I have to relate to Democrats
why their view of blacks and their view of human life in a uterus is
contradictory.
You are the one who separates human life and black human life:
"a tiny human life or a black human life". Your distinction is clear.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Interesting.
NO it's tedious that Democrats are so simplistic and unable to view
things an many levels at the same time.
It is interesting how you seem to find the subject of "black" under
every rock.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The GPS coordinates of the
Human life is irrelevant as long as it's a human life within the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Whatever that means.
The point you just made is you are stuck with linear (One dimensional)
thinking.
Whatever that means.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-06 16:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject. Apparently you couldn't address the content so you chose to
attack the Subject. You deleted all the meat and you left the garnish.
The constitution proves that a human life in a uterus is a person. And
it was in the 14th amendment which Liberals say was a post slavery
amendment that fixed racial inequality... I addressed that because it
makes the point that your position on abortion is in conflict with the
reason and the text that was laid out in the person being born a
citizen. It is a racially based amendment for the benefit of the blacks
that were slaves and were NOT instantly citizens and future immigrants.
The emancipation proclamation did not make all persons into citizens.

Were you just elected to be the "subject" police?

Women claim abortion to be their right and to NOT have that right is
discrimination, I was using the Liberal women's own linkage. The blacks
have a right to become a citizen (it's in the 14th) but to do that the
black person must be born. SO the women's right to abortion violates the
blacks right to full emancipation and freedom and the right to be a
citizen. What Liberals want to do is to kill the slave in the uterus
and yet the person in the uterus is NOT a slave and is a free person and
has a right spelled out in the 14th that they have a right to be a
citizen and that means they have a right to their birth.

There is a problem, a woman getting an abortion is violating the rights
of the blacks and all the others going to be a citizen. A right that is
in the constitution while the right to health care is NOT enumerated....
but Liberals believe is also equally a right. If the right to health
care means the government is responsible then the right to citizenship
is just as much a responsibility and right that government must provide.
It's also in the interest of the health of the person in the uterus that
has a right to become a citizen.

The women claim it as sexual discrimination when they don't get special
womens rights.

" why would she have a right to abortion? "
That's from the Subject line



That's from the subject, and as all rights are connected by the U.S.
Constitution, it's all part of the SUBJECT.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
4 - A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but
when either Liberalism or alcohol takes control, they become self
destructive.
Attila
2017-02-06 20:10:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else. The freedom of choice is available for all pregnant
women with no other qualification required. Black, white, or pale
green just doesn't matter.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Apparently you couldn't address the content so you chose to
attack the Subject. You deleted all the meat and you left the garnish.
The constitution proves that a human life in a uterus is a person. And
it was in the 14th amendment which Liberals say was a post slavery
amendment that fixed racial inequality... I addressed that because it
makes the point that your position on abortion is in conflict with the
reason and the text that was laid out in the person being born a
citizen. It is a racially based amendment for the benefit of the blacks
that were slaves and were NOT instantly citizens and future immigrants.
The emancipation proclamation did not make all persons into citizens.
Were you just elected to be the "subject" police?
Women claim abortion to be their right and to NOT have that right is
discrimination, I was using the Liberal women's own linkage. The blacks
have a right to become a citizen (it's in the 14th) but to do that the
black person must be born. SO the women's right to abortion violates the
blacks right to full emancipation and freedom and the right to be a
citizen. What Liberals want to do is to kill the slave in the uterus
and yet the person in the uterus is NOT a slave and is a free person and
has a right spelled out in the 14th that they have a right to be a
citizen and that means they have a right to their birth.
There is a problem, a woman getting an abortion is violating the rights
of the blacks and all the others going to be a citizen. A right that is
in the constitution while the right to health care is NOT enumerated....
but Liberals believe is also equally a right. If the right to health
care means the government is responsible then the right to citizenship
is just as much a responsibility and right that government must provide.
It's also in the interest of the health of the person in the uterus that
has a right to become a citizen.
The women claim it as sexual discrimination when they don't get special
womens rights.
" why would she have a right to abortion? "
That's from the Subject line
That's from the subject, and as all rights are connected by the U.S.
Constitution, it's all part of the SUBJECT.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-06 20:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else.
Then why does a right to abortion negate a right to become a U.S.
Citizen? DO you hate NON citizens (persons inside a uterus) or believe
they're inferior like slaves?
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-02-06 23:13:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:34:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else.
Then why does a right to abortion negate a right to become a U.S.
Citizen?
It doesn't. An abortion terminates a pregnancy therefore there is no
live birth and thus no person who can qualify to be a citizen.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
DO you hate NON citizens (persons inside a uterus) or believe
they're inferior like slaves?
There are no persons inside a uterus. Such would suffocate.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-07 15:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:34:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else.
Then why does a right to abortion negate a right to become a U.S.
Citizen?
It doesn't. An abortion terminates a pregnancy therefore there is no
live birth and thus no person who can qualify to be a citizen.
If they have a right.... and the 14th says a "person" has the right to
become a citizen when born in the U.S. jurisdiction... Of course if the
human life is NOT a person because we say illegal aliens inside a uterus
are without rights then it doesn't have a right to citizenship.

Can you prevent a gay from buying a gay wedding cake? If you can NOT
prevent a gay from buying a *cake that doesn't exist yet* then why can
one human life prevent another human life from exercising a right to
become a citizen. Does a baby inside a uterus have a right to health
care? And why would it, if you say it has no right to citizenship.


Women don't own the parasites in their body. If they did they wouldn't
need a prescription for a pill to kill worms and other such parasites in
their intestinal system. All parasite treatment would be over the
counter the same as abortion pills. A woman's uterus is no more hers
than her intestinal system is hers.

Obviously Liberals would have no right to buy a gay wedding cake, under
your supposed system of rights. Just as you say the person inside the
uterus has no right to achieve and exercise their right to become a
citizen, apparently the gay marriage persons can't exercise their right
to buy a cake unless there is a gay wedding cake in the display case
already made and is being refused to be sold for a gay wedding. You
can't have a right to buy what never existed, just as you say a baby
that never existed inside a uterus can't exercise it's right to become a
citizen until it's born.

Or a right to buy a gun isn't valid before you go into the store and see
the gun in the store.

The truth is the right to be a citizen is valid before you exit
during the birth. If you have that right then the government can't
allow others to stop you from getting there. And no one else has a right
to stop you from exercising your rights even if you are a human life
inside a uterus.

You say that a non existent thing "a person in a uterus" has no rights
that can be used on it until after it's created. And you contend that
it's created at birth.

If it's NOT a person inside the uterus then you can abuse the human
life. Alcohol and drugs would have no legal effect until the human life
is born.... but the human life inside the uterus has rights as a person
before it's born, and one of those rights is in the 14th amendment and
is says the human life is a person inside the
uterus and that person will be a citizen when born in the U.S.
Jurisdiction.

[""""Amendment XIV
Section 1. *All persons born or naturalized* in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside.""""""]

Persons is before born in the sentence, that means the human life is a
person before it's born otherwise it would say "all citizens born"
meaning that all people who were born in the U.S. were citizens and the
only persons would be people that were NOT naturalized citizens and NOT
yet born here so a visiting pregnancy is a person NOT a citizen just as
a visiting person is NOT a citizen. The right to be a citizen is
guaranteed to persons who follow the laws for for naturalization, in
other words you can't deny a person in the U.S. the opportunity to try
to become a citizen.


Hos can you constitutionally deny a person inside a uterus that same
right of exercising the opportunity by being born. You deprive them of
a right that the constitution is protecting. The right to become a U.S.
citizen.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-02-07 17:27:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:34:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else.
Then why does a right to abortion negate a right to become a U.S.
Citizen?
It doesn't. An abortion terminates a pregnancy therefore there is no
live birth and thus no person who can qualify to be a citizen.
If they have a right.... and the 14th says a "person" has the right to
become a citizen when born in the U.S. jurisdiction... Of course if the
human life is NOT a person because we say illegal aliens inside a uterus
are without rights then it doesn't have a right to citizenship.
A fetus has no rights. Period.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Can you prevent a gay from buying a gay wedding cake? If you can NOT
prevent a gay from buying a *cake that doesn't exist yet* then why can
one human life prevent another human life from exercising a right to
become a citizen. Does a baby inside a uterus have a right to health
care? And why would it, if you say it has no right to citizenship.
Women don't own the parasites in their body. If they did they wouldn't
need a prescription for a pill to kill worms and other such parasites in
their intestinal system. All parasite treatment would be over the
counter the same as abortion pills. A woman's uterus is no more hers
than her intestinal system is hers.
Obviously Liberals would have no right to buy a gay wedding cake, under
your supposed system of rights. Just as you say the person inside the
uterus has no right to achieve and exercise their right to become a
citizen, apparently the gay marriage persons can't exercise their right
to buy a cake unless there is a gay wedding cake in the display case
already made and is being refused to be sold for a gay wedding. You
can't have a right to buy what never existed, just as you say a baby
that never existed inside a uterus can't exercise it's right to become a
citizen until it's born.
Or a right to buy a gun isn't valid before you go into the store and see
the gun in the store.
The truth is the right to be a citizen is valid before you exit
during the birth. If you have that right then the government can't
allow others to stop you from getting there. And no one else has a right
to stop you from exercising your rights even if you are a human life
inside a uterus.
You say that a non existent thing "a person in a uterus" has no rights
that can be used on it until after it's created. And you contend that
it's created at birth.
If it's NOT a person inside the uterus then you can abuse the human
life. Alcohol and drugs would have no legal effect until the human life
is born.... but the human life inside the uterus has rights as a person
before it's born, and one of those rights is in the 14th amendment and
is says the human life is a person inside the
uterus and that person will be a citizen when born in the U.S.
Jurisdiction.
[""""Amendment XIV
Section 1. *All persons born or naturalized* in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside.""""""]
Persons is before born in the sentence, that means the human life is a
person before it's born otherwise it would say "all citizens born"
meaning that all people who were born in the U.S. were citizens and the
only persons would be people that were NOT naturalized citizens and NOT
yet born here so a visiting pregnancy is a person NOT a citizen just as
a visiting person is NOT a citizen. The right to be a citizen is
guaranteed to persons who follow the laws for for naturalization, in
other words you can't deny a person in the U.S. the opportunity to try
to become a citizen.
Hos can you constitutionally deny a person inside a uterus that same
right of exercising the opportunity by being born. You deprive them of
a right that the constitution is protecting. The right to become a U.S.
citizen.
All persons have been born alive.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-07 18:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:34:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:59:13 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:50:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Dr. T.T. Liams
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
If the proper amendments were ratified the Constitution can make
anything legal, including slavery.
Legal isn't the issue. What is right is the issue. Human beings are
endowed with natural rights, and no law or constitution may morally
violate those rights.
Then he needs to answer the question... *SHOULD* WE DECLARE BLACKS TO
NOT BE PERSONS?
Why should I do that? You are the one who seems to have Black on the
brain, not me.
I merely pointed out the racism and discrimination and the fact that
it's a violation of the constitution for the government to discriminate.
The subject is the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so
chooses. Why drag in an unrelated topic?
Blacks have rights also, and when the two clash, it's part of the
subject.
There is no clash and blacks have no more and no less rights than
anyone else.
Then why does a right to abortion negate a right to become a U.S.
Citizen?
It doesn't. An abortion terminates a pregnancy therefore there is no
live birth and thus no person who can qualify to be a citizen.
If they have a right.... and the 14th says a "person" has the right to
become a citizen when born in the U.S. jurisdiction... Of course if the
human life is NOT a person because we say illegal aliens inside a uterus
are without rights then it doesn't have a right to citizenship.
A fetus has no rights. Period.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Can you prevent a gay from buying a gay wedding cake? If you can NOT
prevent a gay from buying a *cake that doesn't exist yet* then why can
one human life prevent another human life from exercising a right to
become a citizen. Does a baby inside a uterus have a right to health
care? And why would it, if you say it has no right to citizenship.
Women don't own the parasites in their body. If they did they wouldn't
need a prescription for a pill to kill worms and other such parasites in
their intestinal system. All parasite treatment would be over the
counter the same as abortion pills. A woman's uterus is no more hers
than her intestinal system is hers.
Obviously Liberals would have no right to buy a gay wedding cake, under
your supposed system of rights. Just as you say the person inside the
uterus has no right to achieve and exercise their right to become a
citizen, apparently the gay marriage persons can't exercise their right
to buy a cake unless there is a gay wedding cake in the display case
already made and is being refused to be sold for a gay wedding. You
can't have a right to buy what never existed, just as you say a baby
that never existed inside a uterus can't exercise it's right to become a
citizen until it's born.
Or a right to buy a gun isn't valid before you go into the store and see
the gun in the store.
The truth is the right to be a citizen is valid before you exit
during the birth. If you have that right then the government can't
allow others to stop you from getting there. And no one else has a right
to stop you from exercising your rights even if you are a human life
inside a uterus.
You say that a non existent thing "a person in a uterus" has no rights
that can be used on it until after it's created. And you contend that
it's created at birth.
If it's NOT a person inside the uterus then you can abuse the human
life. Alcohol and drugs would have no legal effect until the human life
is born.... but the human life inside the uterus has rights as a person
before it's born, and one of those rights is in the 14th amendment and
is says the human life is a person inside the
uterus and that person will be a citizen when born in the U.S.
Jurisdiction.
[""""Amendment XIV
Section 1. *All persons born or naturalized* in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside.""""""]
Persons is before born in the sentence, that means the human life is a
person before it's born otherwise it would say "all citizens born"
meaning that all people who were born in the U.S. were citizens and the
only persons would be people that were NOT naturalized citizens and NOT
yet born here so a visiting pregnancy is a person NOT a citizen just as
a visiting person is NOT a citizen. The right to be a citizen is
guaranteed to persons who follow the laws for for naturalization, in
other words you can't deny a person in the U.S. the opportunity to try
to become a citizen.
Hos can you constitutionally deny a person inside a uterus that same
right of exercising the opportunity by being born. You deprive them of
a right that the constitution is protecting. The right to become a U.S.
citizen.
All persons have been born alive.
That's backwards, all "citizens" have been born alive in the U.S. or
naturalized. Because there are no born persons in the U.S. unless it's
an exception to the 14th amendment like a Foreign Ambassadors child.
The Ambassador's blood/DNA related child of a partner in a uterus would
be born a person if both parents are here as foreign ambassador
assignments or husband and wife.

Persons are NON citizens.

Citizens have all the rights and privileges of persons and the added
rights that are in the constitution for being citizens.

And a person inside a uterus can be born dead and yet I see no
stipulation that says they must be alive to be a citizen they only need
to be born. So the "persons" are the unborn and the foreign emissaries.

*All persons born or naturalized*

Although if they are dead they are NOT a "person born" so I'd have to
say that delivering a dead baby would deny it's ability to be a citizen
as it first needed to be a person. Your way of defining it would mean
that delivering a dead baby would NOT change whether it's a person as it
was never a person so it then instantly becomes a dead citizen at birth
rather than a person born who is then a citizen. It violates the chain
of life that the 14th suggests.

That creates an odd paradox where a "NON person" becomes a citizen and
the actual 14th amendment suggests that "persons born" or Naturalized
"are citizens of the United States" and so NOT being a person as they
are dead they can't be a citizen, yet your scenario would make them a
citizen which would violate the 14th amendment.

That dichotomy makes it evident that the authors were expecting the
human life in the uterus to be a "person".

The Supreme Court was misled and duped by Democrats.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-02-07 22:07:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:58:18 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
All persons have been born alive.
That's backwards, all "citizens" have been born alive in the U.S. or
naturalized. Because there are no born persons in the U.S. unless it's
an exception to the 14th amendment like a Foreign Ambassadors child.
The Ambassador's blood/DNA related child of a partner in a uterus would
be born a person if both parents are here as foreign ambassador
assignments or husband and wife.
Persons are NON citizens.
Irrelevant.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Citizens have all the rights and privileges of persons and the added
rights that are in the constitution for being citizens.
And a person inside a uterus
No person is ever inside a uterus.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
can be born dead and yet I see no
stipulation that says they must be alive to be a citizen they only need
to be born. So the "persons" are the unborn and the foreign emissaries.
*All persons born or naturalized*
Although if they are dead they are NOT a "person born" so I'd have to
say that delivering a dead baby would deny it's ability to be a citizen
as it first needed to be a person.
Being dead would eliminate it's ability to be anything but fertilizer.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Your way of defining it would mean
that delivering a dead baby would NOT change whether it's a person as it
was never a person so it then instantly becomes a dead citizen at birth
rather than a person born who is then a citizen. It violates the chain
of life that the 14th suggests.
That creates an odd paradox where a "NON person" becomes a citizen and
the actual 14th amendment suggests that "persons born" or Naturalized
"are citizens of the United States" and so NOT being a person as they
are dead they can't be a citizen, yet your scenario would make them a
citizen which would violate the 14th amendment.
That dichotomy makes it evident that the authors were expecting the
human life in the uterus to be a "person".
It isn't.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The Supreme Court was misled and duped by Democrats.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Attila
2017-02-05 10:31:57 UTC
Permalink
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
Which is a medical term for a developing baby.
Just as an acorn is a term for a developing oak tree.
If you like.
My likes are irrelevant.
So are your wishes, but you keep trotting them out as if they're
meaningful. They're not - they're bullshit.
Your opinions are not?
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Irrelevant. Brain activity is not what makes for personhood.
I agree, but I am not the person who tried to drag it in.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
None needed.
Sure it is, since so many laws require live birth for a person to be
covered.
Arbitrary.
So what?
So they are no guide to answering the question of when personhood is
established. You agree. Good job.
Directly, no. Indirectly, many.
Now you can stop bullshitting about the law. You can stop bullshitting
about "society", too, as I have fully instructed you on that.
What makes you think you can 'instruct' anyone about anything? You
really, really like that word don't you? Does it do something that is
otherwise lacking in your life? Such as making you feel important?

You aren't.
Where is that point in the continuum? Hint: It occurs
somewhere before the ninth month of pregnancy.
The indication it has occurred and development is complete
is live birth.
Bullshit. "Development is complete" is not the test, for the simple
reasons that develop is not complete at birth, it continues for years
after birth.
No, development has reached the point at which a separate life support
system is no longer required and the individual can exist as an
individual.
That's not what creates personhood, either.
Agreed. The one and requirement (aside from being species human) is
surviving live birth.
No.
Society and the law disagrees.
See above, bullshitter. "Society" doesn't agree or disagree on
anything, asshole, as it has no voice and no will. You will stop
bullshitting about that.
Idiot. But do continue -it says so much about you.
As noted above, the law is arbitrary and also has no will or voice. It
is the product of individual persons who manage to impose *their* will
on it. It doesn't define personhood. It can't.
It not only can, it does.
The human brain is not fully developed until around age
25. If "development is complete" was the test, anyone 21 years old or
younger is not yet a human being, which is nonsense.
I never said anything about brain development meaning anything. There
are medical cases where a person was born completely without a brain.
It never developed and there is enough of a nervous system in
existence to support involuntary actions like breathing and a heart
beating. Having survived live birth these are as much of a human
being as is Steven Hawking.
Live birth can happen as early as week 24 and as late as week 44 of
gestation. According to you, someone born three months premature is a
human being, while someone born three weeks past the due date wasn't a
human being at nine months and two weeks gestation. That's more nonsense.
No, being a human being requires independent life separate from the
life support system provided by the host.
Bullshit. You just fabricated that. That bullshit position means that
someone connected to a heart-lung machine while undergoing surgery is
not a person.
Is a heart lung machine a person?
Irrelevant. What's relevant is your claim that the developing baby
requires some kind of assistance from someone or something in remaining
alive. Not needing that assistance is not what establishes personhood.
I never said it did.
Bullshit. That's exactly what you did, carelessly and sloppily. Then
you backpedaled from it.
Your reading comprehension problems are noted.

I said "being a human being requires independent life separate from
the life support system provided by the host."

A direct clip from above.

That means that being a person requires surviving live birth - being
an independent life no longer attached to the host (sometimes called
"the mother") and no longer requiring her life support system (her
body) to survive. Obviously a newborn has other requirements to
survive possibly including some mechanical support but the one
irreplaceable individual who previously provided her body for this
purpose is not longer required. Any competent and sufficiently
motivated individual will suffice.

This can be easily demonstrated using small words. A fetus cannot be
moved to another person so the woman is irreplaceable in the
development process. After birth the woman involved can be dead but
that has nothing to do with the survival of the baby who was born
alive.

Is that clear enough for you or is additional explanation necessary?
Your position is untenable and indefensible, and you know it.
And thereby acknowledge it.
Medical professionals are in general agreement that
removal from the uterus does not determine when the
transition from a clump of cells to a human being
takes place.
Except the point at which a human being comes into
existence is not a medical question.
It sure isn't a political, legal, social question, moral,
or religious question. It's a question of science, of biology.
You will not find anything in medicine or biology that defines
exactly when a human being comes into existence.
We know *precisely* when the biological entity that comes into existence
does so.
Except it is not a question biology can answer since it is not a
biological question.
No one said it was. We know that the zygote is identical, in the
mathematical sense, with the 50-year-old fully aware and functioning person.
But I am not talking mathematics.
No one gives a fuck.
I was not the person who used the word.
We're talking identity. The zygote and the fetus
and the newborn and the teenager and the 50 year old all have the same
identity. They are the same person.
Define identity.
Stop fucking around.
A person's status as a living human being ends with the cessation of
brain activity. Applying the same criterion to both ends of the
process, a living human being begins with the commencement of brain
activity, somewhere in the third month of gestation.
But while the current definition of death requires brain death, there
is nothing that requires brain activity to become a human being. As I
have mentioned, there have been cases of live birth with no brain
being physically present.
No, there haven't. That's bullshit. There have been instances of
babies with only a brain *stem* having been born alive, but never in
history has there been a "live birth" of a person with literally no brain.
"SHREVEPORT, Louisiana — A boy, who lived until he died peacefully at
the age of 12, defied all odds after being born without a brain. He
died on Monday, living longer than any doctor ever predicted.
According to KSLA, Trevor Judge Waltrip was born on Christmas Eve of
2001 with just a brain stem and hydranencephaly."
A brain stem is not a brain.
It's a part of a brain.
Not enough to function as a brain.
Your comment that there have been "live births" of babies with "no
brain" is disproved - demolished.
Since medicine does not consider them to have a brain I will defer to
those who would know better than I do.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
Which is a medical term for a developing baby.
Just as an acorn is a term for a developing oak tree.
If you like.
My likes are irrelevant.
So are your wishes, but you keep trotting them out as if they're
meaningful. They're not - they're bullshit.
Your opinions are not?
No. My opinions are formed by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Yours are mere sophistry.
Post by Attila
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Irrelevant. Brain activity is not what makes for personhood.
I agree, but I am not the person who tried to drag it in.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
None needed.
Sure it is, since so many laws require live birth for a person to be
covered.
Arbitrary.
So what?
So they are no guide to answering the question of when personhood is
established. You agree. Good job.
Directly, no. Indirectly, many.
No. Just "no", full stop.
Post by Attila
Now you can stop bullshitting about the law. You can stop bullshitting
about "society", too, as I have fully instructed you on that.
What makes you think you can 'instruct' anyone about anything?
See above.

I note you have never even attempted to refute what I have said about
"society" not being a moral or political actor - not being an actor of
any kind. You wouldn't even know where to begin in such a refutation.
That's why, instead, you trotted out a worthless dictionary definition
of what society *is*, rather than anything that shows what "it" can do.
Society can do nothing. Only people can do things *in* society.

You, being stupid and a mere sophomore, want to see society in some way
analogous to an individual person - an autonomous actor. It isn't.
People living in a society can, at least in theory, all disperse and
live in total isolation; or they can autonomously withdraw from one
society and move into another. Your spleen and your one little raisin
testicle can't do that.

Society is not an autonomous entity. It has no will, no voice, no
welfare. When idiots blabber about what "society" decides, all they're
talking about is what some number of individual persons - not
necessarily even a majority - have been able to impose on others, such
that those others either cannot effectively resist, or don't wish to
spend their time and energy resisting.

You are far too stupid and stuck in being a sophomore to learn.
Post by Attila
Where is that point in the continuum? Hint: It occurs
somewhere before the ninth month of pregnancy.
The indication it has occurred and development is complete
is live birth.
Bullshit. "Development is complete" is not the test, for the simple
reasons that develop is not complete at birth, it continues for years
after birth.
No, development has reached the point at which a separate life support
system is no longer required and the individual can exist as an
individual.
That's not what creates personhood, either.
Agreed. The one and requirement (aside from being species human) is
surviving live birth.
No.
Society and the law disagrees.
See above, bullshitter. "Society" doesn't agree or disagree on
anything, asshole, as it has no voice and no will. You will stop
bullshitting about that.
Idiot.
Yes, you are.
Post by Attila
As noted above, the law is arbitrary and also has no will or voice. It
is the product of individual persons who manage to impose *their* will
on it. It doesn't define personhood. It can't.
It not only can, it does.
Wrong.
Post by Attila
The human brain is not fully developed until around age
25. If "development is complete" was the test, anyone 21 years old or
younger is not yet a human being, which is nonsense.
I never said anything about brain development meaning anything. There
are medical cases where a person was born completely without a brain.
It never developed and there is enough of a nervous system in
existence to support involuntary actions like breathing and a heart
beating. Having survived live birth these are as much of a human
being as is Steven Hawking.
Live birth can happen as early as week 24 and as late as week 44 of
gestation. According to you, someone born three months premature is a
human being, while someone born three weeks past the due date wasn't a
human being at nine months and two weeks gestation. That's more nonsense.
No, being a human being requires independent life separate from the
life support system provided by the host.
Bullshit. You just fabricated that. That bullshit position means that
someone connected to a heart-lung machine while undergoing surgery is
not a person.
Is a heart lung machine a person?
Irrelevant. What's relevant is your claim that the developing baby
requires some kind of assistance from someone or something in remaining
alive. Not needing that assistance is not what establishes personhood.
I never said it did.
Bullshit. That's exactly what you did, carelessly and sloppily. Then
you backpedaled from it.
Your reading comprehension problems are noted.
They vastly exceed yours, as does my reasoning ability.
Post by Attila
Your position is untenable and indefensible, and you know it.
And thereby acknowledge it.
Medical professionals are in general agreement that
removal from the uterus does not determine when the
transition from a clump of cells to a human being
takes place.
Except the point at which a human being comes into
existence is not a medical question.
It sure isn't a political, legal, social question, moral,
or religious question. It's a question of science, of biology.
You will not find anything in medicine or biology that defines
exactly when a human being comes into existence.
We know *precisely* when the biological entity that comes into existence
does so.
Except it is not a question biology can answer since it is not a
biological question.
No one said it was. We know that the zygote is identical, in the
mathematical sense, with the 50-year-old fully aware and functioning person.
But I am not talking mathematics.
No one gives a fuck.
I was not the person who used the word.
No one else was talking mathematics. "Mathematical" identity is not
mathematics. I used the term that Jennifer Roth used, asshole. If you
had bothered reading the paper, which clearly you didn't, you would
understand that she wasn't talking about mathematics, you pedantic cretin.
Post by Attila
We're talking identity. The zygote and the fetus
and the newborn and the teenager and the 50 year old all have the same
identity. They are the same person.
Define identity.
I just did. As you are in full-blown sophist mode, i.e. trying to waste
the time of your intellectual betters, and as a comprehensive definition
would take too much time, I'll direct you to Wikipedia's discussion of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

You are also invited to peruse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's
entry on it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/


Of course, you already implicitly know these, even as an obtuse sophomore.
Post by Attila
Stop fucking around.
A person's status as a living human being ends with the cessation of
brain activity. Applying the same criterion to both ends of the
process, a living human being begins with the commencement of brain
activity, somewhere in the third month of gestation.
But while the current definition of death requires brain death, there
is nothing that requires brain activity to become a human being. As I
have mentioned, there have been cases of live birth with no brain
being physically present.
No, there haven't. That's bullshit. There have been instances of
babies with only a brain *stem* having been born alive, but never in
history has there been a "live birth" of a person with literally no brain.
"SHREVEPORT, Louisiana — A boy, who lived until he died peacefully at
the age of 12, defied all odds after being born without a brain. He
died on Monday, living longer than any doctor ever predicted.
According to KSLA, Trevor Judge Waltrip was born on Christmas Eve of
2001 with just a brain stem and hydranencephaly."
A brain stem is not a brain.
It's a part of a brain.
Not enough to function as a brain.
Your comment that there have been "live births" of babies with "no
brain" is disproved - demolished.
Since medicine does not consider them to have a brain I will defer to
those who would know better than I do.
They have enough of a brain - a brain stem - that they can be born alive.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:34:06 UTC
Permalink
"Society" doesn't agree or disagree on anything, asshole, as it has no
voice and no will.
I take it you haven't heard about the newly elected president sitting in
the White House
I have done. Nothing to do with my observation that society doesn't
agree on anything or make choices. People do.
This is too easy. . .

so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the
population;


Google is your friend.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
"Society" doesn't agree or disagree on anything, asshole, as it has no
voice and no will.
I take it you haven't heard about the newly elected president sitting in
the White House
I have done. Nothing to do with my observation that society doesn't
agree on anything or make choices. People do.
This is too easy. . .
so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
I never accept dictionary definitions in political debates. They're
much too limited. As I knew would be the case, the one you gave does
not in any way refute what I have said about "society" not deciding or
defining anything. "It" doesn't - it's not an entity that can do that.
It has no will, no thinking ability. Above all, it has no welfare. It
makes no sense to attempt to talk about "how society is doing." People
do that in casual conversation, but it's nonsense.

Margaret Thatcher said this eloquently: "I think we've been through a
period where too many people have been given to understand that if they
have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a
problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house
me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is
no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there
are families. And no government can do anything except through people,
and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got
the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no
such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Attila
2017-02-05 10:40:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:13:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors? They are not precluded from using
imprecise and indistinct terms.
It's a human life that grows from the moment it begins until the moment
it dies.
The species is human but it is not an individual human being before
live birth.
It most certainly is.
Not according to society or the law.
I've instructed you about this, and it's time for you to shut the fuck
up about it. "Society" doesn't speak - period. This is settled.
"Society" has no will and no voice.
I have mentioned sever times that you do not 'instruct' me on
anything, I will stop posting when I am ready to stop and not before.
and as far as society is concerned:

so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the
population;

But do continue. It is mildly amusing to watch an arrogant pick like
you dig himself in deeper and deeper for all to see.
The law is arbitrary and nothing in it is pertinent to the topic.
Except to indirectly define the term.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:13:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors? They are not precluded from using
imprecise and indistinct terms.
It's a human life that grows from the moment it begins until the moment
it dies.
The species is human but it is not an individual human being before
live birth.
It most certainly is.
Not according to society or the law.
I've instructed you about this, and it's time for you to shut the fuck
up about it. "Society" doesn't speak - period. This is settled.
"Society" has no will and no voice.
I have mentioned sever times that you do not 'instruct' me on
anything,
I do, of course.
Post by Attila
I will stop posting when I am ready to stop and not before.
so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
<chuckle> Nothing about will or action in there.
Post by Attila
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
Which is bullshit. Those things are dangers to individual persons, not
to society. Society has no welfare. That goes along with society not
being an organic and autonomous entity, as individual persons are.

You are truly and hopelessly lost.
Post by Attila
The law is arbitrary and nothing in it is pertinent to the topic.
Except to indirectly define the term.
No, it doesn't define it in any way.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:41:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:02:56 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:13:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors? They are not precluded from using
imprecise and indistinct terms.
It's a human life that grows from the moment it begins until the moment
it dies.
The species is human but it is not an individual human being before
live birth.
And yet it is an individual.... Are conjoined twins, one person or two?
Usually considered two I suppose. I cannot support a statement either
way.
Can you just kill a twin, can one twin kill the other to force the
separation that would have probably killed it anyways?
No, society would find a way to make that illegal.
"Society" doesn't find anything, ever. "Society" is an abstraction - a
useful fiction. It doesn't exist as a willful entity. You've been
instructed about this, but because you're stupid and stubborn, you keep
bullshitting about it. You need to stop.
Please continue:

so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the
population;

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:02:56 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:13:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors? They are not precluded from using
imprecise and indistinct terms.
It's a human life that grows from the moment it begins until the moment
it dies.
The species is human but it is not an individual human being before
live birth.
And yet it is an individual.... Are conjoined twins, one person or two?
Usually considered two I suppose. I cannot support a statement either
way.
Can you just kill a twin, can one twin kill the other to force the
separation that would have probably killed it anyways?
No, society would find a way to make that illegal.
"Society" doesn't find anything, ever. "Society" is an abstraction - a
useful fiction. It doesn't exist as a willful entity. You've been
instructed about this, but because you're stupid and stubborn, you keep
bullshitting about it. You need to stop.
so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
Dismissed. You've tried this several times already, each one a failure.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:50:44 UTC
Permalink
No, the determination of personhood is *not* a legal question, and
"society" doesn't have wishes.
Society constantly makes decisions
No. I've instructed you about this. "Society" is not a decision-making
entity. It's nothing but an abstraction, a useful fiction.
More "instruction" to ignore.

so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the
population;
Post by Attila
That's wrong. Live birth isn't what creates a baby. Some babies are
delivered not living. Those are called dead babies.
An no human being ever existed.
Idiot.
Still no human being ever existed.
Wrong.
Society and the law disagree.
Wrong.
No comment needed.
Post by Attila
Did you overlook "LIVE birth"?
No. I'm pointing out that that isn't what creates a baby. It's a
developing and unborn baby prior to birth.
Irrelevant.
Ha ha ha! Now you claim "irrelevant", while earlier you said that it
isn't a baby until after live birth.
In fact, it's entirely relevant - crucial, actually.
Nothing before successful live birth occurs is relevant.
Wrong.
No comment needed.
Post by Attila
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
Bullshit.
Nope.
Yep. You're flatly wrong about morality.
My comment is quite accurate.
Your comment, of course, is bullshit, and I know for a fact
Are you now "instructing" me about what is or is not a "fact"?
you don't
believe it yourself. It's some bullshit you find convenient for your
sophistry, but you don't believe it.
Now in your towering arrogance you are telling me what I do or do not
'believe'.

Is any additional comment really needed?
Post by Attila
Now you're just being silly. A parent may speak of her toddlers
as rug rats. A husband may speak of his wife as "the old ball
and chain". Does that make them nonhuman? A wife may call her
husband "daddy". Does that make their relationship incest?
And a pregnant woman can talk about the fetus in any way se chooses
but medical professionals among themselves will generally use the
medical term, an "baby" is not a medical term.
Bullshit. Speaking to the pregnant woman, her medical caregivers will
commonly talk about the baby she is carrying.
Medical professionals do not use technical language when speaking to
lay persons.
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors?
Didn't I already specify that they're speaking to the pregnant woman?
Then the language used is irrelevant.
It's entirely relevant.
No, it isn't.
It is.
Now you are saying a technical language isn't either necessary or
useful.

Unbelievable.
Post by Attila
I did specify that. Are you stupid, or just what's your problem?
I clearly said "Medical professionals do not use technical language
when speaking to lay persons."
Which is simply more bullshit.
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Nope.
Yet doctors spend a lot of time in their education learning that very
specific and technical language. As do most professions.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
No, the determination of personhood is *not* a legal question, and
"society" doesn't have wishes.
Society constantly makes decisions
No. I've instructed you about this. "Society" is not a decision-making
entity. It's nothing but an abstraction, a useful fiction.
More "instruction" to ignore.
Because you're a stupid and stubborn sophomore, to be sure.
Post by Attila
so·ci·e·ty
s?'si?de/
Dismissed.
Post by Attila
Post by Attila
That's wrong. Live birth isn't what creates a baby. Some babies are
delivered not living. Those are called dead babies.
An no human being ever existed.
Idiot.
Still no human being ever existed.
Wrong.
Society and the law disagree.
Wrong.
No comment needed.
Concession of defeat noted and accepted.
Post by Attila
Post by Attila
Did you overlook "LIVE birth"?
No. I'm pointing out that that isn't what creates a baby. It's a
developing and unborn baby prior to birth.
Irrelevant.
Ha ha ha! Now you claim "irrelevant", while earlier you said that it
isn't a baby until after live birth.
In fact, it's entirely relevant - crucial, actually.
Nothing before successful live birth occurs is relevant.
Wrong.
Post by Attila
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
Bullshit.
Nope.
Yep. You're flatly wrong about morality.
My comment is quite accurate.
Your comment, of course, is bullshit, and I know for a fact you don't
believe it yourself. It's some bullshit you find convenient for your
sophistry, but you don't believe it.
Now in your towering arrogance you are telling me what I do or do not
'believe'.
No, *you* tell us what you believe, although you're too stupid to
realize you're doing it.
Post by Attila
Post by Attila
Now you're just being silly. A parent may speak of her toddlers
as rug rats. A husband may speak of his wife as "the old ball
and chain". Does that make them nonhuman? A wife may call her
husband "daddy". Does that make their relationship incest?
And a pregnant woman can talk about the fetus in any way se chooses
but medical professionals among themselves will generally use the
medical term, an "baby" is not a medical term.
Bullshit. Speaking to the pregnant woman, her medical caregivers will
commonly talk about the baby she is carrying.
Medical professionals do not use technical language when speaking to
lay persons.
They call the developing baby what it is: a baby.
When speaking to other doctors?
Didn't I already specify that they're speaking to the pregnant woman?
Then the language used is irrelevant.
It's entirely relevant.
No, it isn't.
It is.
Now you are saying a technical language isn't either necessary or
useful.
No, I'm not saying that.
Post by Attila
Post by Attila
I did specify that. Are you stupid, or just what's your problem?
I clearly said "Medical professionals do not use technical language
when speaking to lay persons."
Which is simply more bullshit.
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Nope.
Yet doctors spend a lot of time in their education learning that very
specific and technical language.
Irrelevant.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Society constantly makes decisions as to what is acceptable and what
is not, and enacts laws to reflect this.
Show us a law that society has enacted. Since a legislature is not
society, don't include laws enacted by any legislature.
so·chi·e·TTY
S?'sip?de/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.
"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"
synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the
population;

That same population elects the legislature.

Where did you study stupid? You do it so well.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
Society constantly makes decisions as to what is acceptable and what
is not, and enacts laws to reflect this.
Show us a law that society has enacted. Since a legislature is not
society, don't include laws enacted by any legislature.
so·chi·e·TTY
S?'sip?de/
Dismissed. Nothing in that simplistic definition demonstrates that
"society" is an organic and autonomous actor, or that it has a welfare.
It does not, of course, have a welfare. Any talk of society's welfare -
"drugs are a 'danger' to society" - is purely metaphorical.
Attila
2017-02-05 10:54:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:11:22 +0000, God <***@heaven.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
The Universal Law on abortion is that abortion is treated as the
pre-meditated cold blooded MURDER of another human being and any women
who do abortion are Punished accordingly.
Life starts at the moment of Conception.
Women who do abortion receive their punishment in their next Life when
they are reincarnated back onto Earth.
And the punishment for abortion is VERY Severe.
Another troll who is totally wrong. So what else is new?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
The Universal Law on abortion is that abortion is treated as the
pre-meditated cold blooded MURDER of another human being and any women
who do abortion are Punished accordingly.
Life starts at the moment of Conception.
Women who do abortion receive their punishment in their next Life when
they are reincarnated back onto Earth.
And the punishment for abortion is VERY Severe.
Another troll who is totally wrong.
Not that you've been able to show.

[snip pedantic, narcissistic, wheezing and moronic signature]
Attila
2017-02-05 10:55:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:09:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The Universal Law on abortion is that abortion is treated as the
pre-meditated cold blooded MURDER of another human being and any women
who do abortion are Punished accordingly.
Life starts at the moment of Conception.
Women who do abortion receive their punishment in their next Life when
they are reincarnated back onto Earth.
And the punishment for abortion is VERY Severe.
I agree and we don't need laws to stop it as much as we need to have
laws for the government, that stop government from forcing it on us and
promoting it.
If it's a woman's personal choice and personal property then they can
pay for it and they can find it and government has no reason to take
part in forcing us in making sure they have access or in any other part
of their privacy. It's between the woman and her God. And the Liberals
would do well to pull back to that point or they will lose the whole option.
It's like I said years ago about the Terrorists and how if the Muslims
don't fix it then the American's will, but the Muslims won't like how
the Americans fix it.
Abortion is the same thing, Liberals better stop the constant push and
nasty hateful rhetoric and forcing people to engage in it using public
money. Or the whole house of cards may fall.
The thing is Liberals aren't that smart. They'll push until they lose
like they did on gun issues and they lost elections and then terrorists
and they lost elections.... and the socialist economic plans and they
lost elections. I think the Democrats are going to lose a lot more
elections.
Pink pussy hats won't make any difference, Those women are more and more
outside of society looking in at the society, they are more like social
retards that can't function in a real society they are radical and
militant and hate men and society. That's NOT a recipe for
successfully integrating into society. They're defeating themselves.
--
That's Karma
That's bullshit.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:09:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The Universal Law on abortion is that abortion is treated as the
pre-meditated cold blooded MURDER of another human being and any women
who do abortion are Punished accordingly.
Life starts at the moment of Conception.
Women who do abortion receive their punishment in their next Life when
they are reincarnated back onto Earth.
And the punishment for abortion is VERY Severe.
I agree and we don't need laws to stop it as much as we need to have
laws for the government, that stop government from forcing it on us and
promoting it.
If it's a woman's personal choice and personal property then they can
pay for it and they can find it and government has no reason to take
part in forcing us in making sure they have access or in any other part
of their privacy. It's between the woman and her God. And the Liberals
would do well to pull back to that point or they will lose the whole option.
It's like I said years ago about the Terrorists and how if the Muslims
don't fix it then the American's will, but the Muslims won't like how
the Americans fix it.
Abortion is the same thing, Liberals better stop the constant push and
nasty hateful rhetoric and forcing people to engage in it using public
money. Or the whole house of cards may fall.
The thing is Liberals aren't that smart. They'll push until they lose
like they did on gun issues and they lost elections and then terrorists
and they lost elections.... and the socialist economic plans and they
lost elections. I think the Democrats are going to lose a lot more
elections.
Pink pussy hats won't make any difference, Those women are more and more
outside of society looking in at the society, they are more like social
retards that can't function in a real society they are radical and
militant and hate men and society. That's NOT a recipe for
successfully integrating into society. They're defeating themselves.
--
That's Karma
That's bullshit.
That's rich.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:30:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:51:04 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
There is still no child prior to live birth.
Wrong.
That is what society and the law has said. Like 'baby' child is a
vague term and is applied over a wide range. I could be over a
hundred and my 'child' could be eighty.
Or still in the uterus....
Absolutely.
Idiot.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:31:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:36:31 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity. Somewhere along
that continuum is where a human being is formed. Where is that point in
the continuum? Hint: It occurs somewhere before the ninth month of
pregnancy.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
Not really. I disagree with at lest two of the three basic points.
"first, that the human prenate is entitled to human rights" - Not
before live birth.
That's just what you would like it to be, but you have no rationale for
that other than that's what it arbitrarily is, and you like it that way.
Your disagreement is simply begging the question.
I consider the phrase 'human rights' nebulous and vague at best (too
general) but since a fetus is not yet a human why should it apply?
The fetus is, of course, a human.
No, the species is human but a fetus is not a separate human being. It
is human but not a human.
That has been the position of society in the past and has only become
an issue in recent years. Does a wart have human rights? A finger?
An appendix? After all they are as human as a fetus.
Wrong. Now you're trying to equivocate on "human" again, but I always
point that out and don't let you get away with it.
I am equivocating on nothing. I am stating facts.
Live birth does not and cannot create moral personhood, and we aren't
interested in mere legalisms because those are entirely arbitrary.
I am not interested in mere morals because those change faster than
legalities.
Wrong.
Sure they do. But since morals have no enforcement mechanism they are
irrelevant.
"second, that a child's parents are responsible for his/her welfare
and that this responsibility begins when the child's life begins;" -
There is no child prior to live birth
Now you're just repeating your question begging.
I was repeating the statement in the referenced webpage.
You were repeating your question begging.
There is still no child prior to live birth.
A child that needs an incubator in NNICU to live and special formula or
mothers milk must not be a child because it still can't live without the
help of an older human.
Wrong. Once born alive a human being exists
The human being exists prior to birth.
Wrong.
No, right. It is a human being - period.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-02-05 16:32:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:53:37 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Why do you like those quite long and rather stupid subject lines?
They're pulled from the text.... so they work as a Subject.
Some are short some long, but they all do the same thing. ;)
I am amused by how most people here don't do that, and those that do
seem to fall into a small and annoying category of mostly trolls. I
consider it an indication of someone who really doesn't know what he
is talking about and probably cares less. He is just stroking his own
ego.
And you're doing what else, exactly, when you blabber and bullshit about
the law? You don't know as much about the law as the average layman.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:33:05 UTC
Permalink
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
As you have already been instructed, people are not "complete" for many
years after birth.
I do not accept instruction
Because you're stupid and stubborn.
If you wish to continue any dialog with me you will stop clipping my
comments.
Why don't you fuck off and grow up?
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 16:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
Not interested, because not pertinent.
Because they disagree with your position?
No. Because the current, arbitrary definition of the law doesn't
determine personhood. It is wholly not pertinent to it, because it's a
philosophical and moral question, not a legal question.

You will now repeat your bullshit mantra - and it is bullshit - about
morality. Sophomores have a tendency to do that.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-02-05 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:09:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity.
Unless development never reaches the point at which there
is any brain activity.
Human brain activity begins around week 10 to 12 of gestation.
But it's still a fetus,
That's just a label. It doesn't answer the question of when the
developing life becomes a human being.
It is a medical term for a developing but not yet complete possible
future member of a species.
and many if not most abortions occur long
before that point.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not really since your comment automatically excludes and thus permits
without argument most abortions.
Somewhere along that continuum is where a human being is formed.
That somewhere is live birth.
That's bullshit.
Reference?
You provide no reference for YOUR statement.
How about the laws of society that define the rights of a person and
which clearly do not include a fetus?
Why is a fetus NOT a person, who says "it is NOT a person".
The laws of society fail to say it is.
What law says they are not a person?

Remember that in the constitution the Feds don't have a power until it's
delegated to them. Can they declare blacks to NOT be a person so they
also have no rights?

Is a cloned human life a person?

Is a human life that is frozen via cryogenics before death a person?
Since we have no way as yet to thaw and revive them.... are they NOT
a person until we have that technology or not a person while frozen.
When are they a person? If the law is there that can define them or
someone can point to the power in the constitution that allows for it,
aren't they all a person that's NOT dead and that's also a human life.


In the 14th amendment is says "All persons born" meaning that a citizen
is first a person in the uterus and NOT born. Then when that person is
born in the U.S. they are a citizen NOT just a person. They weren't
born a person they were born a citizen. They were a person from the time
of conception.

*AMENDMENT XIV*
" *All persons born or naturalized* in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."

So the person in the uterus that is born in the U.S. is a citizen. and
a person born elsewhere can become a U.S. citizen. But it says they were
all persons first, before being born and that when born in the U.S.
the person is a citizen instantly upon birth. They aren't a fetus and
then a person and then a citizen since being born in the U.S. makes you
a citizen so abortions in the U.S. not only violates the rights of a
person it violates their exercising their right to become a citizen that
is guaranteed by the constitution by being born.

Persons inside a uterus who are future citizens have a right to their
birth which makes them a citizen otherwise you're discriminating against
blacks and the prisoners babies/persons inside the uterus that were
guaranteed the opportunity to exercise their right to be born as citizens.

The whole point of that was to make slaves that were NOT Naturalized or
born here into persons able to have children that were citizens. You're
violating the civil rights of black babies in the uterus that are
persons, and have a right to become citizens and their right is spelled
out in the constitution in the 14th Amendment.

Why do you Liberals hate blacks so much?
--
That's Karma
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 17:45:30 UTC
Permalink
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity. Somewhere along
that continuum is where a human being is formed. Where is that point in
the continuum? Hint: It occurs somewhere before the ninth month of
pregnancy.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
Not really. I disagree with at lest two of the three basic points.
"first, that the human prenate is entitled to human rights" - Not
before live birth.
That's just what you would like it to be, but you have no rationale for
that other than that's what it arbitrarily is, and you like it that way.
Your disagreement is simply begging the question.
I consider the phrase 'human rights' nebulous and vague at best (too
general) but since a fetus is not yet a human why should it apply?
The fetus is, of course, a human.
No, the species is human but a fetus is not a separate human being.
Of course it is.
Not according to society or the law.
You've been instructed in this already. It isn't subject to a popular
vote, and the law is arbitrary and inapplicable. It's a philosophical
question, not a legal one.
I have mentioned this before. No matter how arrogant you try to be I
do not consider you qualified to 'instruct; me about anything.
I am so qualified, of course, and you know it.
This is an issue for the society as a whole to determine
No. "Society" does not and cannot determine anything. "Society" is not
in any way a moral or political actor; people are.
It is human but not a human.
It is a human being. Once again, live birth isn't what creates a human
being.
Society has determined
No. "Society" cannot determine anything. Society is an abstraction that
has no independent will or voice.
Society is a term that includes the people that make up that society.
Irrelevant. It still doesn't have a will and it cannot act. Only
people can act.
Stop clipping my comments, especially in the middle of a sentence.
Stop crying, baby. Or, if you don't want to stop crying, then fuck off.
That has been the position of society in the past and has only become
an issue in recent years. Does a wart have human rights? A finger?
An appendix? After all they are as human as a fetus.
Wrong. Now you're trying to equivocate on "human" again, but I always
point that out and don't let you get away with it.
I am equivocating on nothing.
You most certainly are.
According to you, but no one appointed you the moderator.
You are equivocating on the meaning of human. That is established.
Nonsense.
No.
Live birth does not and cannot create moral personhood, and we aren't
interested in mere legalisms because those are entirely arbitrary.
I am not interested in mere morals because those change faster than
legalities.
Wrong.
Sure they do.
They don't.
"second, that a child's parents are responsible for his/her welfare
and that this responsibility begins when the child's life begins;" -
There is no child prior to live birth
Now you're just repeating your question begging.
I was repeating the statement in the referenced webpage.
You were repeating your question begging.
There is still no child prior to live birth.
Wrong.
That is what society and the law has said.
Bullshit. See above.
Attila
2017-02-05 21:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity. Somewhere along
that continuum is where a human being is formed. Where is that point in
the continuum? Hint: It occurs somewhere before the ninth month of
pregnancy.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
Not really. I disagree with at lest two of the three basic points.
"first, that the human prenate is entitled to human rights" - Not
before live birth.
That's just what you would like it to be, but you have no rationale for
that other than that's what it arbitrarily is, and you like it that way.
Your disagreement is simply begging the question.
I consider the phrase 'human rights' nebulous and vague at best (too
general) but since a fetus is not yet a human why should it apply?
The fetus is, of course, a human.
No, the species is human but a fetus is not a separate human being.
Of course it is.
Not according to society or the law.
You've been instructed in this already. It isn't subject to a popular
vote, and the law is arbitrary and inapplicable. It's a philosophical
question, not a legal one.
I have mentioned this before. No matter how arrogant you try to be I
do not consider you qualified to 'instruct; me about anything.
I am so qualified, of course, and you know it.
This is an issue for the society as a whole to determine
No. "Society" does not and cannot determine anything. "Society" is not
in any way a moral or political actor; people are.
It is human but not a human.
It is a human being. Once again, live birth isn't what creates a human
being.
Society has determined
No. "Society" cannot determine anything. Society is an abstraction that
has no independent will or voice.
Society is a term that includes the people that make up that society.
Irrelevant. It still doesn't have a will and it cannot act. Only
people can act.
Stop clipping my comments, especially in the middle of a sentence.
Stop crying, baby. Or, if you don't want to stop crying, then fuck off.
Still clipping I see.
Post by Mike Kuhn
That has been the position of society in the past and has only become
an issue in recent years. Does a wart have human rights? A finger?
An appendix? After all they are as human as a fetus.
Wrong. Now you're trying to equivocate on "human" again, but I always
point that out and don't let you get away with it.
I am equivocating on nothing.
You most certainly are.
According to you, but no one appointed you the moderator.
You are equivocating on the meaning of human. That is established.
Nonsense.
No.
Live birth does not and cannot create moral personhood, and we aren't
interested in mere legalisms because those are entirely arbitrary.
I am not interested in mere morals because those change faster than
legalities.
Wrong.
Sure they do.
They don't.
"second, that a child's parents are responsible for his/her welfare
and that this responsibility begins when the child's life begins;" -
There is no child prior to live birth
Now you're just repeating your question begging.
I was repeating the statement in the referenced webpage.
You were repeating your question begging.
There is still no child prior to live birth.
Wrong.
That is what society and the law has said.
Bullshit. See above.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Mike Kuhn
2017-02-05 22:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
Post by Mike Kuhn
The term 'baby' is really too broad to have a lot of meaning in this
type of discussion but prior to live birth several terms are used for
various stages of development - the most common being fetus. A fetus
is not a person, and is not yet a human being.
That's the heart of the whole debate. Asserting it dogmatically proves
nothing. Try starting with a definition of "human being" that is
scientific, not legal or political.
That cannot be done. The species is human, but the term "human being"
is not a medical term or a scientific term. It is purely socio-legal.
In some cultures, for example, children were not considered members of
the community and given names until they survived their first year due
to the very high infant death rate.
Nonsense. A human life begins with a single-cell fertilized egg and
ends with the cessation of a person's brain activity. Somewhere along
that continuum is where a human being is formed. Where is that point in
the continuum? Hint: It occurs somewhere before the ninth month of
pregnancy.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html
Not really. I disagree with at lest two of the three basic points.
"first, that the human prenate is entitled to human rights" - Not
before live birth.
That's just what you would like it to be, but you have no rationale for
that other than that's what it arbitrarily is, and you like it that way.
Your disagreement is simply begging the question.
I consider the phrase 'human rights' nebulous and vague at best (too
general) but since a fetus is not yet a human why should it apply?
The fetus is, of course, a human.
No, the species is human but a fetus is not a separate human being.
Of course it is.
Not according to society or the law.
You've been instructed in this already. It isn't subject to a popular
vote, and the law is arbitrary and inapplicable. It's a philosophical
question, not a legal one.
I have mentioned this before. No matter how arrogant you try to be I
do not consider you qualified to 'instruct; me about anything.
I am so qualified, of course, and you know it.
This is an issue for the society as a whole to determine
No. "Society" does not and cannot determine anything. "Society" is not
in any way a moral or political actor; people are.
It is human but not a human.
It is a human being. Once again, live birth isn't what creates a human
being.
Society has determined
No. "Society" cannot determine anything. Society is an abstraction that
has no independent will or voice.
Society is a term that includes the people that make up that society.
Irrelevant. It still doesn't have a will and it cannot act. Only
people can act.
Stop clipping my comments, especially in the middle of a sentence.
Stop crying, baby. Or, if you don't want to stop crying, then fuck off.
Still clipping I see.
I erase chaff that is irrelevant to the premise or claim to which I wish
to reply.
Loading...