What does the heart have to do with it? The brain is where the mind is; the heart is just a pump, nothing more.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Here's what i was pondering the other day. Good Morning America showed a baby that was premature and said he was 1 month old. But he was born 6.5 months into the pregnancy. A normal term child is 0 when he/she is born after 9 months. Why would coming out at 6.5 months make him 0 but a normal term 0 at 9 months? It doesn't make any sense to say he/she is a baby when born at 9 months and premature baby at 6.5 but at 6.5 months you can kill 'it' and not be killing a baby?? Someone please explain.
When does the heart form in a fetus?
Losati is correct. It is the home base for the LDS (Mormon) church. Just to give you an idea of how things go here, it isn't all that uncommon to have proposed legislation, that might not sit well with the church, so the state actually presents the legislation to the church to find out of they would back it or not, and if they say no, that legislation is DOA.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Cause SLC is a very religous town and all the younger generation are directly affected in a negative manner with this relizism? Am I right, Agent? SLC is all Methodis I think I'm probably wrong tho.
We have one nutcase that has two bills going in right now. One would ban gay/straight alliance clubs at high schools. These clubs are basically so that these people can get together and talk about things and get to know each others viewpoints, to help with acceptance and understanding. He claims that these clubs are talking about sex, when they aren't, and the meetings are even supervised by a teacher. He also claims that gays have a "rule book" and that it says their primary target is "your children".
The second one is not that new. He's basically trying to reword certain things in an attempt to slip intelligent design into biology classes.
The bottom line is that the LDS church pretty well has a lock on what happens in this state.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-26 12:13:27)
I was asking dumbshit. Thanks for trying...FeloniousMonk wrote:
What does the heart have to do with it? The brain is where the mind is; the heart is just a pump, nothing more.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Here's what i was pondering the other day. Good Morning America showed a baby that was premature and said he was 1 month old. But he was born 6.5 months into the pregnancy. A normal term child is 0 when he/she is born after 9 months. Why would coming out at 6.5 months make him 0 but a normal term 0 at 9 months? It doesn't make any sense to say he/she is a baby when born at 9 months and premature baby at 6.5 but at 6.5 months you can kill 'it' and not be killing a baby?? Someone please explain.
When does the heart form in a fetus?
Also, when is one considered dead?
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-01-26 12:23:25)
Well I belive again I'm not a woman so I pay some attention but not too much on this. That if a baby is aborted at 6.5 months it's considered a partial birth abortion which I myself am apposed to.
I agree, which is why I stated that beyond the first trimester, only a doctor should be able to authorize it, and only in cases where the fetus has fatal deformities or there is substantial risk to the mother.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well I belive again I'm not a woman so I pay some attention but not too much on this. That if a baby is aborted at 6.5 months it's considered a partial birth abortion which I myself am apposed to.
That was kind of my point. At what point is a baby considered a baby?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well I belive again I'm not a woman so I pay some attention but not too much on this. That if a baby is aborted at 6.5 months it's considered a partial birth abortion which I myself am apposed to.
I belive that after the first tri mester wannabe which is 3 months.
President Bush was at a conference. This reporter comes up to him and asks, "Mr. President, how are you going to get the hurricain Katrina survivers out of the Louisiana area?" President Bush responds, "Thats it, I don't want to hear anymore questions about Hurricain Katrina!" The reporter, being young and enthusiastic, asks "Mr. President, whats your position on Roe Vs. Wade?" To which President Bush responds, "I just told you, I don't want to hear anymore questions about hurricain Katrina!"
Joke. Laugh.
Joke. Laugh.
Trying what? Why did you bring up the heart? It has nothing to do with a person's consciousness.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I was asking dumbshit. Thanks for trying...
Also, when is one considered dead?
Moment of death itself is still hotly contested, as we saw with the Terri Shiavo case. Clinical death (stoppage of the heart and breathing) can be reversed but brain death is considered pretty damn permanent.
Trying to answer the heart question. And you still haven't answered it. So, if a heart is beating and there is brain activity then someone is considered alive? The heart has a lot if it is used to determine when someone has died. For instance, when someone was shot to death what is used to determine 'time of death'?FeloniousMonk wrote:
Trying what? Why did you bring up the heart? It has nothing to do with a person's consciousness.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I was asking dumbshit. Thanks for trying...
Also, when is one considered dead?
Moment of death itself is still hotly contested, as we saw with the Terri Shiavo case. Clinical death (stoppage of the heart and breathing) can be reversed but brain death is considered pretty damn permanent.
Why do I think I know better than the Judges? Because I am a citizen of the United States who has taken the time to read and understand a simple document. It's basically written at an 8th grade level. You do NOT need a legal education to understand it very clearly.B.Schuss wrote:
well, obviously the Supreme Court didn't share your interpretation of said amendments. And as long as you don't serve as a judge on the Supreme Court, I am afraid it is their interpretation which counts.
the judges themselves were divided about this, it was only a 7-2 decision but that simply means that different people may have different views on one issue. Nevertheless, in the end the court did rule that that specific law in Texas was against the constitution.
No offense, but why does every single american believe that he/she knows the constitution and its interpretations better than a judge on the Supreme Court ?
Why do the Judges fail to understand it? I think that on occasion, some of them deliberately misinterpret it. Like every other aspect of US government, the court has been polarized by partisan politics (the most recent nominee is a great example - not Roberts, but Alito - he is a straight up Republican partisan). Perhaps less polarized than other parts of the government, but it's hard to argue that the court isn't, at least partially, subject to partisan preferences of its members. Look at the recent decisions on Kelo and Medical Marijuana...it is quite hard to see how those decisions have upheld constitutional principle over how various justices 'believe' the government should be run.
There is a specific mechanism for change built into the constitution: The amendment process. This is the only legal way to change what the constitution says, and what it means. Have you read it? It is remarkably simple. It amazes me the way someone can take such simple language, and say it somehow means something else. Often when these folks want to interpret the constituion a different way they say, "but the framers meant..." That is usually an easy argument to counter; one only has to read "The Federalist Papers" to KNOW what the framers meant without need for speculation. When the progressives don't get their way after that, they (as you) resort to, "It doesn't matter what the framers meant, the Constitution is a living breathing document, which is open to interpretation in a modern context."B.Schuss wrote:
I have had countless discussions about this with US citizens, especially around the right to bear arms. The constitution was conceived in 1787, the first amendments were added in 1789. No one can seriously believe that a document that old can cover all aspects of modern human life without constantly being interpreted and / or changed.
That would be like looking for a latin word for "internet" or "skateboard".
let me quote Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821:
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will."
It really isn't. It is a VERY SIMPLE document. It means precisely what it says. There's nothing in there that says interpretation can flow with the times. It CAN be changed with the times...through amendment, not liberal interpretation.
Between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is made clear that, if the Constitution doesn't say it explicitly, it isn't Constitutional. I refer you to the 9th and 10th Amendments again. Really, how simple does the language has to be? I can't argue with the fact that many courts disagree, but as I already said, when has a little thing like the law ever stopped the US government?
Last edited by whittsend (2006-01-26 12:48:13)
Legalized abortion is the reason crime in the late 90's dropped off. Follow me now:
The majority of people getting abortions are low income minorities
The majority of people committing crimes are low income minorities
so the criminals that were aborted in 1976 were not around to commit crimes in the late 90's
The majority of people getting abortions are low income minorities
The majority of people committing crimes are low income minorities
so the criminals that were aborted in 1976 were not around to commit crimes in the late 90's
Last edited by cullenjackcullen (2006-01-26 12:54:28)
I think you are missing the point. My argument is that if you are not willing to take responsibility for the results of sex, then don't have it. You can have sex and take precaustions like birth control, knowing you partners cycle, ect. but that is part of being responsible. If your only recourse for Oh no she is pregnant is to kill it, then you are not ready for the responsibilitys that come with sex.Losati wrote:
So every time you have sex (assuming you do) you intend to procreate? I do know people who are like this, so don't think i'm trying to dis you. It's just a question. And I think a relevant one. I don't think most people only have sex to procreate.KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
There is a simple solution. Outlaw abortion and treat sex for what it was intended - procreation. If you are not willing to concieve or even open to the posibility that it may occur, do not have sex. If you make your bed then sleep in it. Take responsibility for your own actions.In some cases, I agree with you that you're right. It can be the cowards way out. But that's no reason to outlaw it. A lotta things that are done are the cowards way out, but they're not illegal. It's just not a good legal reasoning for anything.KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
Abotition, when not mediaclly nececary to protect the life of the mother, is a cowards way out of taking responsibility for ones actions. If i create life i must care for it. Not throw it away. Even if caring is just finding a sutible home.Now I'm gonna get flamed for this, but abortion can be viewed as making the responsible decision. Say someone cannot and will not have the financial capability to raise a child, is it responsible for them to bring them into being. And to the people that say "well give the baby up for adoption". Well what if that baby is destined to have AIDS or have some other (admittedly hypothetical) ailment and will only live for 2 hours and in immense agony. Is that responsible? And what about a situation where aborting one twin is necessary to save the other? Or in the case of multiple pregnancies that put them all at risk?KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
We all make decisions and we are all held responsible whether it be leagally or morally.
A blanket ban on all abortion would be ridiculously irresponsible.Doubtful. Teenage sex has always existed and always will. Teenage pregnancy has always existed and always will. Not to mention the fact that abortions are not only wanted by teenagers. Married couples may have reason to have abortions to. Or older people who aren't married. And then there's always incest and rape, etc. etc.KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
Maybe a ruling for pro life would decrease teenage pregnancy and decrease the spread of STDs.
And don't take this the wrong way, but how old are you? Just a question, I won't flame you for whatever age you are. I'll tell you I'm 24. I only ask 'cause I used to hold similar views when I was younger. I didn't know about the innumerable number of things that I eventually learned that have somewhat changed my view on the subject.
By the way i am 25 and have 2 children and one on the way. My wife had one miscarage and even though it was not a planned pregnancy we did mourn the lost opportunity. Life is something to be charishied and fought for.
Yall be happy, have sex, just know that you may have a child and that child is your responsibility from conception. If the life is not meant to be then nature will take its course.
You are considered clinically dead if there is no brain activity.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Trying to answer the heart question. And you still haven't answered it. So, if a heart is beating and there is brain activity then someone is considered alive? The heart has a lot if it is used to determine when someone has died. For instance, when someone was shot to death what is used to determine 'time of death'?FeloniousMonk wrote:
Trying what? Why did you bring up the heart? It has nothing to do with a person's consciousness.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I was asking dumbshit. Thanks for trying...
Also, when is one considered dead?
Moment of death itself is still hotly contested, as we saw with the Terri Shiavo case. Clinical death (stoppage of the heart and breathing) can be reversed but brain death is considered pretty damn permanent.
I wasn't trying to answer the heart question. I don't know the answer off the top of my head but I'm sure thirty seconds on Google will provide you with the answer. My point is that the heart itself does not matter in the argument because it is nothing more than a blood pump. The brain is the only part of the human body that should be brought into question when deciding when life begins.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Trying to answer the heart question. And you still haven't answered it. So, if a heart is beating and there is brain activity then someone is considered alive? The heart has a lot if it is used to determine when someone has died. For instance, when someone was shot to death what is used to determine 'time of death'?
The heart is not used to determine when someone has died, that's my point. Back in the day, before defibs and CPR, heart stoppage was considered death. These days the heart and breathing can both be restarted; only the brain's death can be used to truly determine it.
When a person is killed in a crime, be it with a gun or whatever else, time of death is usually estimated via liver temperature by the coroner.
KnowMeByTrailOfDead:
Here's a thought: What you said is your opinion. I don't agree with it.
I think Abortion is a perfectly reasonable option. I don't believe that an unborn mass of tissue is a living breathing person.
If you want to think differently, fine. But your opinion shouldn't give you the right to impose your morality on anyone else.
Here's a thought: What you said is your opinion. I don't agree with it.
I think Abortion is a perfectly reasonable option. I don't believe that an unborn mass of tissue is a living breathing person.
If you want to think differently, fine. But your opinion shouldn't give you the right to impose your morality on anyone else.
wtfKnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
You can have sex and take precaustions like birth control, knowing you partners cycle, ect. but that is part of being responsible.
The one and only 100% reliable form of birth control is abstinence. Knowing the gir's cycle is EXTREMELY unreliable for most people and the pill, even combined with condoms, cannot be relied upon. I've known a family of five siblings, every single one of them were born despite the mother having been on the pill.
No, you are considered clinically dead if there is no pulse and breathing has stopped. One can be clinically dead yet still have brain activity.atlvolunteer wrote:
You are considered clinically dead if there is no brain activity.
OK,cpt.fass1 wrote:
This would make abortions illegal in New York, I for one think that it's a persons right to choose birth or not. Just wondering what everyone else was thinking on this.
Every baby chooses birth. So do they get to live? That is their choice.
It is NOT a choice of "birth or not". It is a choice of LIVE birth versus DEAD birth.
There are two things here that you do not understand:
1) Overturning Roe V Wade would make it so that the individual STATES (New York) would be able to decide how the want to regulate the killing of unborn children. If Roe V. Wade was overturned, New Yorkers could contnue killing babies in New York if the New York laws allowed them to.
2) Bush CANNOT overturn Roe Vs. Wade. He can push for a constitutional amendment that would limit the killing of unborn children, but the President can not change the constution.
So when does the brain develop?FeloniousMonk wrote:
I wasn't trying to answer the heart question. I don't know the answer off the top of my head but I'm sure thirty seconds on Google will provide you with the answer. My point is that the heart itself does not matter in the argument because it is nothing more than a blood pump. The brain is the only part of the human body that should be brought into question when deciding when life begins.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Trying to answer the heart question. And you still haven't answered it. So, if a heart is beating and there is brain activity then someone is considered alive? The heart has a lot if it is used to determine when someone has died. For instance, when someone was shot to death what is used to determine 'time of death'?
The heart is not used to determine when someone has died, that's my point. Back in the day, before defibs and CPR, heart stoppage was considered death. These days the heart and breathing can both be restarted; only the brain's death can be used to truly determine it.
When a person is killed in a crime, be it with a gun or whatever else, time of death is usually estimated via liver temperature by the coroner.
Not imposing anything. Just supplying a position. Unfortunatly we have a system of polititians for imposing morality sometimes good and some times not and never good for everyone. That is the beauty of this debate. it will never make everyone happy, we will never all agree on a solution and the law makes will always change their minds with the results of the most recent poll of 2000 people randomly picked. SO is the realities of life. We are all just along for the ride.
You are correct.FeloniousMonk wrote:
No, you are considered clinically dead if there is no pulse and breathing has stopped. One can be clinically dead yet still have brain activity.atlvolunteer wrote:
You are considered clinically dead if there is no brain activity.
Clinical death occurs when a patient's heartbeat and breathing have stopped.
Brain death is defined as a complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity.
www.google.comwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So when does the brain develop?
I am not a neonatal physician.
All of this probably becomes a moot point anyway if the pro-choice agenda can get the morning after pill to be legaly considered contraception. There, that statement ought to start an entirely new shitstorm.FeloniousMonk wrote:
DakkonBlackblade wrote:
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state.Too poor to fuck?! That's the ONLY free fun thing to do! Poor people fuck more than anyone. (for those of you who think that is 100% serious, look up the word histrionic ;p) Maybe they arent too poor, maybe they can't just take 10 days off of their hourly job to travel halfway across the counrty as someone in Nebraska would likely have to do. An abortion isn't something you just go in and do and you are out playing frisbee that afternoon, it has physical and psychological ramifications and adding undue travel to it would only compound the situation. I know a couple of people who have had abortions and if they would have had to travel 1500 miles to do it they would have had a breakdown.That's such a crock of shit. If someone is too poor to travel to another state then they are too fucking poor to be fucking. With the exception of rape it is no one's fault but the unemployed idiots that they got pregnant. Besides, if they're too poor to travel to another state then they're too poor to pay for an abortion, something which should NEVER be paid for by government funds.
As an aside, you don't want government funds paying for an abortion but you are fine paying for 18 years of caring for that child? If she can't pay for an abortion today you think she can care for a newborn in 9 months? Adoption? Well until (IF!) the kid gets adopted the government has to pay for their wellbeing.Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter. Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada.I am still looking for this, so far I can only find the ones where they are being arrested for being drunk at the border, not for the drinking. I know I saw an article where some Canadian bars had stopped serving US citizens under 21 because of this, I will continue to look. They may not be able to arrest them in Canada, only if they try and return to the U.S., but that wouldn't matter in an interstate case since there are no extridition rules for felonies. (and yes I am SURE if it were a state issue it would be a felony in Texas)Cite your sources? I have never heard of someone getting arrested in Canada simply because he was a US citizen.Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested.I never claimed that they would win, but to me just the resources used in fighting this argument are a collosal waste. Precident can be seen in the Foriegn Child Protection Act of 2003 in which if you have sex with a protitute in a foriegn and that prostitute is under the age of consent in your state you can be held to the standard of the U.S. State you live in. So if the penalty in Cambodia for paying a 16 year old for sex is a misdemenor (or entirely legal) you can be charge with felony child molestation when you return. You will face 30 years in prison despite the fact that you never commited a crime on American soil. Let me be clear that I am NOT saying this is a bad law in any way, I am just saying that it gives the precident to make other arguments. Obviously this is hard to prove if it isn't at least an offense in the foriegn country but with abortions you would have medical records. People will say they are privledged, but if they are evidence of a crime it can be argued that they are not. I am not pretending to know how the decisions would come down I am just making the point that it would put a large burden on an already taxed legal system.And what makes you think that Texas would win that argument? Any precedent for such a situation?It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country.I disagree. It's a decision that needs to be kept out of the government's hand completely. The only people who should ever be allowed to have a say in the choice of an abortion are the two creators of the fetus and, if they so choose, a physician. That's it.But you aren't disagreeing. You are saying that the states should never be able to make a law outlawing all abortions. That makes it consistent across all of the states. You are arguing that Roe v Wade not be overturned, as am I, just for different reasons. The government has to be involved at some step since it does become a homicide at some point. The trick now is determining when that point is.
Yeah, I screwed up my html, I am not bothering to fix it.
Last edited by DakkonBlackblade (2006-01-26 13:30:29)
Some points in this post are reminding me of the Monty Python Song "ever sperm is sacried),