quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Religious views he cannot support e scripture.

He just knows it for everybody regardless of the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
What you are trying to do is legitimize your religious views as science.

Worship as you please, just don't try to pass it off as scientifically correct.

A fetus is not a person, we both know that.

Now you are being a liar. As clearly stated…I don’t know that. And my knowledge is backed with fact.

Speak for yourself Steve…quit lying about me.

You attempting to give personhood status to a fetus is simply your way of rationalizing the control you wish to exert over women. Connivant indeed.....

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Religious views he cannot support e scripture.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
A fetus is not a person? If not then it surely isn’t anything else either. Go kill it. We’re all hunters. We’ve all shot varmints, coyotes, ground hogs and such and don’t think a thing about it. Go kill it.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Sure that’s right. A fetus is nothing. Undoubtedly we could all just toss one out in the yard for the dogs to chew on. Nothin to it.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Alright let the women do the killing. It’s not a person. What’s the big deal? You don’t want your baby? You do it.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Sure that’s right. A fetus is nothing. Undoubtedly we could all just toss one out in the yard for the dogs to chew on. Nothin to it.

I did not say that. A fetus is not a person though.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
If you do not know that a fetus is not a person then you are willfully ignorant. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe your religious and political views suppress your ability to judge this issue in a scientific manner.

A stage of prenatal development does not make a person. That is the science, your religious views do not change the science.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I would love to hear daggaboy, Lane, tommyhawker, et al. defend that result. Step up boys. Let’s hear it. Primum non nocere my ass.

quote:

from Mike’s article:
Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I would love to hear daggaboy, Lane, tommyhawker, et al. defend that result. Step up boys. Let’s hear it. Primum non nocere my ass.

quote:

from Mike’s article:
Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Yeah, but an earthworm has an instinct to flee from danger too.

I don't think a flight instinct says anything about whether a fetus is a person.

We are not trying to establish if it is a person. We know it is a person…it’s DNA tells us that.

Flight reflex demonstrates neural function to sustain life.

To your earthworm analogy:

Put a 1 yr old in trench with a hardened soldier. Which one is going to have the best cognizant ability to survive??? The soldier is the obvious answer…but is the toddler any less of a person for not being as mentally developed?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I would love to hear daggaboy, Lane, tommyhawker, et al. defend that result. Step up boys. Let’s hear it. Primum non nocere my ass.

quote:

from Mike’s article:
Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
But I guess you chose to ignore the other inconvenient facts in the article . . . or more likely only read the article to the point you found convenient. That she and her husband sought their obstetrician's certification and she refused.

I am sure the couple is comforted by the fact that folks like you decided to take the decision out of their hands and put it in the government's hands. How very libertarian of you . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . and as you point out, the Texas law is even more ridiculous. The only exception is if the pregnant person’s life is at risk or if the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The couple would have no recourse under Texas law. This is what happens when a bunch of kooks get together that try to see how they can try to show others that they are in some perverse way more morally upright than others. And then they want to talk about virtue signaling with masking requirements. Seriously these people are so stupid they are like the Oozlum bird that flies in ever decreasing concentric circles until it ultimately flies up its own ass.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Yeah, but an earthworm has an instinct to flee from danger too.

I don't think a flight instinct says anything about whether a fetus is a person.

We are not trying to establish if it is a person. We know it is a person…it’s DNA tells us that.

Flight reflex demonstrates neural function to sustain life.

To your earthworm analogy:

Put a 1 yr old in trench with a hardened soldier. Which one is going to have the best cognizant ability to survive??? The soldier is the obvious answer…but is the toddler any less of a person for not being as mentally developed?

I beg to differ. Whether a fetus is a person is the core of the issue of whether aborting a fetus. Io0[

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . and as you point out, the Texas law is even more ridiculous. The only exception is if the pregnant person’s life is at risk or if the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The couple would have no recourse under Texas law. This is what happens when a bunch of kooks get together that try to see how they can try to show others that they are in some perverse way more morally upright than others. And then they want to talk about virtue signaling with masking requirements. Seriously these people are so stupid they are like the Oozlum bird that flies in ever decreasing concentric circles until it ultimately flies up its own ass.

I am surprised you would reside in such a backward state. Have you thought about moving to CA?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

I am sure the couple is comforted by the fact that folks like you decided to take the decision out of their hands and put it in the government's hands. How very libertarian of you . . .

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . and as you point out, the Texas law is even more ridiculous. The only exception is if the pregnant person’s life is at risk or if the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The couple would have no recourse under Texas law. This is what happens when a bunch of kooks get together that try to see how they can try to show others that they are in some perverse way more morally upright than others. And then they want to talk about virtue signaling with masking requirements. Seriously these people are so stupid they are like the Oozlum bird that flies in ever decreasing concentric circles until it ultimately flies up its own ass.

I am surprised you would reside in such a backward state. Have you thought about moving to CA?

Have you thought about not being ridiculous.
You still did not answer Mjines original question about inconvenient facts.

However, that is becoming a norm for AR’s greatest critical thinker.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

I am sure the couple is comforted by the fact that folks like you decided to take the decision out of their hands and put it in the government's hands. How very libertarian of you . . .

Let’s be clear…under FL law…the decision was in the hands of doctors. The only requirement was 2 doctors agreeing on the diagnosis. If it was cut and dry…should be no problem.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

I am sure the couple is comforted by the fact that folks like you decided to take the decision out of their hands and put it in the government's hands. How very libertarian of you . . .

Let’s be clear…under FL law…the decision was in the hands of doctors. The only requirement was 2 doctors agreeing on the diagnosis. If it was cut and dry…should be no problem.

. . . I guess the irony is lost on you that the decision was given to someone other than the patient. Please spare us your rantings about being libertarian in the future.

Does being a Libertarian mean you quit caring if another innocent human being is killed?

And in this case…the woman and her doctors were in the decision making seat.

Also, what do you think the likelihood is of getting a two doctors to say yes, once one doctor says no given the liability and criminal penalties?

In medicine…Drs. make similar decisions daily with equal perils for being wrong. You lawyers usually like it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

I am sure the couple is comforted by the fact that folks like you decided to take the decision out of their hands and put it in the government's hands. How very libertarian of you . . .

Let’s be clear…under FL law…the decision was in the hands of doctors. The only requirement was 2 doctors agreeing on the diagnosis. If it was cut and dry…should be no problem.

. . . I guess the irony is lost on you that the decision was given to someone other than the patient. Please spare us your rantings about being libertarian in the future.

Also, what do you think the likelihood is of getting a two doctors to say yes, once one doctor says no given the liability and criminal penalties?