Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Is this going to be the new version of "I know who you are, but who am I"? Awesome!

A fetus might have a longer memory than you

That's true most of the time, I'm conditioning myself to forget normies in no time. With staggering results. How about your memory then, do you still remember the last time you've had a decent conversation with a fetus?

a reply to: Spartakush


I have no comment on this most recent distraction attempt.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

That's what you said with your first comment to my alleged distraction attempt, even if the wording was different this time. So why not end this spiel for good, and answer the question already?

This is you fighting an alleged distraction with more distractions, I'd reckon. And we're supposed to pretend this didn't happen? That's not creepy at all, so which church are you working for?

a reply to: Spartakush


I still have no comment on this nonsense, but please keep digging that hole.

here is the biggest problem with the insane idea that "a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person". a brain dead person is someone who's brain has literally died, or ceased to function. and there is no hope of the brain ever being able to function again.

where a baby before being born has a functioning brain, or at the very earliest stages of pregnancy that brain is developing and WILL, except in rare cases start to function.

there really is no valid equal comparison to the two. they are completely opposite of each other.

a reply to: generik


Do you have an opinion as to why soto used that intentional deception from the bench?

Was it to deceptively alter the opinion of others?

Does anyone think that is OK for a supreme?

I don't.

Neither did Scalia or RBG.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: generik


Do you have an opinion as to why soto used that intentional deception from the bench?

Was it to deceptively alter the opinion of others?

Does anyone think that is OK for a supreme?

I don't.

Neither did Scalia or RBG.

it seems rather obvious why that comparison was made. to use as justification to murder babies. after all it is "OK" to kill a "brain-dead" person, because they have no brain function. so killing a baby that is easy to convince gullible liberals into believing they do not have "a functioning brain", makes for a convenient justification as to how it is no different.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: generik


Do you have an opinion as to why soto used that intentional deception from the bench?

Was it to deceptively alter the opinion of others?

Does anyone think that is OK for a supreme?

I don't.

Neither did Scalia or RBG.

it seems rather obvious why that comparison was made. to use as justification to murder babies. after all it is "OK" to kill a "brain-dead" person, because they have no brain function. so killing a baby that is easy to convince gullible liberals into believing they do not have "a functioning brain", makes for a convenient justification as to how it is no different.

Tempted to make a captain obvious joke, but democrats seem a little sensitive lately, and your latest post likely caused a good deal of hurt feelz and brain pain already.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wow... 165 words (I gave you the benefit and counted the hyphenated word as one) to say "yes." That must be some kind of record!

In any case, you did answer with the correct answer: it is alive and it is human, both before and after fertilization. Since you seem to like pressing keys on a keyboard so much, I'll let you play with something that is not a yes or no question:

At the instant of fertilization, when the sperm penetrates the ovum membrane, what, if anything, changes about the ovum?

TheRedneck

a reply to: generik

So, we have a heartbeat before a heart is even formed that can beat, and a a fully functional brain before most of the brain is formed in around 90% or abortions..
Who is being deceptive??

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: generik

So, we have a heartbeat before a heart is even formed that can beat, and a a fully functional brain before most of the brain is formed in around 90% or abortions..
Who is being deceptive??

Is a clinical fact that the brainwaves of recently born babies are nearly identical to that of babies long before natural birth.

Not just reactions to pain or other stimuli.

Not just operating organs.

Nearly identical to a living, breathing, perfectly healthy 1 week old baby.

Not even a scientific debate about it anymore.

Not opinion or belief.

Proven. Fact.

Suggesting otherwise is accurately called deceptive, if one wants to be polite.

I call it intentionally dishonest.

The ONLY honest debate at this point is how long before on time delivery a baby's brain is that active & aware.


As to the jumbled nonsensical words in your latest post, I state no opinion, since I really don't know exactly what you were trying to say.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Would you agree that it isn't in the first trimester, when around 90% of abortions occur?
So, your question is pertinent to approximately 10% of abortions..

Which, by the way is about the same percentage of abortions that involve rape, fetal anomalies, and mother's health and life issues...

Why do you consider that small number of abortions that MAY have fully functional brains and hearts so relevant that it justifies total bans on abortions with the only exemption being "to save the women's life, which so many states just have waiting for roe to be overturned while dismissing any and just about all concern when that other small group's concerns are brought up... they are about the same percentage of the abortions.. if you consider one group to be insignificant because of the small number involved, you should also consider the other group as insignificant.

a reply to: dawnstar

So, we have a heartbeat before a heart is even formed that can beat, and a a fully functional brain before most of the brain is formed in around 90% or abortions..
Who is being deceptive??

That would be... let's see... YOU!

If there is a detectable heartbeat, it follows that there is also a heart that is capable of beating. Do you know what the mechanism is for a heartbeat? It's actually a pretty complex thing. Signals from the central nervous system activate motor neurons which impart an electrical gradient across the electrical synapse where they connect to the heart muscle tissue. The heart muscle cells activated by this electrical potential then contract. At the same time, they also conduct that electrical potential to adjacent heart cells, which also contract and conduct the electrical potential to adjacent heart cells, which contract and also conduct... well, you get the idea.

Before the heart forms, but after heart cells have appeared, the heart cells still beat... just not in unison. The conductivity of heart cells causes this to happen, but without an external electrical potential to coordinate those beats they all tend to beat at random. They cannot pump blood that way. At some point, a coordinating signal and enough heart cells are there, in the proper configuration, to begin beating in unison in response to those few electrical potentials from the brain that travel across and through the heart to synchronize all the cells to beat in unison.

At that point, it becomes possible to detect a heartbeat. That detection means that the heart is capable of pumping blood and that the brain is capable of coordinating the electrical potentials needed to cause the beat. To suggest that, even though a heartbeat is detected, there is no heart formed to beat is... well... "silly" is the only word I can think of to describe it.

"Incoherent" and "ignorant" also come to mind... but they don't seem to be sufficient. I'll go with "silly."

The evidence of brain activity that is being discussed concerns brain waves. Now, we cannot at this time say what each brainwave actually is or does, but we do know that functioning brains produce brainwaves, and we can compare those brainwaves between individuals at various times and in various activities to help us determine when brainwaves occur and in what frequencies and relative amplitudes. We use brainwaves to help us determine if someone is in a coma or brain dead... if there are no brainwaves, we know that indicates the brain is no longer functioning. Interneurons operate on electrical potentials, and these changing electrical potentials are what cause brainwaves, so no brainwaves mean the neurons are not operating. Certain brainwave patterns indicate sleep, sexual excitement, heavy concentration, etc., although we cannot at this time tell what someone is thinking or anything specific like that.

We can now detect brainwaves from infants in utero, and compare then to the brainwaves of newly-born children. The two are remarkably similar.

As for the brain being "fully developed," that does not happen until approximately age 25. The last areas to develop are those that deal with forethought and action consequences.That's why insurance rates drop at age 25: drivers over that age tend to consider future consequences of action better because their brain is then fully formed (the insurance companies had this figured out before science did). So, I have to ask, are you proposing that children up to age 25 can also be aborted?

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar


I make no claim as to what percentage of abortions occur during each trimester and have no interest in researching that subject.

None.

As in I'm willing to agree to any silly number you propose.

Because it has no place in an honest debate on this subject, and means less than nothing here.

Keep trying that nonsense of you want, but the debate is not over how many unborn babies are currently being killed during any specific period of gestation, the debate is to determine at what point it is no longer legal, proper, moral (insert your choice of descriptor) to kill an unborn baby.


Or is that you think it is ok to murder some arbitrary number of tiny defenseless American citizens every year (that tiny percentage you keep referring to) as long as the murders don't exceed whatever number you keep pushing?

Who determines the number?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

And the answer is when self defense comes into play with the mother!!!
If we took the view of many of these laws out into the real world....
Rittenhouse murdered three people!! Sure, each one of the three may have killed him, but how likely that would be is debatable. Ya, they may have giving him a beatdown, but, that doesn't mean he would die. Most likely he would have survived. He may not have been as fully functional as he had been, but, he probably would have survived.
You put that back in the world of the mothers physical body...
It doesn't matter it the fetus has a heartbeat, it the fetus shows some brain activity... it only matters if the fetus is viable, can be removed from the mother so the danger is no longer present and if it isn't, all that matters is if the women herself chooses to defend herself.
Now, you think of all the conditions the people in the real world seems to justify defending their way of life, their possessions, the lives of themselves and their loved ones and come back and tell me just how inadequate these abortion laws come when it comes to a women's right to self defense.

a reply to: dawnstar


So you are flat out stating that an unborn baby has zero human rights until it's birth in your opinion?

I applaud your newfound honesty.

Not being clever or sarcastic here, I actually want honesty, and as long as stated as opinion instead of implied as fact, you shouldn't expect any ridicule from me.

When exactly does that baby receive those rights in your opinion - what exactly do you consider that 'moment of birth'?

As soon as the head pops out?

When fully out?

After cord is cut?

Or at some point after this?

Or maybe at some point before head emerges?

I am honestly curious.

But it still has zero to do with the case before scotus.

That case is about rvw viability assumptions vs scientific facts discovered since then, and opinions have absolutely nothing to do with that.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Are you saying the people rittenhouse killed had 0 human rights?

I don't know what rights a fetus should be given when.
But... I do know that their rights shouldn't surpass the mother's rights to self defense when faced with a greater threat than rittenhouse faced, regardless of stage of pregnancy, or development of a fetal heart rate or brain activity. Viability and undue burden is what roe is based on... it is those two things that should be considered...
Undue burden to the mother, if the child can survive separate from the mother, and undue burden to the justice system and state.
And that statement ties in with the topic.

a reply to: dawnstar

Are you saying the people rittenhouse killed had 0 human rights?

They do now.

I don't know what rights a fetus should be given when.

Then what exactly are you arguing for? That's what this entire thread is about, and it's what the entire court case is about. You're flopping around between issues like a fish out of water.

But... I do know that their rights shouldn't surpass the mother's rights to self defense when faced with a greater threat than rittenhouse faced

Whoa, wait, wait, wait.... I want some clarification on that statement.

Kyle Rittenhouse was faced with the threat of DEATH. Are you claiming that pregnancy is worse than DYING?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Death is death...
But, some pregnancy complications can present an equal or even greater danger of death than rittenhouse was faced with.

a reply to: TheRedneck

At the instant of fertilization, when the sperm penetrates the ovum membrane, what, if anything, changes about the ovum?

Nothing that magically makes the ovum, which has been a part of the woman's body since before her birth, suddenly not a part of her body. Nothing that suddenly endows that ovum with rights that supersede the mother's rights.