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

a reply to: Sookiechacha
So, from your replies, you don't believe in an individual's right to life. So all the murderers in prison need to be let out?
I mean, afterall, none of the people they killed had the right to life.....Right?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wasn't it the last one he shot that had the gun?

That is two he shot that didn't... so your excuse doesn't apply, does it? They may have had a gun, kyle may have not known any different....
Just like the miscarriage may not cause sepsis or excess bleeding... which might lead to death...

I have looked into the court docs.. read about the cases, posted them on ATS and yous don't want to hear about them.

They are allowing the tx law to stand and be enforced now... and, as I understand it.. it doesn't allow the drs to expedite the miscarriage, or at least the drs dont want to find out if it does... they are like a group of people standing around watching kyle get beat half to death without intervening... till... they assaulters walk away or well... kyle is so beaten down that he is non- responsive and close to death.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you have a disagreement with that definition?

Yes.

More than half your body is not human

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count. The rest are microscopic colonists.

Cancer Cells vs. Normal Cells: How Are They Different?

Bacteria and Humans Have Been Swapping DNA for Millennia

How Much of Your Body Is Water?

Physiology, Body Fluids

The extracellular fluid comprises approximately 20% of total body weight

a reply to: matafuchs
There is no protection in the constitution from masks and vaccines either.

a reply to: Quadrivium

So, from your replies, you don't believe in an individual's right to life.

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It's not a person bestowed with rights.

an individual has a right to life, as long as it can keep it. There is no guarantee that a mountain lion or a bear's right to life won't supersedes that individual's right to life.

Right now, the USA, under Title 42, PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, is ejecting thousands of asylum seekers even though their lives are in imminent danger, and even though they have unique DNA and even though their cells undergo mitosis. These people have a right to life, but they do not have the right to expect the USA to save their lives at the risk of the public health and well being.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

So, from your replies, you don't believe in an individual's right to life.

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It's not a person bestowed with rights.

an individual has a right to life, as long as it can keep it. There is no guarantee that a mountain lion or a bear's right to life won't supersedes that individual's right to life.

Right now, the USA, under Title 42, PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, is ejecting thousands of asylum seekers even though their lives are in imminent danger, and even though they have unique DNA and even though their cells undergo mitosis. These people have a right to life, but they do not have the right to expect the USA to save their lives at the risk of the public health and well being.

Back to the Feelz, huh?
Again with the "fertilized egg".
Look, if it makes you feel better to dehumanize another human being, just for your benefit, you are a terrible person.
The last comment was not directed solely at you but many others here as well.

I have stated facts.
You reply with emotion.
You are actually defending killing people who can not protect themselves. You feel the same way about the elderly?
How about 3 year olds?
Just trying to get a overall view of the people you dehumanize.

a reply to: dawnstar

Correct. There is nothing that 'protects' are person from having to 'wear' a mask or 'take' a vaccination except what their individual states decide which is how our country was founded.

However, it would be the 5th and 14th Amendments that would be referenced because the government cannot deny someone life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and not wearing a mask can cause a person to not be able to get standard goods from a store or a job based on vaccinations.

So, in a sense, since a baby in utero is a 'person' they would be protected, not the mother. Correct? Is that not the argument here? Or is it that the mother who cannot get the abortion is denied life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for not being allowed to terminate a pregnancy.

The hardest part is who should decide that. The SCOTUS ? A tough conversation that really has no winner.

I will say this as an opinion.
I honestly believe that one day we'll look back on abortion the same way we do slavery.
As to the SCJ?
She is wrong.
A brain dead person has no potential. Their life is over.
An unborn baby's life has just started. They have a lifetime of potential.
One is not murder because the person is already dead.
The other is murder because they just began their life, when it is was taken.

a reply to: matafuchs

The question is... can a state act to uphold the right of one person at the cost of another...can their actions cause the loss of liberty from one to strengthen the right of another's to liberty? Can they extend the life of one at the cost of another...
If do, then what are the limits, the circumstances in which they can, and who should decide... yous don't like the way the govt has decided this... so yous say.. let the people decide... but I would suggest that is basically what roe did...they let the people involved decide... the women and her dr decide up till the point where the fetis could survive outside of the womb. But no... that wasn't what yous wanted was it? You liked it better when the states had a mishmash of laws, some of which defy reason. So, at least say what you mean... you don't want people to decide for themselves. You want state governments to. And, we can all see just what kind of laws they want to pass now... they are written, some have been passed and are just waiting... many don't seem to give a damn about the mother's or girl's pursuit of happiness, life, or liberty. It's just... try not to let the mother die in the process because if that happens too often we are gonna have a revolt on our hands. And, women don't pick up guns and resort to full scale violence when we revolt.. we just stop doing the things men want us to do...

a reply to: Quadrivium

Back to the Feelz, huh?

You mean like if a mountain lion or a bear feelz hungry, their right to not be hungry may very well supersede your right to life?

Again with the "fertilized egg".

You're the one who feelz that's when a person becomes present.

Look, if it makes you feel better to dehumanize another human being, just for your benefit, you are a terrible person.

If it makes you feelz better to make the human female a slave to biology and force her to be, first and foremost, a state ordained reproduction vessel, you're a terrible person.

Just trying to get a overall view of the people you dehumanize.

There you go again with this religiously tainted moral outrage that most "people" don't see a fertilized egg as a person.

Do you see a vat of frozen embryos as a vat of frozen people?

a reply to: Quadrivium

A brain dead person has no potential. Their life is over.
An unborn baby's life has just started. They have a lifetime of potential.
One is not murder because the person is already dead.
The other is murder because they just began their life, when it is was taken.

That is not what is being debated. What is being debated, in Sotomayor's statement, is whether or not a 12 or 15 week fetus' reflexes prove that it can feel and comprehend pain. Even a brain dead person still has reflexes. Reflexes don't prove complex brain capacity.

a reply to: dawnstar

Thank you for the conversation.

1. I believe in abortion to save the life of the mother. This is a decision that is heart breaking in many cases.
2. I do not believe in abortion as birth control or change of heart based on a relationship.
3. I do not believe it is only the decision of the mother. It should be a mutual decision and a private one.

The problem i see is there are two sides when there are really 3. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice and No Choice. Radical views vs reality. In the end it is no ones business what happens. Sometimes it has to occur and it does in the first three months as a non medical decision I can understand. Where I have the issue is late term abortions and the argument for it from a non medical standpoint. I also cannot stand hearing it is just a clump of cells or the other reasons pushed forward. It is alive from conception.

About 92% occur in the first 14 weeks on average for the last few years. To me the 8% is the discussion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

More than half your body is not human

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count. The rest are microscopic colonists.

The other 57% by weight is bacteria, fungus, etc. Do you consider yourself a bacteria? A fungus?

This describes a symbiotic relationship between a body and the other micro-organisms that inhabit it. I do not consider those part of the body itself, and neither does your link. It specifically refers to these as the "non-human" parts of a person.

Cancer Cells vs. Normal Cells: How Are They Different?

Cancer is not a part of the body according to my definition, nor do I consider it as such. It serves no purpose in assisting the life process. It is a group of cells which no longer work with the body and as such are aberrations, not parts of the body itself.

Bacteria and Humans Have Been Swapping DNA for Millennia

One short paragraph and a request to join a mailing list does not appear to make a valid argument.

How Much of Your Body Is Water?

I included in my definition "materials associated with those cells." Actually, specifically to include fluids necessary to the life process produced by the cells (using water of course), antibodies, neurotransmitters, hormones, chemical messengers, and the like.

Physiology, Body Fluids

The extracellular fluid comprises approximately 20% of total body weight

Bad link. But the excerpt indicates the same basic argument that the previous link seemed to imply, which does not negate my definition.

I asked a question that required quite a bit more than just a yes/no answer this time. Your post was a single word, "yes," and links with absolutely no explanation whatsoever. Previously, I asked a question that was easily answered with a yes or no, and you took 165 words to answer "yes." Are you now unable to type? Or are you unable to defend your earlier statement?

I am not debating the Internet. I am debating you (or at least trying to). If you are unable to defend (or even clarify) your position yourself, please just say so. I do not mind supporting links, but from now on if you post a link without a statement explaining what it supports, I will ignore it. I expect you to at least act like a reasonable adult if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Now, do you care to explain your disagreement(s) with my definition, or at least provide one of your own?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A woman can feel her child at 15 weeks. I would say that means they have reflexes to movement. The brain controls that movement so it is not brain dead. Thank goodness for Soto!

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not debating the Internet. I am debating you

No you're not. You trying to justify your opinion.

I've answered your question, which only required a "yes or no" answer, and not a word count, as you say. I went farther than that, and added links of more examples that explain why I disagree with your definition of what comprises the human body and enables its ability to persist throughout its evolving life and beyond. It's way more complicated than the exact duplication of cellular DNA.

a reply to: matafuchs

I would say that means they have reflexes to movement. The brain controls that movement so it is not brain dead.

Nobody said a 15 week fetus is brain dead. However, even a brain person has reflexes. Fetal reflexes at 15 weeks do not prove consciousness nor the ability to experience the concept of pain.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You answered nothing. "Yes" does not explain anything.

You have refused to define a term you used in an argument. When I responded with my own definition, you refused to specify what your exception to that was, instead putting up links, may of which did not even have anything to do with an exception to my definition (one was not even correctly formatted and could not be accessed). When again, I offered to hear your definition, you again deflected and refused.

Either tell me what it is you believe, without using vague, undefined terms you yourself cannot explain, or be ignored.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

However, even a brain [dead] person has reflexes.

Does a brain dead person suddenly come to life 24 weeks later?

(Since you cannot debate, we'll argue. You seem exceptionally good at that.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You have refused to define a term you used in an argument.

NO, I have. You just reject my argument because you're purposely being obtuse, intellectually dishonest and performing gish gallop troll, as usual.

You could simply disagree.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Does a brain dead person suddenly come to life 24 weeks later?

Potential has nothing to do with whether or not a 12 to 15 week fetus has the brain power to comprehend pain.