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

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: shaemac

I have to disagree. A newborn baby does not remember a thing. A one month old baby does not remember a thing. A 6 month old baby does not remember things. Some studies believe (but it is not fact) that people MAYBE can remember things from 2.5 years old....but that is just maybe.

What you posted is merely an opinion.

It is also quite untrue.

There is no legit research that shows an adult remembers the moment they were born or memories from those early months.
People can lie about it. And Im sure they do. But the brain is not developed enough to even hold those memories.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

And if I support the justice believes what is to you, the last time I check we were still a democracy and I have the right to believe whatever I want, when we turn into a communist country you let me know.

We are in a debate forum no a court.

Again, I don't care what either you or the justice BELIEVES. Not one bit. Will actually defend your right to BELIEVE any nonsense you want, and wish those on the left would offer the same basic courtesy to others.

This justice took great effort to describe unborn babies as braindead tissue.

We may not be able to determine whether a 'soul' is actually a thing, or when a baby first possesses one, but we CAN measure brainwaves of unborn babies, and they look nothing at all like braindead tissue, or even a braindead adult. They look almost identical to a recently born baby.

That is a FACT, not a BELIEF.

The world is flat was a BELIEF. We now know that wasn't factual.

We also KNOW that this justice's claims are NOT factual.

Feel free to believe them if you want, but posting such easily provable factually incorrect statements here will always be challenged.

As they should be.

let me be a bit more explicit, It will not be a reverse to the rights to abortion, that will end the debate, those religious rights salivating on this one are going to have a bad taste in their mouth when is all over.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
One the other hand, you have Justice Amy Barrett saying women don't need abortions because they can just drop the kid off at any Fire Station. I guess she thinks women are just empty vessels to be used to make babies for the government.

...or she believes utilization of publicly funded entities like Fire Stations which exist to serve all Americans, including the newly born is preferable to seeing the unborn murdered at tax payer subsidized clinics and facilities in the name of convenient birth control.

Potato, potahto, ya?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The thing is.....the justices should not even be talking in beliefs. They should only be talking in facts.
There is actual science available. In this day and age with TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE...that is what should have been discussed. What does science show?
That is a huge problem for our SCOTUS and no matter what side of the political aisle you sit on....this should be of huge concern for all.

Here's a thought. Take a bald eagle egg, the National bird and walk on the steps of the Capitol and break it on the steps. Guess what? You are going to jail. Why? Its just an egg right? It would be determined that it was a bald eagle, which is illegal to kill. So why isn't an unborn child just as important. It is more important!!!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Lumenari


To the OP... since the SCJ has pointed out that brain dead people can have the plug pulled on them and her response to the subject at hand proves that she has no discernible brain function, can we abort her now?

To your point, if unborn children are a burden and a financial strain, thus the reason(s) to terminate their lives, then killing the homeless and those on welfare should be allowed as well.

I thought intentionally trying to explode puny democrat brains with logic bombs was only allowed in the pit.

Many scifi doom flics depict what you described as the favorite sport of future leftists.

Scary part is, they all seem to be the creative imaginations of current democrats/leftists in hollywood...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wow something we can agree on, Is hilarious how people get their panties in a bunch when it comes to abortion.

Is always something to see.

I think I figure it out, is because men can not have abortions, unless you are a transgender.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

"Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli,"

I guess she thinks women are just empty vessels to be used to make babies for the government.

Snipped by me.
On the other side of that, one could say that women are just alters for child sacrifices for the government?
Why am I being forced to pay for something I feel is murder?

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers

tax paper funded abortion

Stop!!!! They are the party of love and kindness just read their hateful twitter posts.

originally posted by: marg6043
let me be a bit more explicit, It will not be a reverse to the rights to abortion, that will end the debate, those religious rights salivating on this one are going to have a bad taste in their mouth when is all over.

That is a belief, stated as a belief.

Well done!

I disagree with your belief, but see no intentional misinformation.

a reply to: shaemac

Is not that bad, is less than paying for welfare and illegals crossing the border for life.

originally posted by: Locutis1704
Here's a thought. Take a bald eagle egg, the National bird and walk on the steps of the Capitol and break it on the steps. Guess what? You are going to jail. Why? Its just an egg right? It would be determined that it was a bald eagle, which is illegal to kill. So why isn't an unborn child just as important. It is more important!!!

Or have a dog that is pregnant and decide you don't want that litter of puppies and take the dog to the vet to have the unborn puppies killed. Imagine the outrage across the country if you did that. Seriously. You would have death threats and have to go into hiding.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: shaemac

Is not that bad, is less than paying for welfare and illegals crossing the border for life.

Well.....neither are OK. LOL

Sotomayor's most important qualifications were Hispanic Female. **Obama Administration checks box on identity politics wish list** Her statement shows the abysmal education offered ivy league law graduates that lacks scientific training in an increasingly technical world. If law schools required at least freshman chemistry, biology, and physics, with math through calculus, it would cut the lawyer production by about 95%.

a reply to: shaemac

Gotta be honest, at the end of the day neither beliefs nor science should have any place in this decision by the courts... what matters is the law and whether or not the law is not only Constitutional, but CONSISTENT. The "her body, her choice" argument that begat Roe V Wade is inconsistent with the majority of the country's laws and totally inconsistent with SCOTUS rulings (or refusals to intervene) in multiple prior cases.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have picked up every challenge to the Biden vax mandate as well as the employers' mandates and cast the entirety of them into the abyss as violating the individual's Right to Choice over their own body.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have long ago thrown out all laws regarding illicit narcotic use in one's own home, because that's entirely a personal choice over one's own body.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have blessed doctor assisted suicide years ago.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, no state would be allowed to have anti-prostitution laws on the books.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, then conscription would be unlawful in this nation.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, polygamy would be federally legalized.

I could go on, but the simple point is that outlawing abortion actually would be a law that is in-line with the majority of this country's laws... if consistancy matters, then Roe V Wade should either be reversed or the court needs to decriminalize a whole hell of a lot of presently legislated behavior.

originally posted by: Locutis1704
Here's a thought. Take a bald eagle egg, the National bird and walk on the steps of the Capitol and break it on the steps. Guess what? You are going to jail. Why? Its just an egg right? It would be determined that it was a bald eagle, which is illegal to kill. So why isn't an unborn child just as important. It is more important!!!

Another great logic bomb!

I bet every democrat/leftist here stopped reading after your 8th word, out of fear that they might see something painful to their brainwashed belief system.

Any takers?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: shaemac

Gotta be honest, at the end of the day neither beliefs nor science should have any place in this decision by the courts... what matters is the law and whether or not the law is not only Constitutional, but CONSISTENT. The "her body, her choice" argument that begat Roe V Wade is inconsistent with the majority of the country's laws and totally inconsistent with SCOTUS rulings (or refusals to intervene) in multiple prior cases.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have picked up every challenge to the Biden vax mandate as well as the employers' mandates and cast the entirety of them into the abyss as violating the individual's Right to Choice over their own body.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have long ago thrown out all laws regarding illicit narcotic use in one's own home, because that's entirely a personal choice over one's own body.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, SCOTUS would have blessed doctor assisted suicide years ago.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, no state would be allowed to have anti-prostitution laws on the books.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, then conscription would be unlawful in this nation.

If "her body, her choice" mattered, polygamy would be federally legalized.

I could go on, but the simple point is that outlawing abortion actually would be a law that is in-line with the majority of this country's laws... if consistancy matters, then Roe V Wade should either be reversed or the court needs to decriminalize a whole hell of a lot of presently legislated behavior.

I don't disagree with you.
I mention science, because the Constitution is for a living citizen and that would cover an unborn baby's right to life.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And one of the reason why is no to going to be reversed or reformed or do anything with it.

Can no wait to see the final ruling if is any.

I have always been pro-choice but the wild insane based on feelings arguments I have heard the last few years when it comes to abortion has pushed me into into a pro-life opinion.

Idiotic arguments like that lady gave, prove nothing except an attempt to justify their stance.

ETA: no matter my personal changing opinion R V W is not going to be crushed.