I am not sure PPH does not need some regulation but to suggest PPH is the biggest Tax payer subsidized lobby group is ludicrous
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
And exactly what we do now with abortion, history has shown we always do this, why is that so absurd?
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
This right here is about 90% of the problem. First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one. The law is inconsistent here at best. Secondly it is this sort of cavalier attitude towards classes of people that always exists when travesties occur. Well I’m not Jewish so what do care what Hitler is doing. Well I don’t own a slave so what do I care what the south is doing. Well I’m not ______ so what do I care what _____ is doing.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
-Edmund Burke
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
It also gave us Dredd Scott v Sandford.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
[/quote]
Are you sure this is consistent across all 50 states?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
[/quote]
Are you sure this is consistent across all 50 states?[/quote]
He is spot on with that statement!
On a board that thinks some one can live with out a brain and that all fetuses are human that Supreme Court Decision in a case equates to Law of the Land
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Not a law.[/quote]
Its law for the government, technically he is not incorrect but its just out of context with the post he replied to. A more accurate wording is the US is unable to give us this law because of roe vs wade.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not sure PPH does not need some regulation but to suggest PPH is the biggest Tax payer subsidized lobby group is ludicrous [/quote]
Looks like you found a girl friend as ignorant as you.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain 
Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Not a law.[/quote]
Its law for the government, technically he is not incorrect but its just out of context with the post he replied to. A more accurate wording is the US is unable to give us this law because of roe vs wade.[/quote]
it is a law , that is Blowharder’s attempt at demagoguery
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
[/quote]
Are you sure this is consistent across all 50 states?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure it is.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
I don’t know why you keep responding to him. That statement is easily the dumbest thing he’s ever written and that’s saying something. I hope to God he was at least high when he wrote that.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
I don’t know why you keep responding to him. That statement is easily the dumbest thing he’s ever written and that’s saying something. I hope to God he was at least high when he wrote that. [/quote]
Oh, I like pit. I disagree with him about everything, but I think he’s an alright dude. I just really think he would do well to educate himself on these matters. He runs on pure emotion.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Well, you see in the United States of America, according to the Constitution of these said States United, it’s the Legislative Branch of the government that makes creates laws. The Legislative Branch consists of The House of Representatives and the Senate. They are the ones who write and vote on laws. And if with enough votes, a law passes then it gets passed on to the Executive Branch which includes the President and if he likes the law, he will sign it and become the executor of the law. If the law is challenged, the it goes to the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch, which is what you are referring to with regards to Roe v. Wade, interprets the laws that are written and executed.
So Row v. Wade was a successful upholding of the current laws as they were understood at the time. The law did not give us Roe v. Wade was a judicial decision on the U.S. law as it could be determined in 1973.