[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[/quote]
section c
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecutionâ??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
The conservative mind has never incorporated economic power into its understanding of freedom. But freedom of religion for corporations who don?t want to give contraceptive services to employees limits the freedom of employees to get them. Freedom of speech for corporations drowns out the free speech of ordinary people who can?t flood the halls of Congress with campaign contributions. Free enterprise and the free market, totems of conservative theology, don?t exist in nature; they are the products of laws and rules continuously emanating from legislatures, executive departments, and courts. Yet anyone with half a brain can see that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the top has tilted those laws and rules in favor of corporations and the wealthy. Conservatives who claim to be on the side of freedom while ignoring the growing imbalance of economic and political power in America are not in fact on the side of freedom. They are on the side of those with the power.
Robert Reich
Nevermind, I was going to start arguing, but I just start acting like an asshole on the internets.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[/quote]
section c
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecutionâ??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. [/quote]
Nice try Pitt, but you said:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .
My statement needs no proof it is apparent a mass of cells is just that a mass of cells [/quote]
The law contradicts your statement. No where did I mention abortion, which is excluded from this particular law (a contradiction in it self).
[quote]Waylon wrote:
Nevermind, I was going to start arguing, but I just start acting like an asshole on the internets.
[/quote]
Isn’t that why Al Gore created it in the first place?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[/quote]
section c
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution�¢??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. [/quote]
Nice try Pitt, but you said:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .
My statement needs no proof it is apparent a mass of cells is just that a mass of cells [/quote]
The law contradicts your statement. No where did I mention abortion, which is excluded from this particular law (a contradiction in it self).
[/quote]
you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance
Well, another way to look at this is with ethical freedoms rather than religious freedoms as the video PitBull shared…
If it’s okay on moral grounds to not pay for something for one individual, then it should be okay on moral grounds for other people to not pay for things that they have moral qualms with. Be it taxes for war, certain types of birth control, etc.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[/quote]
section c
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution�?�¢??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. [/quote]
Nice try Pitt, but you said:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .
My statement needs no proof it is apparent a mass of cells is just that a mass of cells [/quote]
The law contradicts your statement. No where did I mention abortion, which is excluded from this particular law (a contradiction in it self).
[/quote]
you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance
[/quote]
smh… no I do not. I used the law to point out a mass of cells is not just a mass of cells by law.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not state that no one had the opinion that a fetus was not a person . I am sure some where a long the line I would even consider it a person . But we are talking about a clump of cells . [/quote]
Did you miss the bold part:
at any stage of development
That is, word for word, the law.
[/quote]
section c
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution�??�?�¢??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. [/quote]
Nice try Pitt, but you said:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .
My statement needs no proof it is apparent a mass of cells is just that a mass of cells [/quote]
The law contradicts your statement. No where did I mention abortion, which is excluded from this particular law (a contradiction in it self).
[/quote]
you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance
[/quote]
smh… no I do not. I used the law to point out a mass of cells is not just a mass of cells by law.[/quote]
that is pittbull silly rabbit
…Why do I even bother?
Pitt, “Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .”
Usmc, “18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children:
(d) As used in this section, the term ?unborn child? means a child in utero, and the term ?child in utero? or ?child, who is in utero? means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Pitt, " you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance"
Usmc, "This is legal proof that killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder. I never mentioned anything about abortion "
Pitt, inserts fingers in ears, “nananananan can’t hear you nnanananan”
Does that about cover it?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…Why do I even bother?
Pitt, “Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .”
Usmc, “18 U.S. Code Ã?§ 1841 - Protection of unborn children:
(d) As used in this section, the term ?unborn child? means a child in utero, and the term ?child in utero? or ?child, who is in utero? means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Pitt, " you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance"
Usmc, "This is legal proof that killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder. I never mentioned anything about abortion "
Pitt, inserts fingers in ears, “nananananan can’t hear you nnanananan”
Does that about cover it?
[/quote]
(C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecutionâ??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion
Do I need to make it any more simple , this is your article .
So evidently the law was not designed to make your premise a fact . I could go so far as it does not confirm mine either .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…Why do I even bother?
Pitt, “Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .”
Usmc, “18 U.S. Code Ã??Ã?§ 1841 - Protection of unborn children:
(d) As used in this section, the term ?unborn child? means a child in utero, and the term ?child in utero? or ?child, who is in utero? means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Pitt, " you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance"
Usmc, "This is legal proof that killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder. I never mentioned anything about abortion "
Pitt, inserts fingers in ears, “nananananan can’t hear you nnanananan”
Does that about cover it?
[/quote]
(C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecutionâ??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion
Do I need to make it any more simple , this is your article .
So evidently the law was not designed to make your premise a fact . I could go so far as it does not confirm mine either .
[/quote]
I NEVER SAID IT COVERED ABORTION
Jesus dude.
If you kill a woman that is 2 weeks pregnant, aka just has a “mass of cells in her,” (your words) it would be DOUBLE MURDER under the law. Therefore, it proves, by law, that a mass of cells that is not viable can be murdered
Had to log in from home just to point out how moronic and immoral pro-murder some people are.
USMC has linked a law that specifically shows the entire point I was trying to make Wayland. When a baby is wanted, and murdered it is called murder and illegal. When a baby is unwanted, and murdered, it is called “health care rights” and celebrated by immoral, inconsistent simpletons.
So… We have legal precedent, spelled out in plain english that supports my point, a poster that claims I don’t understand science that can’t produce any fucking science to show that…
No wonder Pittt is an anti-religious bigot. He has to be, otherwise he couldn’t rationalize his support of murder.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…Why do I even bother?
Pitt, “Your proof has to be either scientific or legal where a killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder .”
Usmc, “18 U.S. Code Ã???Ã??Ã?§ 1841 - Protection of unborn children:
(d) As used in this section, the term ?unborn child? means a child in utero, and the term ?child in utero? or ?child, who is in utero? means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Pitt, " you want to use that law as proof about abortion , it clearly states it is not to be used in that circumstance"
Usmc, "This is legal proof that killing a mass of cells that is not viable is murder. I never mentioned anything about abortion "
Pitt, inserts fingers in ears, “nananananan can’t hear you nnanananan”
Does that about cover it?
[/quote]
(C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution�¢??
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion
Do I need to make it any more simple , this is your article .
So evidently the law was not designed to make your premise a fact . I could go so far as it does not confirm mine either .
[/quote]
I NEVER SAID IT COVERED ABORTION
Jesus dude.
If you kill a woman that is 2 weeks pregnant, aka just has a “mass of cells in her,” (your words) it would be DOUBLE MURDER under the law. Therefore, it proves, by law, that a mass of cells that is not viable can be murdered
[/quote]
Not to mention, in many states, hitting a pregnant woman can be charged as a felony aggravated assault simply because there is a “mass of cells” inside her belly.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Not to mention, in many states, hitting a pregnant woman can be charged as a felony aggravated assault simply because there is a “mass of cells” inside her belly.
[/quote]
Anyone that refers to another human being, irrelevant of stage of development as simply a “mass of cells” is either a psychopath, or attempting to rationalize the fact they have sold their soul to the collective in order to feel like they “fit in” with larger society.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
or attempting to rationalize the fact they have sold their soul to the collective in order to feel like they “fit in” with larger society. [/quote]
Slave Owners and Democrats (but I repeat myself) used racism to rationalize what the Enlightenment taught them was wrong. They did it largely for economic reasons though, not just to “fit in” with the crowd.
Both Slave Owners and Pro-Aborts use the same dehumanizing tactic to rationalize their wrong doing.
Slave Owner = blacks are less than human
Pro-Abort = The “clump of cells” isn’t a human (or “person” as if there is a difference lmao) until it reaches some arbitrary stage of development that I condone.
As if, that “clump of cells” was a dog, or tree, or the beginning stages of development of a house plant or something, and then suddenly, as if by magic progressive fairy dust, becomes a person at some wonderful magic date they pulled directly out of thin air.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As if, that “clump of cells” was a dog, or tree, or the beginning stages of development of a house plant or something, and then suddenly, as if by magic progressive fairy dust, becomes a person at some wonderful magic date they pulled directly out of thin air. [/quote]
Well said.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Tell that to Onan.
[/quote]
Ah, but Onan was specifically told to father a child and elected to sow elsewhere.[/quote]
Precisely. Ergo, evidently the creator of the universe does care, if Genesis 1, 9 and 39 are any indication.
One cannot obey the commandment (given not only specifically to Onan but to every creature on the planet, apparently) to be fruitful and multiply if one spills one’s seed upon the ground… or on a woman’s breasts, or in her mouth, or inside of a condom.[/quote]
Onan was a somewhat special case. Onan had an obligation to father a child with his brother’s widow Tamar (the resulting child being the heir of his brother, not him) — called levirate marriage.
Onan had no desire to raise a kid who would take 1/2 of his stuff at 18 (or whatever the age was) and played Tamar for a fool, having sex with her, but intentionally not fulfilling his obligation to father a child.
It was Onan’s rejection of his obligation to the widow (who are a particularly protected class in the Torah) that was the issue.
You can actually see this later when Tamar tricks Judah (the dad) into having sex with her, resulting in twins, Perez and Zerah. (Perez is the ancestor of King David.)
++++++++++
As an aside, my ancestors were f----d up.
I will try and address the CJS as a whole , what you are equating is one is illegal (AN ASSAULT) that results in a fetus or possibly even a zygote to die .
The other is a medical procedure .
That would be like charging the doctor that did your appendectomy with attempted murder