BoatShoes;1089299 wrote: But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will.

BoatShoes;1089299 wrote:Ask yourself this, if you were to say that a fetus is a person and has brain activity that deserves consideration; if that's true and its growing inside a woman against her will, then it would be committing a battery against the woman. But of course, it can't form the requisite criminal intent to commit a battery against the woman because it doesn't have any more sentience than a skin cell.

But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will. It is involuntary servitude of the most egregious and atrocious kind.

Conservatives are concerned about their liberties when they are asked not to free load and insure their own health but they have no qualms about being forced to have another human grow inside of you against your will

BoatShoes;1089308 wrote: Women who have difficulty getting pregnant and have multiple miscarriages and willingly try to get pregnant, knowing there's a high probability that fetal homicide could result are as morally repugnant as serial murderers.

BoatShoes;1089299 wrote:This demands a reply because it is utter nonsense and it is a claim that hardcore christians repeat like zombies. This largely comes from from an article called "Fetal Brain Development" in the New England Journal of medicine in 1982 because the author said that an EEG could detect "brain function". This is not what the author meant. He simply dropped the scientific exactitude of "electrical brain activity" concurrent with the onset of neurogenesis and the more layman "brain function." Functionally and completely brain-dead humans still emit Flat EEGs.

It is functionally and biologically impossible for a fetus to have anything close to the type of "brain activity" people mean when they talk about "brainwaves" until 23 weeks when the neurocortical connections first begin to form. Until then, a fetus' neural electrical activity is not even the kind of coherent brain activity seen in shrimp or brain dead adult humans with beating hearts.

Ask yourself this, if you were to say that a fetus is a person and has brain activity that deserves consideration; if that's true and its growing inside a woman against her will, then it would be committing a battery against the woman. But of course, it can't form the requisite criminal intent to commit a battery against the woman because it doesn't have any more sentience than a skin cell.


But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will. It is involuntary servitude of the most egregious and atrocious kind. Conservatives are concerned about their liberties when they are asked not to free load and insure their own health but they have no qualms about being forced to have another human grow inside of you against your will.

No lower federal court has accepted that argument yet because it has never been established that a fetus is a person. If any of these personhood bills become law you can bet your ass that pro-lifers won't know what him them when courts start knocking down these laws and make it illegal for states to outlaw abortion even after viability.

BoatShoes;1089308 wrote:Yeah but if we're serious about the fetus being a person like all other human persons, then a woman who drinks caffeine during pregnancy, knowingly and willfully gets pregnant with a uterine malformation or high blood pressure...well they're consciously disregarding what might be considered a substantial and unjustifiably high risk to human life given their odds of having a miscarriage...a sufficient mental state to be charged with murder if a miscarriage results.

That Georgia House member Bobby Franklin got a lot of criticism for his introduction of the "prenatal murder" bill that would require the investigation of miscarriages but he's being consistent if you ask me...if you're "pro-life" and consider fetus' morally equivalent to the average walking, talking American, then fetal destruction of all types should require a police investigation just like the death of a walking, talking post-fetal human.

Women who have difficulty getting pregnant and have multiple miscarriages and willingly try to get pregnant, knowing there's a high probability that fetal homicide could result are as morally repugnant as serial murderers.

Of course this sounds ridiculous to the average joe but this is the type of thinking that consistency requires on this issue if we're going to say that a fetus is a human like the average walking, talking citizen.


And the bottom line is, the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country would be a stronger, and better safety net. Women who get pregnant and have abortions know that the surest way to a life time of lower economic opportunity if not poverty is to have an unplanned pregnancy. If society did more to make that not the case and a woman who got unexpectedly pregnant could know that, even with that unexpected pregnancy, she could have strong hope for a bright future for that child, and she could raise it and not have to give it to total strangers if she wants it to have a bright future only to have him/her hunt her down later on, etc; there would be fewer abortions.

BoatShoes;1089299 wrote:This demands a reply because it is utter nonsense and it is a claim that hardcore christians repeat like zombies. This largely comes from from an article called "Fetal Brain Development" in the New England Journal of medicine in 1982 because the author said that an EEG could detect "brain function". This is not what the author meant. He simply dropped the scientific exactitude of "electrical brain activity" concurrent with the onset of neurogenesis and the more layman "brain function." Functionally and completely brain-dead humans still emit Flat EEGs.

It is functionally and biologically impossible for a fetus to have anything close to the type of "brain activity" people mean when they talk about "brainwaves" until 23 weeks when the neurocortical connections first begin to form. Until then, a fetus' neural electrical activity is not even the kind of coherent brain activity seen in shrimp or brain dead adult humans with beating hearts.

Ask yourself this, if you were to say that a fetus is a person and has brain activity that deserves consideration; if that's true and its growing inside a woman against her will, then it would be committing a battery against the woman. But of course, it can't form the requisite criminal intent to commit a battery against the woman because it doesn't have any more sentience than a skin cell.


But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will. It is involuntary servitude of the most egregious and atrocious kind. Conservatives are concerned about their liberties when they are asked not to free load and insure their own health but they have no qualms about being forced to have another human grow inside of you against your will.

No lower federal court has accepted that argument yet because it has never been established that a fetus is a person. If any of these personhood bills become law you can bet your ass that pro-lifers won't know what him them when courts start knocking down these laws and make it illegal for states to outlaw abortion even after viability.

I Wear Pants;1089400 wrote:

pmoney25;1089423 wrote:No need to attack his religiousity, attack his record, his terrible views and policies.

FairwoodKing;1089454 wrote:No one has yet answered my question. Is America ready to elect a Mormon? I say no. Being that I am an Obama supporter, that makes me want Romney to be the nominee. I believe that at least 25% of the electorate will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance, including many conservative Republicans. There is at least another 10% that will not vote for a Republican, irrespective of religion. Nominating Romney is the easiest way to keep Obama in the White House.

No one has yet answered my question. Is America ready to elect a Mormon? I say no.

HitsRus;1089463 wrote:We elected a Catholic in 1960....and a person of color in 2008. I think we could handle a "Mormon". Are there pockets of 'predjudice' still around...sure. But that goes hand in hand with being an open pluralistic society. A lot of these predjucices are just perpetuated by 'diversity' concepts which tries to organize us into groups instead of demanding amalgamation.

gut;1089366 wrote:Way off-target. I would say a better corollary is a doctor taking on cases with very low survival rates. She's not "killing" anything that doesn't exist without her. On the contrary, she's trying to "save" a life that would not otherwise exist. Also the elements of a homicide are means, motive and intent. You can't prove the woman in your example guilty of any of those three fundamental concepts, unless there's something she can and knowingly takes or does to her body to provoke a miscarriage, but the choice to willfully get pregnant in the first place is a direct contradiction to motive and intent.

jmog;1089390 wrote:The problem with your whole argument, unless the woman was raped, the fetus is NOT in there "against her will". She willingly engaged in an activity that is the only way to have such a condition occur. Logical fail.

BoatShoes;1089468 wrote:If the same culpable mental states that are applicable to homicide are applicable to fetus' a woman who engages in behavior that creates a high risk for a miscarriage is consciously disregarding a substantial risk to human life...a mental state that is sufficient for a murder charge if concurrent with the death of a human being in any jurisdiction. Sure it sounds ridiculous at first glance but this is what is required if were to take the position that a fetus is a human person seriously

jmog;1089392 wrote:BS, you amaze me at the illogical responses sometimes, but this one takes the cake.

So, you want to pass blame on the fetus, if we are assuming it is human. However, you being liberal I'm sure you probably have a problem with spanking a toddler. Now, imagine if it was an infant and you spanked an infant for poking the mother in the eye. Illogical because the infant baby has no cognitive knowledge of right and wrong yet. However, somehow you want to punish a younger "human" for "assaulting" the mother?

You are hilarious.

jmog;1089447 wrote:As opposed to Obama's wonderful views and amazing policies? [/
QUOTE]


No, Obama is terrible also.

pmoney25;1089423 wrote:No need to attack his religiousity, attack his record, his terrible views and policies.

believer;1089502 wrote: However, I'd take Santorum's "terrible views and policies" any day over what we've enjoyed for the past 3+ years.

Ron Paul-hating radio host Marxist Levin gets his comeuppance


I heard Marxist Levin whining about this last night in that shrill voice of his. I had to turn it off because my dog Betty was in the car and those high-pitched tones hurt her ears. Note at the 8:00 mark where the hosts read Levin's left-wing criticisms of those ancient e-mails that liberals love to use to attack Ron Paul.

Also note where Levin starts whining about attacks on his religion. The hosts reply that they don't even know what that religion is. But they also note that, just in case it's Jewish, some of the foremost defenders of liberty Levin despises have been Jewish.

I would list among them the guy who first directed me to the Lew Rockwell site, Murray Sabrin. The New Jersey libertarian's father was a resistance fighter in Poland in World War II. He is among the most outspoken defenders of Ron Paul and his liberty campaign.

As I've noted, if Ron Paul provides no other service he will have done us all a great favor by exposing these "neo" conservatives as the left-wingers they are.

Cleveland Buck;1089546 wrote:The only difference between Santorum's views and Obama's views are on social issues. They would both be equally disastrous.

Cleveland Buck;1089561 wrote:http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/02/ron_paul-hating_radio_host_mar.html

BGFalcons82;1089588 wrote:To claim Mark Levin is marxist in any shape/manner/form is ludicrous.