Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

[Temujin]

So why mention DNA? But you get the point that a human being is a human being whether you call it a person or.not and a cabbage is a cabbage whether you call it a person or not. Person is irrelevant

On the contrary, human being is irrelevant. There's no dispute that the unborn human and the born human are both human. The dispute concerns whether they both have rights. In other words whether or not they are a person. There's no relevance in claiming that the aspect we agree on proves that the aspect we disagree on should fall on your side. You have to show some evidence, rather than just claiming victory.

 

[BMS]

On the contrary, human being is irrelevant.

On the contrary, the entity in the womb is a human being whether you call it a person or not.

 

[Temujin]

On the contrary, the entity in the womb is a human being whether you call it a person or not.

Which has never been in dispute. Arguing that water is wet doesn't enhance your reputation as a skilled debater.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Oh I can tell the difference. It seems that it's you that cannot. You have heard of analogy before, haven't you. But as I say, throwing insults gets nobody anywhere.

Of COURSE I have heard the analogy before. I heard it from your friend Justice Sotomayor. She is one of nine justices on the supreme court in the USA. The supreme court is the court of final appeal. It is the highest court in the land. There are three liberal justices, but Sotomayor is probably the most radical of the left on the court.

Sotomayor made that comparison--and when I heard it I could not believe a justice on the supreme court court would make such a ridiculous argument and comparison. The justices on that court are supposed to be the most elite, best, and brightest legal minds in the entire nation. And here we have a justice making such a juvenile, sophomoric argument.

Said the justice: "Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli. There's about 40 percent of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don't think that a response to -- by a fetus necessarily proves that there's a sensation of pain or that there's consciousness."

I simply cannot believe----abortion supporters actually think this constitutes a good argument in favor of abortion. Really--if I didn't know better, I would think this is something out of "The Onion" or an SNL skit.

 

[Temujin]

Of COURSE I have heard the analogy before. I heard it from your friend Justice Sotomayor. She is one of nine justices on the supreme court in the USA. The supreme court is the court of final appeal. It is the highest court in the land. There are three liberal justices, but Sotomayor is probably the most radical of the left on the court.

Sotomayor made that comparison--and when I heard it I could not believe a justice on the supreme court court would make such a ridiculous argument and comparison. The justices on that court are supposed to be the most elite, best, and brightest legal minds in the entire nation. And here we have a justice making such a juvenile, sophomoric argument.

Said the justice: "Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli. There's about 40 percent of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don't think that a response to -- by a fetus necessarily proves that there's a sensation of pain or that there's consciousness."

I simply cannot believe----abortion supporters actually think this constitutes a good argument in favor of abortion. Really--if I didn't know better, I would think this is something out of "The Onion" or an SNL skit.

It isn't an argument for abortion. It is an argument against the nonsense that the unborn automatically should have rights.

Your personal opinions on the rationality of supreme court judges (experts in law), Catholic bishops (experts in theology) and biologists (experts in biology) display your customary humility and willingness to consider opinions other than your own.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

It isn't an argument for abortion. It is an argument against the nonsense that the unborn automatically should have rights.

It isn't an argument for abortion, but an argument for why the unborn should not have rights!!!??? How is that NOT an argument for abortion?

How many times do I have to tell you--that if pro-lifers didn't believe the unborn child--was a--CHILD--we would not care about abortion?

How many pro-lifers do you see arguing against gallbladder removal because the gallbladder is person with rights? Sotomayor's logic might apply there. A gallbladder is not only not conscious, it does not even have the capacity to develop consciousness.

Your personal opinions on the rationality of supreme court judges (experts in law), Catholic bishops (experts in theology) and biologists (experts in biology) display your customary humility and willingness to consider opinions other than your own.

Sir, I am questioning the poor logic of the justice; not the law.

In the second place, it is our not only our RIGHT, but our DUTY to question "the experts" and not just accept every word that comes out of their mouth like sheep. I am not going to shut my mouth just becasue Sotomayor is an expert in law. She may well be; that does not mean she is impeccable or immune from criticism.

 

[Temujin]

It isn't an argument for abortion, but an argument for why the unborn should not have rights!!!??? How is that NOT an argument for abortion?

How many times do I have to tell you--that if pro-lifers didn't believe the unborn child--was a--CHILD--we would not care about abortion?

How many pro-lifers do you see arguing against gallbladder removal because the gallbladder is person with rights? Sotomayor's logic might apply there. A gallbladder is not only not conscious, it does not even have the capacity to develop consciousness.

Sir, I am questioning the poor logic of the justice; not the law.

In the second place, it is our not only our RIGHT, but our DUTY to question "the experts" and not just accept every word that comes out of their mouth like sheep. I am not going to shut my mouth just becasue Sotomayor is an expert in law. She may well be; that does not mean she is impeccable or immune from criticism.

If pro abortion rights supporters really believed that it was a child, they wouldn't support abortion. Nobody believed that the unborn was a child ( until quickening) until the 19th century, including religious people, which at that time was everybody. The peculiar notion that the human embryo is a child is an aberration.

A layman criticising an expert on a point of their expertise needs a good deal of evidence to back up their criticism. Outrage is not the same as evidence. You are simply not convincing.

 

[BMS]

Which has never been in dispute. Arguing that water is wet doesn't enhance your reputation as a skilled debater.

So whether you call it a person or not is irrelevant.

 

[BMS]

It isn't an argument for abortion. It is an argument against the nonsense that the unborn automatically should have rights.

Your personal opinions on the rationality of supreme court judges (experts in law), Catholic bishops (experts in theology) and biologists (experts in biology) display your customary humility and willingness to consider opinions other than your own.

Since the unborn is a human being it should have the right to life.
Human history is full of people degrading other human beings in order to kill them and feel justified.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

If pro abortion rights supporters really believed that it was a child, they wouldn't support abortion. Nobody believed that the unborn was a child ( until quickening) until the 19th century, including religious people, which at that time was everybody. The peculiar notion that the human embryo is a child is an aberration.

Here we go again.

You want to appeal to dated beliefs about when life begins----which were based on what was known scientifically at the time? What does that have to do with anything?

Joe Biden said the same thing--apparently thinking this somehow constitutes an argument for abortion. What Biden didn't tell you was that the RCC was ALWAYS against abortion even though it did NOT always teach that life begins at conception.

So here is my question to you: the fact that religions were/are divided as to the question of when life begins, the fact that until the 19th century no one said the unborn was a child until quickening--what does that have to do with anything? Why do you think this constitutes an argument for abortion?

This is something I notice with abortion supporters: they bring up red herrings and think those red herrings for some reason, somehow, constitute an argument for abortion.

A layman criticising an expert on a point of their expertise needs a good deal of evidence to back up their criticism. Outrage is not the same as evidence. You are simply not convincing.

So a fetus, a cabbage, and a corpse are the same thing.

And you tell me---"I am not convincing?"

 

[Temujin]

Here we go again.

You want to appeal to dated beliefs about when life begins----which were based on what was known scientifically at the time? What does that have to do with anything?

Joe Biden said the same thing--apparently thinking this somehow constitutes an argument for abortion. What Biden didn't tell you was that the RCC was ALWAYS against abortion even though it did NOT always teach that life begins at conception.

So here is my question to you: the fact that religions were/are divided as to the question of when life begins, the fact that until the 19th century no one said the unborn was a child until quickening--what does that have to do with anything? Why do you think this constitutes an argument for abortion?

This is something I notice with abortion supporters: they bring up red herrings and think those red herrings for some reason, somehow, constitute an argument for abortion.

So a fetus, a cabbage, and a corpse are the same thing.

And you tell me---"I am not convincing?"

You are mistaken. Quickening is nothing to do with when life begins, and never had been. It's to do with when life becomes meaningful. Calling an hour old embryo a person, with the right to life, is meaningless. I don't rest the case for abortion rights on ancient knowledge. I simply point out that the demands for abortion bans are a tad, that's rapidly going out of fashion. It's not my fault that you are caught up in the fashions of the fifties.

Did I say that a cabbage a foetus and a corpse are the same thing? No. I said that they all fail to be the same thing, because each lacks one of the necessary conditions, human, born, alive.

 

[BMS]

You are mistaken. Quickening is nothing to do with when life begins, and never had been. It's to do with when life becomes meaningful. Calling an hour old embryo a person, with the right to life, is meaningless. I don't rest the case for abortion rights on ancient knowledge. I simply point out that the demands for abortion bans are a tad, that's rapidly going out of fashion. It's not my fault that you are caught up in the fashions of the fifties.

Did I say that a cabbage a foetus and a corpse are the same thing? No. I said that they all fail to be the same thing, because each lacks one of the necessary conditions, human, born, alive.

Who decides whose life is meaningful? You or us? Since you are happy enough to suggest that then leave it to us. ok?
Calling a human being at embryo stage 'not a person' changes NOTHING! You say cabbage I say human being
What other arguments have you got to defend the killing?

 

[BMS]

You are mistaken. Quickening is nothing to do with when life begins, and never had been. It's to do with when life becomes meaningful. Calling an hour old embryo a person, with the right to life, is meaningless. I don't rest the case for abortion rights on ancient knowledge. I simply point out that the demands for abortion bans are a tad, that's rapidly going out of fashion. It's not my fault that you are caught up in the fashions of the fifties.

Did I say that a cabbage a foetus and a corpse are the same thing? No. I said that they all fail to be the same thing, because each lacks one of the necessary conditions, human, born, alive.

Cabbage isnt human, the human being at foetal stage and the human being at adult stage are. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Temujin]

Who decides whose life is meaningful?

Legislatures, followed by courts. You lose

 

[Temujin]

Cabbage isnt human, the human being at foetal stage and the human being at adult stage are. What exactly are you trying to say?

For you, and anyone equally bewildered, the three elements of a person are: human, born, alive.

The cabbage is not human
The corpse is not alive
The unborn is not born.

Next up, the Three Times Table.

 

[BMS]

Legislatures, followed by courts. You lose

So which legislatures and courts of which countries? How does one tell which are killers and which are for life ?

 

[BMS]

For you, and anyone equally bewildered,

Ok thanks because obviously more than one of us, if not perhaps most, are bewildered. That should be obvious to you.

the three elements of a person are: human, born, alive.

So what, that is just your opinion. We are referring you to the human being which is the same entity whether born or not. You are advocating the human being can be killed just because you dont think they are a person. That is just your opinion, not a reason

 

[Temujin]

So which legislatures and courts of which countries? How does one tell which are killers and which are for life ?

All legislatures of all countries. There's no objectively correct answer, only opinions. Different legislatures have different opinions and reach different conclusions, but the overwhelming weight of decisions, and the clear direction of travel is in favour of some access to legal abortion.

 

[BMS]

Which has never been in dispute.

Ok so you advocate the killing of human beings just because they arent born. Unfortunately humans have a habit of making up excuses to kill other humans.

 

[BMS]

All legislatures of all countries. There's no objectively correct answer, only opinions. Different legislatures have different opinions and reach different conclusions, but the overwhelming weight of decisions, and the clear direction of travel is in favour of some access to legal abortion.

Ok so if you dont think there is an objectively correct answer then I will tell you there is. Pro-choice abortion is wrong