|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Mar 16, 2023 7:29:36 GMT -5
a lot of abortion talk and no hoolie others have to take up the usual self-righteous blather And what self-righteous blather are you referring to?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Mar 16, 2023 7:37:34 GMT -5
a lot of abortion talk and no hoolie others have to take up the usual self-righteous blathering And what self-righteous blather are you referring to? Certainly, a lot of Hunter Biden blather. Do you think hoolie has HBB
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,859
|
Post by bluepenquin on Mar 16, 2023 8:45:34 GMT -5
Which means - you do not believe the unborn child has any rights at any point. That a mother has the right to choose to kill her child at any time up until birth. Which would also mean that you were opposed Roe (that Roe was to restrictive in this unquestioned right of the mother). This seems like a rather extreme position on abortion rights. Your religious interpretation is at odds with the thousands of year old Jewish legal interpretation. You've conspicuously avoided commenting on that, even though I explicitly asked you for comment. Why do you think your religion should take precedence? Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception?No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body. Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus. Not sure how many times I have to say this - I am applying zero religious interpretations here. You are the one that keeps bringing up religion. I am talking about Human Life. It is impossible to deny that the unborn child is a human being. I don't really care what Jewish law has to say about this. What Christians or Evangelicals say about this is also not relevant.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,859
|
Post by bluepenquin on Mar 16, 2023 8:49:45 GMT -5
Which means - you do not believe the unborn child has any rights at any point. That a mother has the right to choose to kill her child at any time up until birth. Your mishandling of "rights" in American society and law continues to amaze me. Depends on how one defines 'rights' - legal rights, there doesn't appear to be rights granted to an unborn child. But I am taking a broader definition of 'rights' - as in Natural Rights or Human Rights. One would say that a slave living in the 1800's had no legal rights. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve full 'rights' - or have basic Natural or Human rights. This is what I am referring to here.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 16, 2023 8:51:27 GMT -5
I am talking about Human Life. It is impossible to deny that the unborn child is a human being. Is a viable fetus a human being? Is it a person? I think so. Is it alive? Also, yes. Is a nonviable fetus a human being? Yeah, probably, in the same way a fertilized egg is a "human being." Is it alive? No, not really. Is it a person? No.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,859
|
Post by bluepenquin on Mar 16, 2023 8:57:09 GMT -5
I am talking about Human Life. It is impossible to deny that the unborn child is a human being. Is a viable fetus a human being? Is it a person? I think so. Is it alive? Also, yes. Is a nonviable fetus a human being? Yeah, probably, in the same way a fertilized egg is a "human being." Is it alive? No, not really. Is it a person? No. I don't disagree with this. I don't necessarily see the current definition of 'viable' as the black line. I think a good case could be made for beating heart as The line. But many on this board do not seem to recognize your first sentence.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Mar 16, 2023 9:01:24 GMT -5
Is a viable fetus a human being? Is it a person? I think so. Is it alive? Also, yes. Is a nonviable fetus a human being? Yeah, probably, in the same way a fertilized egg is a "human being." Is it alive? No, not really. Is it a person? No. I don't disagree with this. I don't necessarily see the current definition of 'viable' as the black line. I think a good case could be made for beating heart as The line. But many on this board do not seem to recognize your first sentence. How are you going to define “a beating heart?” Would it be a fully formed heart capable of pumping blood or some cells vibrating together?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 16, 2023 9:13:10 GMT -5
I don't necessarily see the current definition of 'viable' as the black line. I think a good case could be made for beating heart as The line. A fetus which can't live outside the womb isn't a person and isn't really alive. I haven't seen anyone in this conversation (or others) claim a viable fetus isn't alive or isn't a person. Perhaps you can point me to where someone said that.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 16, 2023 9:30:50 GMT -5
Your mishandling of "rights" in American society and law continues to amaze me. Depends on how one defines 'rights' - legal rights, there doesn't appear to be rights granted to an unborn child. But I am taking a broader definition of 'rights' - as in Natural Rights or Human Rights. One would say that a slave living in the 1800's had no legal rights. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve full 'rights' - or have basic Natural or Human rights. This is what I am referring to here. You’re referring to “rights” because it strikes an emotional chord. Similar to why you keep using the phrase “unborn child,” which is a very stupid phrase. It should cause you pause that you keep insisting on the “rights” of entities that have never been born (fetuses, states). At the very least, there’s a huge assumption you’ve never explained that something “unborn” has natural rights, which btw, according to Locke, the father of the natural rights as treated in the Declaration of Independence, you are “born” with natural rights. Repeated chirping “unborn” kind of hurts you here, actually.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 16, 2023 9:35:23 GMT -5
Depends on how one defines 'rights' - legal rights, there doesn't appear to be rights granted to an unborn child. But I am taking a broader definition of 'rights' - as in Natural Rights or Human Rights. One would say that a slave living in the 1800's had no legal rights. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve full 'rights' - or have basic Natural or Human rights. This is what I am referring to here. You’re referring to “rights” because it strikes an emotional chord. Similar to why you keep using the phrase “unborn child,” which is a very stupid phrase. It should cause you pause that you keep insisting on the “rights” of entities that have never been born (fetuses, states). At the very least, there’s a huge assumption you’ve never explained that something “unborn” has natural rights, which btw, according to Locke, the father of the natural rights as treated in the Declaration of Independence, you are “born” with natural rights. Repeated chirping “unborn” kind of hurts you here, actually. Yes, God forbid we’re emotional and feel something for an unborn child. This says it all of what Democrats think of an unborn baby doesn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Mar 16, 2023 9:38:48 GMT -5
And what self-righteous blather are you referring to? Certainly, a lot of Hunter Biden blather. Do you think hoolie has HBB Where did HOLIDAY mention Hunter Biden in this thread? I must have missed it with most of the focus being on DeSantis.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Mar 16, 2023 9:41:01 GMT -5
Certainly, a lot of Hunter Biden blather. Do you think hoolie has HBB Where did HOLIDAY mention Hunter Biden in this thread? I must have missed it with most of the focus being on DeSantis. he's puked up HB forever. Must be suffering from HBBS
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 16, 2023 9:41:12 GMT -5
You’re referring to “rights” because it strikes an emotional chord. Similar to why you keep using the phrase “unborn child,” which is a very stupid phrase. It should cause you pause that you keep insisting on the “rights” of entities that have never been born (fetuses, states). At the very least, there’s a huge assumption you’ve never explained that something “unborn” has natural rights, which btw, according to Locke, the father of the natural rights as treated in the Declaration of Independence, you are “born” with natural rights. Repeated chirping “unborn” kind of hurts you here, actually. Yes, God forbid we’re emotional and feel something for an unborn child. This says it all of what Democrats think of an unborn baby doesn’t it? As usual, thanks for making my point without realizing it lol.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Mar 16, 2023 9:47:02 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone in this conversation (or others) claim a viable fetus isn't alive or isn't a person. Perhaps you can point me to where someone said that. In this particular conversation on this thread, no. But that has been stated in the past on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Mar 16, 2023 9:47:37 GMT -5
Where did HOLIDAY mention Hunter Biden in this thread? I must have missed it with most of the focus being on DeSantis. he's puked up HB forever. Must be suffering from HBBS On this thread?
|
|