Brain-dead woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban, family says

[hecatmoggie]

Fetuses aren't babies.

they are what they are - right ? words don't change what they are

you use "fetus" because it dehumanizes and makes it easier to discuss killing them. I don't use that - I use unborn human life and/or baby most often. Literally unborn human life is accurate - and baby? Its the same individual life before birth as after, DNA etc, just different developmental stage

also in my defense, nobody has a fetus shower, a fetus gender reveal, "we're going to have a fetus" etc etc. Always "baby"

 

[Gordy327]

I have proved it by showing all the ways in our society human life is valued

you have not shown a single instance of where we don't except for allowing unborn life to be killed in some places and not others

Hardly. All you did was try to make an association. You still haven't explained this value or the metric by which its measured.

they are what they are - right ? words don't change what they are

you use "fetus" because it dehumanizes and makes it easier to discuss killing them. I don't use that - I use unborn human life and/or baby most often. Literally unborn human life is accurate - and baby? Its the same individual life before birth as after, DNA etc, just different developmental stage

also in my defense, nobody has a fetus shower, a fetus gender reveal, "we're going to have a fetus" etc etc. Always "baby"

"Fetus" the the medically accurate and proper term. How is that "dehumanizing? Do you think people do not understand what a fetus is? "Baby" is just a layman unbrella and often emotionally manipulative term. A "baby" in the case of a newborn is a neonate.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Hardly. All you did was try to make an association. You still haven't explained this value or the metric by which its measured.

"Fetus" the the medically accurate and proper term. How is that "dehumanizing? Do you think people do not understand what a fetus is? "Baby" is just a layman unbrella and often emotionally manipulative term. A "baby" in the case of a newborn is a neonate.

so women are trying to manipulate when they have baby showers? baby announcements ? "we're going to have a baby" ?

no

 

[Gordy327]

so women are trying to manipulate when they have baby showers? baby announcements ? "we're going to have a baby" ?

no

They're simply emotional. Its still a fetus though.

 

[hecatmoggie]

They're simply emotional. Its still a fetus though.

so now its emotional and not manipulation

you changed your tune fast

 

[Lursa]

to show that laws/legal doesn't define when a living human being is deserving of protection and that the unborn baby in Vermont is exactly the same if a few hours later it was in Idaho.

I've never attempted to say that laws define when a 'living human being is deserving of protection." The laws define what's being protected, and often why, as necessary, but if there is a "value" included in the law, not a single one of your "if it's in VT or ID, or born 5 minutes before or after," etc arguments even addresses that. Wow, you dont even realize that, do you? Sad.

I only point out where the laws define persons and where biology defines Homo sapiens.

You have failed to demonstrate the connection between "value" and "law" or even definition if that value isnt presented in the definition

it doesn't change by going across state lines

establishing things like this is important

No, they're not. The context and assertions of value you attempt to make all fail.

what we've done on this thread is all agree

• an unborn baby is a living human life

I never disputed this so your "all agree" crap is just that...invented

• laws are not morals/ethics/rights and wrongs

I never disputed this so your "all agree" crap is just that...invented

• a living human life must exist for a normal pregnancy to be in place along with the living human mother

This makes no sense, so of course I dont agree.

• words used to describe doesn't change what an unborn human life is - call it a fetus, a zef, a puppy or a kitten is doesn't matter

They do indicate intent tho...intent to use the wrong term for emotionally manipulative purposes for example, or to expose the ignorance of the writer. Not using the accurate terms indicates a weak argument that a poster is trying to divert with or hide behind.

Chance was a living human unborn life. The laws wrapped around allowing the mothers body to die was irrelevant to Chance being alive. Had she been removed and her body died, Chance would have died as well.

What I really thought we could all agree on was human life has value. I think now maybe I was wrong ...

Who wrote that it doesnt? You seem to believe it does but then refuse to explain what that value is...so you are unable to even defnine what you expect from others. And yes, you are almost always wrong on this issue.

 

[Lursa]

can a hospital turn a pregnant woman away because they don't believe the unborn is a living human or that it doesn't have value? why can't they decide?
why can't insurance companies decide the unborn has no value and not cover the care it might need?
why can't a man walk away, that unborn to him might not have value, he might see it as life, his personal choice right ?
why do we have fetal protection laws?

you don't want any of that - you want ALL of the above for the mother and the unborn and you'll force it by laws/legal. I agree with you too - now the question is WHY do we agree ? because the mother/unborn have value, they deserve protections/care

Again you cant answer the question. That's always the sign of failure. All you're doing is posting "value" and "baby" over and over.
If it's all about personal value...as it should be...then pro-choice is the moral position. Clearly. No one else forces their 'value' for her unborn on her by law. Why should someone else be entitled to do that? Please explain?

Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

...your attempts at using fetal homicide laws dont make any argument against abortion or the human DNA of the unborn.

You need to explain what the value of the unborn is? And why abortion is wrong? since you dont have the law on your side. I do really, because "at the moment" Dobbs is very clear that, by enabling the states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process...the unborn have no federal legal status, are not persons, and have no rights recognized

 

[Lursa]

interesting .... you place no value on anything in life ?

It doesnt say that...do you really not comprehend it or are you lying?

 

[Lursa]

so if the laws change your opinions/views will change too ? no ?

yeah, I didn't think so ... laws/rules are not what drives your moral compass/rights and wrongs

the value is the same for the living human life before birth as after birth

I've been posting to try and get you to focus on value, not law...and you refuse to answer the questions and debate it. Why? Please see the questions in post 1807 instead of continually badgering people with the same failed, intentionally mischaracterized BS. Even he question about Congress updating the Const...representing what their constituents "value" is what helps them keep their jobs.

 

[Gordy327]

so now its emotional and not manipulation

you changed your tune fast

Not at all. They're basically the same. Some get emotional, which influences others emotions. Its kind of insidious.

 

[Gordy327]

It doesnt say that...do you really not comprehend it or are you lying?

Perhaps a little (or a lot) of both?

 

[Lursa]

I have proved it by showing all the ways in our society human life is valued

you have not shown a single instance of where we don't except for allowing unborn life to be killed in some places and not others

Nope. Because the ways you've shown are either laws that also apply to forests, wildlife, livestock, etc or are emotionally/religiously based.

Yes, people value our endangered species. Yes they can be legally punished for killing them. Does our society value endangered species? Seems so. Doesnt make them EQUAL to born persons, doesnt make them equal in value to persons, doesnt recognize any rights for those endangered species. Your attempts at this argument fail over and over.

 

[Lursa]

they are what they are - right ? words don't change what they are

you use "fetus" because it dehumanizes and makes it easier to discuss killing them. I don't use that - I use unborn human life and/or baby most often. Literally unborn human life is accurate - and baby? Its the same individual life before birth as after, DNA etc, just different developmental stage

So doctors and nurses are all dehumanizing the unborn? Wow. I wonder why they got into that field?

also in my defense, nobody has a fetus shower, a fetus gender reveal, "we're going to have a fetus" etc etc. Always "baby"

Because they have personified their anticipation of a new family member...a baby. It's very normal. Remember that "value" thing you keep bringing up? People anticipating a new family member place great value on this. Do I? No, I'm not concerned with their reproduction. So I dont use emotionally-based terms to refer to it.

OTOH, I often use the term "baby" for my dogs. Lots of people do...pets, cars, boats, motorcycles, spouses...Huh...are these all "living humans? None but the spouses. Why do you bring up the same things over and over knowing they'll just be shot down again?

You use the term for emotional manipulation and indeed, to show your feelings on the issue. Which then detracts from the credibility of your arguments.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I've never attempted to say that laws define when a 'living human being is deserving of protection." The laws define what's being protected, and often why, as necessary, but if there is a "value" included in the law, not a single one of your "if it's in VT or ID, or born 5 minutes before or after," etc arguments even addresses that. Wow, you dont even realize that, do you? Sad.

why is human life protected?

I only point out where the laws define persons and where biology defines Homo sapiens.
You have failed to demonstrate the connection between "value" and "law" or even definition if that value isnt presented in the definition
No, they're not. The context and assertions of value you attempt to make all fail.
I never disputed this so your "all agree" crap is just that...invented
I never disputed this so your "all agree" crap is just that...invented

• a living human life must exist for a normal pregnancy to be in place along with the living human mother

This makes no sense, so of course I dont agree.

then what do you think a pregnant woman has in her womb ? you cannot disagree when you literally just admitted you cannot dispute an unborn is a living human life

is it human? yes, I don't think humans can carry non-human's
is it alive? yes, has to be or there would be no pregnancy

They do indicate intent tho...intent to use the wrong term for emotionally manipulative purposes for example, or to expose the ignorance of the writer. Not using the accurate terms indicates a weak argument that a poster is trying to divert with or hide behind.

there is no right or wrong term - are you going to say women talking about their unborn baby is wrong? they should only say "fetus" ? gawd ... please

Who wrote that it doesnt? You seem to believe it does but then refuse to explain what that value is...so you are unable to even defnine what you expect from others. And yes, you are almost always wrong on this issue.

you and Gordy and Enchanted all seem to want me to prove somehow life is valuable because you don't understand that it is.

If I'm wrong why ya'll constantly demanding I teach you what the value of human life is? Are you saying you do value human life ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

It doesnt say that...do you really not comprehend it or are you lying?

I don't think you understand what a question is -

 

[Gordy327]

why is human life protected?
you and Gordy and Enchanted all seem to want me to prove somehow life is valuable because you don't understand that it is.

If I'm wrong why ya'll constantly demanding I teach you what the value of human life is? Are you saying you do value human life ?

Why is it valuable? Value is your argument, not ours. You made the claim of value, so its on you to prove this value. The fact that you cannot explain it proves you have no valid argument. Just subjective feelings on the matter.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I've been posting to try and get you to focus on value, not law...and you refuse to answer the questions and debate it. Why?

sigh - are you not listening ?

IF there is a value to life after a baby is born - then that has to also extend to BEFORE the baby is born. Why? Its the same living human life. It doesn't magically become alive form something dead at birth you know, that's biology

If a person doesn't believe human life has value at all? then I can see them being pro-abortion. Why not kill it in the womb, doesn't matter anyway

But is a person has value after being born? it most assuredly does BEFORE birth as well - why? because its literally the same living human life

Please see the questions in post 1807 instead of continually badgering people with the same failed, intentionally mischaracterized BS. Even he question about Congress updating the Const...representing what their constituents "value" is what helps them keep their jobs.

I'll try to answer

If it's all about personal value...as it should be...then pro-choice is the moral position. Clearly. No one else forces their 'value' for her unborn on her by law. Why should someone else be entitled to do that? Please explain?

then the man should have choice too, hospitals have choice, medical insurers have choice ..... never arrest a man for hurting an unborn because his personal value of that life was zero, right? no ... you want ALL of that ... and you want the woman to have a choice to have it killed. Its a hypocritical view, its inconsistent

Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

to protect human life of course

...your attempts at using fetal homicide laws dont make any argument against abortion or the human DNA of the unborn.

You need to explain what the value of the unborn is?
And why abortion is wrong? since you dont have the law on your side. I do really, because "at the moment" Dobbs is very clear that, by enabling the states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process...the unborn have no federal legal status, are not persons, and have no rights recognized

the value is the same as after its born - same baby

why is wrong to kill a human life at 1 day old or 5 days old or 10 years old? that's the WHY to not kill it 1 day before birth or 10 days or 10 weeks


is that clearer ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Nope. Because the ways you've shown are either laws that also apply to forests, wildlife, livestock, etc or are emotionally/religiously based.

maybe our entire country/Constitution is rooted in emotionally/religiously ?

Yes, people value our endangered species. Yes they can be legally punished for killing them. Does our society value endangered species? Seems so.

I agree, they're valuable

Doesnt make them EQUAL to born persons, doesnt make them equal in value to persons,

I agree

doesnt recognize any rights for those endangered species. Your attempts at this argument fail over and over.

well they're not humans so not the SAME rights ....

what is the punishment for destroying bald eagle eggs? https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act

bald eagle eggs are more valuable according to our federal laws than unborn babies are - agreed ??? (not state levels)

sea turtle eggs too

https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gces/6-ESA/esa_1208.pdf

coral reefs? http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...e&URL=0400-0499/0403/Sections/0403.93345.html


unborn babies in Vermont ? nope - kill them anytime the mothers says so



do you see what has value and what doesn't ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Why is it valuable? Value is your argument, not ours. You made the claim of value, so its on you to prove this value. The fact that you cannot explain it proves you have no valid argument. Just subjective feelings on the matter.

because its a living human life

now, you tell me why its NOT valuable

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

why else would the law be in place in one state to protect the unborn and in another state to not? we have laws to protect you and I from others murdering us ... why ? why do you think that it is ? its because human life is valuable.

No, this is largely due to religious beliefs of leading parties. It doesn't prove every life is "valuable."

Is this what you're basing the "valuable" thing on? Religion?

I'm trying to figure out why you think we have all the laws we do protecting human life .... if its not because its valuable why do you think we have them all ?

For the zilliionth time, I can't even answer these questions unless you tell me what you mean by "valuable."

We have laws not to kill born human beings because if we didn't society would be in a shambles and it would be literal anarchy. It's pretty simple.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

lets take serial killers for example - they don't believe the people they kill have any value, right? Those people wasn't doing anything for the serial killers, wasn't making them feel good ... they assigned no value to those lives

are they correct in believing like that?




I want to thank you for the responses. Unlike others, you're really giving me a lot to think about here and angles on pro-abortion views that's new and different. This is a good discussion
I see your points but coral reefs, bacteria, insects ... they're not humans.

You're quite welcome, stealthycat.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

the value life has - maybe that's the disconnect I'm having. Maybe more people place zero value on human life that I ever knew possible.

you, Lursa, Gordy and others don't seem to think any human life has any value at all

I 100% value the lives of those I love, I value them as important to me. I also value life enough to think war and the death penalty are bizarre and brutal. I am against horrors like genocide, but not because each individual life "has value" to me, I don't know those people...and you're the one who has said that value apparently goes down if someone does very bad things, so who knows? There might even be murderers in any given group. But I have a sense of justice. Not revenge or retribution. Justice.

is it my responsibility to convince you human life has value? no .... all I have to do is show an unborn baby is literally the same 1 day before birth as 1 day after, or 1 month before or 9 months before birth. Do that ..... which I have ..... and the value has to be extended

Yes, because how can we even have a discussion on what "I value" or don't "value" if you won't even tell me what that means? Above, you've even told me what I do or don't "value." (???) Sight unseen, no less.

So you obviously have a strong sense of what you mean by value. What are you talking about? Keeping the population up, becoming workers to support other people, or what is the value you're talking about? Until you can tell me, I can't refute or confirm your assumptions about what "I value."

of course, if a person believes life has no value at all ?

See above.

then no, no human life is value, kill 'em all and that's be ok

See above.

I have a very very hard time believing you don't have friends and family that their lives have value

What? I do value my loved ones, they are very important to me.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

the unborn living baby IS what it is ... a living human life. Do you see my point ?

I do and as I've said, I know a fetus or embryo is living and human. So is a fertilized egg in a petri dish, do you agree? A fertilized egg of any species, if it has not died, is living and of that species.

 

[Lursa]

why is human life protected?

Dont ask me...you tell me if that's your argument. No more games. No more answers till you answer your own question ...and these All are basic foundations for this issue, yet you hide and just ask more:

Again you cant answer the question. That's always the sign of failure. All you're doing is posting "value" and "baby" over and over.

If it's all about personal value...as it should be...then pro-choice is the moral position. Clearly. No one else forces their 'value' for her unborn on her by law. Why should someone else be entitled to do that? Please explain?

Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

...your attempts at using fetal homicide laws dont make any argument against abortion or the human DNA of the unborn.

You need to explain what the value of the unborn is? And why abortion is wrong? since you dont have the law on your side. I do really, because "at the moment" Dobbs is very clear that, by enabling the states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process...the unborn have no federal legal status, are not persons, and have no rights recognized

 

[Lursa]

sigh - are you not listening ?

IF there is a value to life after a baby is born - then that has to also extend to BEFORE the baby is born. Why? Its the same living human life. It doesn't magically become alive form something dead at birth you know, that's biology

If a person doesn't believe human life has value at all? then I can see them being pro-abortion. Why not kill it in the womb, doesn't matter anyway

But is a person has value after being born? it most assuredly does BEFORE birth as well - why? because its literally the same living human life





I'll try to answer

then the man should have choice too, hospitals have choice, medical insurers have choice ..... never arrest a man for hurting an unborn because his personal value of that life was zero, right? no ... you want ALL of that ... and you want the woman to have a choice to have it killed. Its a hypocritical view, its inconsistent




to protect human life of course




the value is the same as after its born - same baby

why is wrong to kill a human life at 1 day old or 5 days old or 10 years old? that's the WHY to not kill it 1 day before birth or 10 days or 10 weeks


is that clearer ?

No more answers till you answer these All are basic foundations for this issue, yet you hide and just ask more. ANd dont change my questions and then just write what you want (a man's value for the unborn doesnt supersede her rights and bodily autonomy and consent and health risks. That's morally wrong....so your "statements" arent an argument. They're not "why" and they dont address what I asked.)

Again you cant answer the question. That's always the sign of failure. All you're doing is posting "value" and "baby" over and over.

If it's all about personal value...as it should be...then pro-choice is the moral position. Clearly. No one else forces their 'value' for her unborn on her by law. Why should someone else be entitled to do that? Please explain?

Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

Nope @stealthycat ...if your "claim" was correct, they would have done so or be doing so. They are not, so you're wrong. Again, arguments are about "why" not your unsupported statements as if they're fact.

...your attempts at using fetal homicide laws dont make any argument against abortion or the human DNA of the unborn.

You need to explain what the value of the unborn is? And why abortion is wrong? since you dont have the law on your side. I do really, because "at the moment" Dobbs is very clear that, by enabling the states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process...the unborn have no federal legal status, are not persons, and have no rights recognized