Sotomayor compares fetus to brain dead person, says fetal movement doesn't prove consciousness

No Sotomayor is saying something stupid.

 

And, this would be for healthy brain development. Not every embryo is healthy, unlike what Texas politicians would have you believe.

Plus, consciousness requires the inclusion of the brain development that occurs in the 5 or 6 months AFTER birth.

 

Never said anything about demands. You are out in left field picking daisies.

 

Well, that would sound like more than ad hom if you had something to support that.

 

You created the human life willingly...you accept the responsibility that comes with that choice

 

I do. That Idiotic **** fell out of her mouth.

 

I can't find a way to interpret your position other than that it includes rights of supremacy for embryos over and above any other issue.

 

Ad hom is not an argument.

 

There is NOTHING in ANY of this that is based on "willingness". We don't even have a way to test for that.

Also, "willingness" does not have ANYTHING to do with the state of the embryo.

I think you need to work out a position that doesn't require changing your argument on a post by post basis.

 

Unless you are claiming ignorance for how babies are created they're absolutely is a willingness in the action that creates babies

 

No argument necessary. She said something profoundly stupid without any knowledge.

 

My position doesn't need to be interpreted by you. Just listen and don't add your raving nonsense to it.

 

This is just plain wrong.

First of all, you are ignoring rape and incest, where there is full throated opposition.

Beyond that, every birth control method that has ever been devised (outside of castration) has a failure rate. Suggesting that those who used one or more of these methods, yet a pregnancy resulted, is a case of "willingness" to have a baby.

Beyond that, embryos can show serious deprecation, or develop such deprecation over the period of gestation. This is CLEARLY and area of judgement at the time, not to be overridden by the circumstances of the impregnation.

 

We're discussing law that will impose upon every woman.

To the extent possible, I'm not going to allow that law to be influenced by fallacious arguments.


Plus, you have to do better than ad hom, or you are just admitting you are running on empty.

 

We aren't. Maybe you should sort that out before you respond.

Think before you post. Read statements carefully.

 

Outside of rape...incest is not necessarily an unwilling act. You get that right?.. some people elect to willingly participate in incestual intercourse because that's their bag.

So that leaves rape.

Rape accounts for less then 1 percent of all abortions.

As for the other 99 percent of abortions... Removing health of the baby and the mother, that leaves us with roughly 90 percent of abortions chalked up to willingly participating in the one act that sexually that could make a baby.

Using protection doesn't abolish the act...it only means you reduced the odds.

So yes...even those who used protection need to accept the responsibility that it could happen.

That's just how we take responsibility over our actions.

Try again.

 

That is total nonsense from top to bottom.

Any sex involving those under the age of consent IS rape, and that's the incest issue.

As for the rest, you're just totally ignoring the points made.

 

Yes - you can't handle logical opposition to what you have declared so far.

So, your argument ends up being ad hom and "****"!

 

There isn't any opposition.

 

It is not magic.

Birth is a major event. It separates the baby from its mother's body and is then part of a social context in which it can start exercising its consciousness by conceptualising its environment.

 

Since a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult...yeah I agree. But that has nothing. To do with incest.

Incest is just the action of sex between family members. It doesn't mean rape.

The rest of my post was bang on. And here let me help you with accepting consequences from the action of sexual intercourse.

If you opted to sleep with someone knowing they had an STD but used protection and yet still got the std...who's fault is it? The condoms? Lol

Give me a break.

 

it would have to be for someone to gain awareness without anything happening.

So it would have to have the capability of doing that before it was born. A 3-day-old neonate is no more self aware than one that's three days away from being born.

 

Well, there is something happening and that is birth. The baby cannot start to exercise and.develop its awareness before exiting the womb. Once born it is part of the world and of a social context.

No. It is inside its mother and cannot yet start to use it.

Who aborts 3 days before birth though?

 

Abortion is being responsible when the pregnancy is unwanted.

 

The framers of The Constitution never intended for 9 authoritarian SCOTUS judges to determine the meaning of The Constitution. The framers of The Constitution left that job to define The Constitution to 2/3 of the states' affirmative votes of constitutional conventions.

Madison V. Marbury gave the courts the vehicle and the impetus to usurp this authority of changing the meaning of The Constitution from 2/3 of the states to 9 authoritarian judges...Which is why Biden wants to now pack the courts...To further weaponize SCOTUS for a democratic ideological advantage.