SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby. It's a life stage we all experience. Science also proves that abortion ends their life, which is killing.

Baby isn't a scientific term and this isn't the type of thing that science "proves".

source: am actual scientist

This is a really profound post. Do you know who uses science to answer moral questions as if science is the root of morality instead of a tool of gaining objective insights? Well, that’s what people who believed in eugenics also believed. Apparently this is what this fascist fruitcake believes so…. Whatever, that’s cool. Whatever.

[Ferguson97]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

[Torie]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

[Person Man]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

This is all as wrong as it is irrelevant.

> number one, we’re not goddamn animals
> number two, animals do have ways to prevent gestation of fetuses
> number three, it’s a federal offense to molest wildlife without a license or something
> number four, this is super funking dumb
> number five, I hate lists!

[fhtagn]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

In situations where the offspring hasn't reached a point of viability, we still intervene often, such as cases with animals that lay eggs.

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

[Torie]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

In situations where the offspring hasn't reached a point of viability, we still intervene often, such as cases with animals that lay eggs.

I take it we have moved from turtles to those species that lay eggs that humans can get their hands on. The thing about eggs is that humans can replace the role of the mother by keeping them warm, etc, outside the body of the mother. This line of "attack" of course on the opposition is not really going to be replicated much out there by pro life advocates. Turtles and birds, are well - different.

What do you think about humans killing animals outside the womb because they enjoy their taste? I am about to consume a fish that someone previously "murdered." Pray for me.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The sea turtle analogy is particularly off because we are talking about conservation efforts to preserve a threatened species. Yes, we are trying to conserve sea turtle babies because it's how you demographically aid population growth, whereas the absence of new sea turtle offspring likely means population extinction or worse. There is no human analog here. It is not applicable to human populations whatsoever.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

What on Earth are you talking about? We certainly don't "always" do this, and even the idea that a mother "desires" to do anything sounds resoundingly strange for most of the animal kingdom.

Animals do all sorts of things that are not considered acceptable conduct for humans. Cowbirds are brood parasites. Many social mammals with dominance hierarchies have males kill other males that threaten their access to a harem. We literally cull deer in areas where they are overpopulated. Designing policies that mimic any of these behaviors "because animals do it" are obvious non-starters.  This is to say nothing about the vast majority of the animal kingdom that doesn't even have spinal cords.

Outside of a handful of animal cruelty cases, "this is different than how we treat animals" is an insane standard to hold public policy to as a general rule.

[Person Man]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

In situations where the offspring hasn't reached a point of viability, we still intervene often, such as cases with animals that lay eggs.

Except that's not even any analogy at all until the embryo implants.

The sea turtle analogy is particularly off because we are talking about conservation efforts to preserve a threatened species. Yes, we are trying to conserve sea turtle babies because it's how you demographically aid population growth, whereas the absence of new sea turtle offspring likely means population extinction or worse. There is no human analog here. It is not applicable to human populations whatsoever.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

What on Earth are you talking about? We certainly don't "always" do this, and even the idea that a mother "desires" to do anything sounds resoundingly strange for most of the animal kingdom.

Animals do all sorts of things that are not considered acceptable conduct for humans. Cowbirds are brood parasites. Many social mammals with dominance hierarchies have males kill other males that threaten their access to a harem. We literally cull deer in areas where they are overpopulated. Designing policies that mimic any of these behaviors "because animals do it" are obvious non-starters.  This is to say nothing about the vast majority of the animal kingdom that doesn't even have spinal cords.

Outside of a handful of animal cruelty cases, "this is different than how we treat animals" is an insane standard to hold public policy to as a general rule.

Like I said, I do not envy people who derive their morality from Animal Planet and medical dictionaries, especially when they are assuming the point they are trying to make the whole time.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

[Badger]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

[Badger]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

This is Rep. Mary Miller (IL-15).  The full quote, which is quite clear, is: "President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday."

[thebeloitmoderate]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
This is Rep. Mary Miller (IL-15).  The full quote, which is quite clear, is: "President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday."

Holy s*it

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

[All Along The Watchtower]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568
This is Rep. Mary Miller (IL-15).  The full quote, which is quite clear, is: "President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday."

Did you expect anything else? For all the concern trolling about "abortion = black genocide", it's painfully obvious that the right-wing anti-choice movement is heavily influenced by Christian Identity (pun intended) politics.

[Badger]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

[Badger]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

YOU are the one sighting this thing is some sort of medical treatise worthy of belief. The burden of proof is on

I invite anyone reading this discourse to do their own 90-second online search to demonstrate that, per usual, f t g h n is talking out of her ass.

[Devout Centrist]

Pretty significant turnout at the protest I attended in Phoenix today - probably in the range of 2.5-5k? Not breaking any records obviously, but great numbers for such short notice.

Overall it was peaceful. There were a few counter demonstrators in blue MAGA hats carrying around crucifixes. Standard crazy person stuff.

The cops did start shooting off tear gas at us by the end of the night. A small group of demonstrators got near the entrance to the Capitol (no signs of forced entry or violence I might add!). Cops started firing tear gas without warning when that happened. They just can't help themselves!

Speak of the devil:
https://twitter.com/nickmartin/status/1540872324500422656?s=20&t=sBOA3gqO43a...

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

YOU are the one sighting this thing is some sort of medical treatise worthy of belief. The burden of proof is on

I invite anyone reading this discourse to do their own 90-second online search to demonstrate that, per usual, f t g h n is talking out of her ass.

I have provided multiple sources to back my argument. You're the one who only read one line, decided that was the only one you'd focus on, and provide not a single source to disprove anything I said, including the one line you are focusing on.

[Hermit For Peace]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

YOU are the one sighting this thing is some sort of medical treatise worthy of belief. The burden of proof is on

I invite anyone reading this discourse to do their own 90-second online search to demonstrate that, per usual, f t g h n is talking out of her ass.

I have provided multiple sources to back my argument. You're the one who only read one line, decided that was the only one you'd focus on, and provide not a single source to disprove anything I said, including the one line you are focusing on.

You have cited sources but haven't proven anything. You are talking out of your private part.

[fhtagn]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

YOU are the one sighting this thing is some sort of medical treatise worthy of belief. The burden of proof is on

I invite anyone reading this discourse to do their own 90-second online search to demonstrate that, per usual, f t g h n is talking out of her ass.

I have provided multiple sources to back my argument. You're the one who only read one line, decided that was the only one you'd focus on, and provide not a single source to disprove anything I said, including the one line you are focusing on.

You have sited sources but haven't proven anything. You are talking out of your private part.

Interesting, there seems to be nothing there disproving anything I said. Please, enlighten me.

[Hermit For Peace]

snip

I don't know why you think this was a valid response. When I asked you for evidence that a fetus is a baby (read: sentient and autonomous in its own right), you responded with a handful of definitions from a handful of medical dictionaries.

How does your response address the implicit question of sentience and autonomy?

I provided you with a definition for baby from a medical dictionary.  You don't get to move the goalposts with your own unsupported definition.

Editing to also add that playing along with your unsupported definition, sentience begins while the baby is still in the womb, and a newborn baby isn't completely autonomous, so you might want to decide which definition you value more.

Moving goalposts is what they do best.

Even a cursory online search would demonstrate that farlex medical dictionary is an online user based resource. It's damn near the equivalent of Wikipedia for medical dictionaries. But then that would kind of defeat the argument of the religious zealots here, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry to hear you lacked the ability to read past the first example, because I provided more than one. Which is significantly more than our friend who provided none despite claiming on numerous posts his side was more supported.

Those are certainly words. None of which just proved my point, which unfortunately demonstrates that you are basically citing the medical dictionary equivalent of WebMD as a definitive medical resource to support your own religious views as some sort of incontrovertible scientific truth.

Says the guy who also makes no effort to back his claims.

Says the gal too lazy to do them modicum of online research. Or should I say to fanatical?

As usual, your posts demonstrate intellectual laziness.

And somehow you still haven't disproved anything I said.

Better luck next time, honey Badger.

YOU are the one sighting this thing is some sort of medical treatise worthy of belief. The burden of proof is on

I invite anyone reading this discourse to do their own 90-second online search to demonstrate that, per usual, f t g h n is talking out of her ass.

I have provided multiple sources to back my argument. You're the one who only read one line, decided that was the only one you'd focus on, and provide not a single source to disprove anything I said, including the one line you are focusing on.

You have sited sources but haven't proven anything. You are talking out of your private part.

Interesting, there seems to be nothing there disproving anything I said. Please, enlighten me.

I have tangled with you before. I have learned first hand that you are beyond enlightening, and I say that respectfully.