no more abortions!

[Maddhattter]

No, penal code cites that the fetus is an individual.

From a legal perspective, then, this is irrelevant and nothing more than a red herring in this conversation.

I'm merely pointing the law cites that the fetus is recognized as an entity that is protected by law.

So are companies. If that's all your trying to claim, then fine. It just has no relevance on the current conversation.

But I would say that two people without doing research, the one that goes through a pregnancy is going to know more about pregnancy than the one that doesn't.

You'd be wrong. My example of lost of people having children without any understanding of the process is, again, a perfect example of that.

I never said it was the same. I said simplistically, ergo for comparison: the mom is an eggshell (providing protection) and the yolk (providing nutrients) to the baby.

Yet, it's still a flawed analogy. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her body begins to change so that it can support both herself and the embryo/fetus. All of the body functions start to work much harder. The heart has to pump more blood around the body, in particular to the womb, placenta, and the fetus. The fetus is not growing independently of the mother in the way an egg grows independently of it's mother.

If you analogy supports anything, it supports the converse as the fetus consumes the yolk in order to survive.

So, even putting it simply, the mother is more than the egg and yolk. It's the host.

Nice try at deflection, but an a fore mentioned comment to racrguy already asks how the placenta works, which I do, thanks.

I've not deflected a thing. Your previous statements do not indicate that you do understand how the placenta works because the only evidence of your understanding presented here (your analogy) is inaccurate, even in simple terms.

Your premise I know nothing because I tried to illustrate to a basic example fails.

That was not my premise. I restated my premise above, since you seem to have not understood what I mean when I say something indicates something else.

I'm glad you had to look up those big words to appear like you know something, though. Getting educated is a good thing.

So, when someone looks up a word that means they are trying to appear as if they know something?

That's odd. The act of looking up words that someone doesn't know is explicitly because they are trying to describe the point they are trying to get across in the most accurate manner. This means that, by definition, someone must know what they are trying to communicate before looking up the word, making the fact that they looked up a word meaningless to their knowledge. You're the only one whose equated big words with level of knowledge. I only equate them with accuracy in communication.

So, if I ever have to look up a word to be accurate, I've no problem with that.

[GhostTX]

From a legal perspective, then, this is irrelevant and nothing more than a red herring in this conversation.

So are companies. If that's all your trying to claim, then fine. It just has no relevance on the current conversation.

Oh, I believe it does:

(49) "Death" includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
..
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
...
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

As I stated in another post in this thread, how does abortion fit in there?

You'd be wrong. My example of lost of people having children without any understanding of the process is, again, a perfect example of that.

Wrong? So you're saying a person that has never experienced an event has the same knowledge of a person that has gone through the event?

Yet, it's still a flawed analogy. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her body begins to change so that it can support both herself and the embryo/fetus. All of the body functions start to work much harder. The heart has to pump more blood around the body, in particular to the womb, placenta, and the fetus. The fetus is not growing independently of the mother in the way an egg grows independently of it's mother.

If you analogy supports anything, it supports the converse as the fetus consumes the yolk in order to survive.

So, even putting it simply, the mother is more than the egg and yolk. It's the host.

Right, the mother's body gears up to protect and provide nutrients to the developing baby. To infer the mom is a host is a parasitic is incorrect, because a host gains nothing from a parasite. There's medical gains from being pregnant. Though, I suppose we could argue whether actually having the baby is a gain or not, in this argument, since it seems you view a baby is not a benefit.

I've not deflected a thing. Your previous statements do not indicate that you do understand how the placenta works because the only evidence of your understanding presented here (your analogy) is inaccurate, even in simple terms.

If that's what you want to think, fine. The whole point was to simply the relationship of the mother and fetus, something apparently that you missed.

That was not my premise. I restated my premise above, since you seem to have not understood what I mean when I say something indicates something else.



So, when someone looks up a word that means they are trying to appear as if they know something?

That's odd. The act of looking up words that someone doesn't know is explicitly because they are trying to describe the point they are trying to get across in the most accurate manner. This means that, by definition, someone must know what they are trying to communicate before looking up the word, making the fact that they looked up a word meaningless to their knowledge. You're the only one whose equated big words with level of knowledge. I only equate them with accuracy in communication.

So, if I ever have to look up a word to be accurate, I've no problem with that.

That's fine. There's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality. I got no problem for accuracy if your statement was to put in the appropriate terms.

[The King]

ere's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality.

The clown with the s/n "racrguy" comes to mind here.

[Broncojohnny]

Brent is right. Until Republicans stop worrying so goddamn much about people with different religious beliefs doing whatever they please with their body they are going to continue to get pummeled. It makes them look like fucking nut jobs some of these stances they take. It isnt the 1950's any more.

I don't think this matters as much as some people think. Elections lately are decided by independents and have a margin of a few millions votes. If you get those people on your side you are going to win. I always laugh when the liberals talk about how their side won and that gives them the right to dictate to others. Fifty million people still voted for Romney.

[ceyko]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

[bcoop]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

I think the number is a lot higher than people think, especially in the South. I do agree that it's smoke and mirrors to detract from the more important issues. But politicians (Ted Cruz, Greg Abbot for example) spend far too much touting the nonsense rather than attacking the important shit.

[talisman]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?

[racrguy]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

It is absolutely a distraction. It's easier for the politicians to trod this out whenever they don't want to deal with other issues, and fuck them for kicking the can.

[racrguy]

I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?

Preach on preacha man!

[stevo]

I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?

This.

Stevo

[Denny]

It is absolutely a distraction. It's easier for the politicians to trod this out whenever they don't want to deal with other issues, and fuck them for kicking the can.

It's easier because all they have to do is take the popular stand that their party generally takes without having to really expand on anything.

Other things like taking away our rights, freedoms and civil liberties would have to be backed with some solid research and evidence that it is what is best for the country. Too much work and most of their stances cannot be justified outside of lobbyists and major campaign contributers lining their pockets with kick-backs.

Let's just do an abortion bill with each party taking their usual side. While we're at it, how about some earmarks with some of the good stuff?!

[Denny]

BTW, I think the lack of a center comes from the fact that the people in the center were getting screwed by both sides on issues and also thrown under the bus when the SHTF by even members of their own party when it came down to the blame game.

The center had to go one way or another for more of a defensive posture.

[talisman]

I think it's because the POTUS has been busy fanning the flames of class warfare since he was elected.

[Denny]

I think it's because the POTUS has been busy fanning the flames of class warfare since he was elected.

They couldn't get Someone like Jackson or Sharpton in, so they rebadged two-bit Chicago politician, only to get Chicago style politics on a national, I mean GLOBAL level.

[racrguy]

So, let me ask you guys something. What do you guys think about the signature requirement placed on parties to get members on the ballot in various states? Personally I think it's horseshit and is used to keep parties that aren't R or D from even a possibility of getting voters.