America transitions into Gilead

Stacyhs said:
Sorry, Charlie. A 'device' is not a medical procedure. Try again.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. A ban on all stents would be a ban on the installation of stents. See Minneapolis star Tribune vs commissar. An effort to tax paper to stop a newspaper counted as an effort to stop the paper directly.
 
Stacyhs said:
Since when is it murder? Since when has it been scientifically and medically determined that a fetus has become a 'person'? A person's personal and/or religious belief is not enough reason to control another person's body.
Click to expand...

You do realize that these are not scientific or medical questions, right? That's like asking since when has science determined that a normal adult human has a right to life. It hasn't and we don't depend on science to answer this fundamentally philosophical question.

(Before someone complain that philosophy does a crap job answering such questions, which is fair enough, the fundamental questions here about what rights persons have, whether right to life or right to abortion, are really philosophical questions. They are also legal questions, of course, but this context really is about what legal rights they ought to have, which is not a legal question.)
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yes, it is. A ban on all stents would be a ban on the installation of stents. See Minneapolis star Tribune vs commissar. An effort to tax paper to stop a newspaper counted as an effort to stop the paper directly.
Click to expand...

Nope. The FDA only has the power to ban the DEVICE. Your claim was that the FDA had the power to ban a medical procedure itself. Please show me where the FDA has banned the actual procedure.
 
Stacyhs said:
Nope. The FDA only has the power to ban the DEVICE. Your claim was that the FDA had the power to ban a medical procedure itself. Please show me where the FDA has banned the actual procedure.
Click to expand...

Fine. They haven't. I think you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't qualify, but I will concede it for now.

ETA: what was the point of this digression? No argument being made was dependent on if prior laws had banned procedures or not.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
You do realize that these are not scientific or medical questions, right? That's like asking since when has science determined that a normal adult human has a right to life. It hasn't and we don't depend on science to answer this fundamentally philosophical question.

(Before someone complain that philosophy does a crap job answering such questions, which is fair enough, the fundamental questions here about what rights persons have, whether right to life or right to abortion, are really philosophical questions. They are also legal questions, of course, but this context really is about what legal rights they ought to have, which is not a legal question.)
Click to expand...

Science has never been asked to determine that a normal adult human has a right to life. That is, as you say, a philosophical question. However, my point still stands: when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person is completely a matter of personal/religious belief. Therefore, Bob the Coward referring to abortion as "murder" is a personal/religious belief not based on any science.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Since when is it a women's issue to be allowed to commit murder without consequence?
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
Fine. They haven't. I think you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't qualify, but I will concede it for now.

ETA: what was the point of this digression? No argument being made was dependent on if prior laws had banned procedures or not.
Click to expand...

It was based on your statement above.
 
Stacyhs said:
Just go back and read our exchanges from that point on. I think you'll be able to figure it out..
Click to expand...

Based on post 27, we seem to agree that these positions are not based on science. I thought that was my point.


ETA: also, if it isn't clear, j dotn actually have an opinion if it is murder or not.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Based on post 27, we seem to agree that these positions are not based on science. I thought that was my point.


ETA: also, if it isn't clear, j dotn actually have an opinion if it is murder or not.
Click to expand...

Your points are not always clear, based on your posting history.

Off to better things now.
 
I previously stated that the Bernie bros who advocated voting for Stein can go die in a dumpster fire. I wish to correct that. The Bernie bros who advocated voting for Stein AND the conservatives who want to overturn Roe v. Wade can ALL go die in a dumpster fire.
 
Stacyhs said:
Science has never been asked to determine that a normal adult human has a right to life. That is, as you say, a philosophical question. However, my point still stands: when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person is completely a matter of personal/religious belief. Therefore, Bob the Coward referring to abortion as "murder" is a personal/religious belief not based on any science.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I just wanted to point out the way you attempted to rebut Bob involved a silly question.

I did not read Bob's post, so I don't know whether he's the one who raised the point about science/medicine.
 
phiwum said:
That's fine. I just wanted to point out the way you attempted to rebut Bob involved a silly question.

I did not read Bob's post, so I don't know whether he's the one who raised the point about science/medicine.
Click to expand...

I did not
 
Travis how many times is it now the government has turned into an Neo-con nightmare in your head? 10? 20? At this point I'm wondering how far you think it has to go.

Go outside.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Travis how many times is it now the government has turned into an Neo-con nightmare in your head? 10? 20? At this point I'm wondering how far you think it has to go.

Go outside.
Click to expand...
Seriously. We already had Hitler and Double Hitler. What's next? Hitler 3000? Super Custom Turbo Hitler? Hitler's head in a jar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom