True. Over 170 countries issue SSNs, so the odds are decent that someone coming here illegally has one.
This is why didn't say "all of them don't have one."
But why did you think it would be legal to kill an illegal just because they have no B.C. or SSN?
Something you advocate or wish for? Remember: YOU brought it up.
Because you stated that a ***** does not have a BC or SSN. Therefore, it is not human, so it is okay to kill it. In your words, only humans have a BC and SSN and it is okay to kill creatures that don't. Under your definition, a human without a BC or SSN is not human, so they must be a creature.
Very cool. Is she or was she an illegal immigrant here? Is she the reason you wondered if we should legally kill people without a B.C. or SSN?
My mother is here legally, and if you wish to continue to receive any respect, you will refrain from making such statements about killing ones mother.
Incorrect. I said an embryo is not legally a PERSON and therefore cannot be issued a B.C. or SSN.
I also said a ***** is human but not "a human" until it is born.
Why would anyone think an embryo should be issued any of those? A BC is only used to state where and when a person was born. A SSN is a form of tracking and identifying people.
Exactly. But you think a ***** is a baby. Babies can be issued a B.C and an SSN, right?
If a ***** is a baby, why can't we issue a B.C. and an SSN to a *****?
And when did I say a ***** becomes an actual baby? I mentioned it many times before.
Abortion law. It's based on tenets of religion.
Did you misunderstand when I asked about it? Do you NOT believe tenets of religion should be used to create law?
Laws originated from the 10 commandments. That is true. Would you prefer we don't follow the laws that were put in place due to the 10 commandments? So, you would be perfectly fine with legalizing murder, of any kind, and theft?
But abortion should be illegal because you believe so. Right?
I didn't say all abortion should be illegal. I just don't believe it should be legal as a form of birth control.
Yes. I saw it all in seminary and had endless questions about the contradictory nature of so much of it.
And you simply support my statement that the Bible is not a history book, nor a science book.
And you only reinforce my statement that it should not be used as a basis for US law.
Read above. I do believe it should be a basis for US law. Maybe we should remove all Christian based laws and become like the other countries where Christianity is illegal. Who would you like to follow? Pakistan, North Korea, or how about Afghanistan? All those countries are thriving without Christian based laws
Yes, I am. You expressed very clearly that you didn't know what a zygote is. You said it's OK to abort it because the cells haven't "come together" even though a zygote is what you get following conception (the UNION of sperm and egg).
Nope! I did not.
Then you indicated a dog ***** should not be aborted because it is human and the cells have "come together", which is not how development occurs.
Again, I did not say a dog ***** is a human. If I did, I probably misunderstood what you were saying.
It's also probably a felony to chop someone's finger off without their consent, yet you CAN do it WITH their consent.
It makes TOTAL sense that it would be illegal to kill the ***** without the consent of the woman carrying it.
Tell me: When the court case happens, who is named as the plaintiff?
What makes you think it's a woman carrying the baby. It could be a man that is carrying it. First you say all illegals are Mexican and now you're saying that all pregnant people are women. Are you sure you're a democrat? LOL... I gotcha on that one.
Plaintiff would be the person who was carrying the baby or the state. If a person is murdered, who becomes the plaintiff?
BTW - Penal Code 187 exempt abortion and describes the fetal killing as having to be "unlawful" It is "unlawful" to do something to the body of a person who is unwilling and has not consented.
The law you describe makes TOTAL sense.
By why do they make a point to mention "*****?" They don't mention any other stages.
OK. We're making progress. So, at what stage in the process does abortion go from OK, to unacceptable?
It's not up to me, but I would say once the ***** is able to survive without life support system in place.
Kind of the obverse of being able to remove life support from someone who will forever be tied to it..
Yes there are variables, but find an average and set it as a hard line.
I can respect that decision and thank you for answering it. Did you know that some states will allow abortions even past that point?
Most republicans are ok with accepting abortions. They just want term limits set. Democrats don't want term limits.
Yes. And thus it's really hard to use it as a reference for how our laws should be set or how people should live their lives.
Pork was forbidden by some religions. Reasons vary from the difficulty to raise them, to them being "unhealthy" becasue they do not chew their cud.
Religion was created to effectively control huge populations of "children" by giving them rules and a reason to follow them:
Scare the shit out of them with the punishment of eternal damnation rom an angry god.
So we want to use a book of fairy tales to create law?
There is no solid viable truth that God exists. There is no solid viable truth that science is correct about the way man was created. This is why we, meaning you and I, only have a belief. I respect your belief because I cannot prove it is false and I have my beliefs because of my own personal experiences and from what I have studied. Ther are many religious documents out there that you have not read in your seminary class.
No, I'm saying that you are posting things that are pretty much a word-for-word copy of the AI-generated result Google gives when you search for certain phrases.
They are already seeing many instances where the AI-generated results are wrong, but are simply grabbed from the info the system gathers.
I didn't just grab any report and show it to you. If you were to Google what a ***** is, you will see that over 99% of the medical reports state that a human embryo is a human. That family, article I showed, I know was from an anti-abortion group. However, how they explained what a baby is, and the stages to become a baby, were all the same as any report I am ever read. They just explained it more clearly.
For the same reason you wouldn't just believe me if I said the opposite.
And I wouldn't expect you to.
We are all anonymous here. Our "word" doesn't mean ANYTHING.
Is it absolutely true! However, I assure you that if there is something you believe I was wrong on, it's probably due to me explaining it wrong or I misunderstood what you were asking. We are all typing as fast as we can while working at the same time. Grammar mistakes are going to happen.
Believe it or not, a few months ago, a group of liberals came to me and started talking about politics. They stated that out of everyone they have ever talked to, about religion, I was the easiest because I didn't raise my voice and I was more open minded. I was also willing to call out a republican for something they did and not try to defend it.
I don't expect to change anyones mind. However, if someone wants to challenge me on facts, then I am not able to back down. Such as abortion. If you tell me you believe in abortion because you have not sympathy for an unborn child, then I'll accept that. I won't like it, but I accept it. However, if you come to me and say you believe in abortion because an unborn child is not human, then I will have to correct that.
You never did. Because only a legal person can get one.
If only a legal person can get one, a ***** must not be a legal person. Get it?
Legal to what degree? We already know that in some states, killing a *****, without proper consent, is considered murder. That's not just the states that condone abortion.
Answered above. But "viability" makes the most sense to me.
ALL of that said, this is the type of back-and-forth I am trying to have here, but get stymied by the likes of Thx, Spoke, etc, who simply want to make a claim, demand it be accepted wihtout question, and then get pissed off if it IS questioned.
You have trended there too, but I'm TRYING to keep it a true back-and-forth. See above.
I know, and I apologize for it. Sometimes it sounds like you're just trying to dodge the question and/or throw in a diversion. I have to keep reminding myself that we are typing over the internet and not sitting in person. I know, in person, the conversations go a lot easier.
. Keep talking, I’ll only have more to laugh about.
