Mere presence of a brain does not automatically imply full cognitive faculties. There are adults who don't have full cognitive faculties. The brain is one of the last parts of the fetus to develop and the brain does not complete development until around 25 years of age. The mere presence of a brain stem is akin to what can be found in most primitive life forms but it does not equate to what we call a brain in even a small child.
no that was what is called a response. A response can be but is not limited to an answer. For example: Question: What is the sum of 2+2? Response: Pizza Answer: 4 You responded pizza. Im looking for the fact based answer that I already know just to see if lefties would avoid answering. Non answer responses are what feed me as they prove my point. I asked when the brain is present not your opinion of when its capable of thought which is ridiculous.
Does not matter if brain is present or not or functioning or not....a fetus is NOT a person until birth.
Please provide all of the profound thoughts that fetuses have had throughout history. How many newborn infants are capable speaking their thoughts right after birth? If you believe that an in utero fetus is capable of thought then that is indeed ridiculous.
Okay....what level of brain development do you consider as "there". Is it when the stem develops? The frontal cortex? After connection to a nervous system? These all occur at different times so my "Answer" will depend on what you ask.
The brainstem is the posterior part of our brains, adjoining and structurally continuous with the spinal cord. In the human brain the brainstem includes the midbrain, the pons, and the medulla oblongata. Sometimes the diencephalon, the caudal part of the forebrain, is included. This is why I asked in order to "Answer" accurately.
You do support policies that increase welfare. That you do not realize the consequences of your own actions or are just mathematically challenged does not change this. The fact that you want to get rid of welfare - does not change the fact that welfare exists and will not go away on the basis of your wishes. Not supporting funding abortion funding ends up costing more because a child on welfare costs society far more than the cost of an abortion. Its simple math.
You supported unlimited funding for the military. Spending money that is not justified is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Your claim that the founders agree with you - wanted unlimited military spending - is a patent falsehood. Your claim that my argument carries no weight is logical fallacy as you have not even addressed my argument never mind shown that it carries no weight. If you care so much for a zygote - such that you do not want to fund abortion - then give the single mothers all your money and stop using mine. If you want unlimited military spending - then give the Gov't all your money and stop using mine. Your arguments - when not fallacious - are extremely weak.
This question is way to vague. What do you mean by brain - a single brain cell - a brain that is mostly complete but is not yet functional - or are you referring to the presence of "significant brain function"
Significant brain function - when the wiring is completed such that the lights come on - is around 22 weeks.
I don’t support welfare existing. I support you, since you claim to care for the poor, to support all of them you want to support.
It is your claim I support unlimited funding. That I support military spending is in line with the Constitution. Your support for social welfare is no If you don’t want money spent on the military, either amend the Constitution or get elected to Congress.
That you do not support welfare existing is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that welfare does exist. Pretending welfare does not exist - and making decisions on that basis - is an exercise in self delusion. Second - whether or not I care for the poor - and I have not claimed this in this thread so you are stating yet another falsehood - has nothing to do with you being fiscal irresponsible by not wanting to fund abortion or supporting unlimited military spending.
I don’t support funding abortion for two reasons. First, nothing in the Constitution authorizes it, secondly, it’s the responsibility of the one making the choice unless you’re willing to admit you believe people shouldn’t pay for their own choices.
I said argued for restriction on military funding and you wailed and grunted and tried to justify this spending by saying the constitution supported you . Your claim that military spending is in line with the constitution is completely unsupported. How are current military spending levels in line with the constitution. Back up your claim. I recognize some aspects of social welfare as a necessary evil - as described to you previously- but it makes no difference what I think. The fact of the matter is that the bloated bureaucracy exists - what I do not want is policies (such as not funding abortion) that make it even more bloated and disgusting.
I don't care what your reasons are. The fact of the matter is that yours is a fiscally irresponsible choice. Yours is a choice for expansion of the Big Gov't Bureaucracy. You should then be the one paying for this choice - not me. I believe that one should be responsible for the consequences of ones actions. If a couple has an accidental pregnancy - they should pay for it. The fact of the matter - whether I like it or not - is that if tax dollars do not pay for those who can not afford abortions - I am going to have to pay a heck of alot more - regardless of what I think. Why is this so difficult for you to understand. The choice is not -do you want welfare. Welfare exists - whether or not you or I agree with it. When you get rid of welfare .. then come talk to me. At this moment - under the conditions that exist - not supporting tax dollars going to poor folks that want an abortion is a choice to pay more. FULL STOP.
Since you do not want to pay for the coat hangers - by your own logic, you should be the one paying for the consequences of your choice.
Your previous position was that you were adamant that you did not want to pay for choices of others. Glad you have finally understood the error of your thinking.
