Anti-abortion groups wants Personhood bill brought to Oklahoma House floor

Maybe if instead of replying to comments and defending the bill that you feel is inadequate you explained in a full post how you feel the law should be written to address whatever issues you think this law would help with we could actually understand your point.

Maybe if you would read comments without the burr under your saddle, now good day.

Who's going on rabbit trails? You had pictures of 20 something year old women to support your comments.

Yep, what I thought.

Since I have a "burr" and Cimarron will not do it, can anyone point out where he stated how such a law should be written?

After you point out where you stated how such a law should be written.

You are clearly more interested in arguing and posting "Jr High Pictures" (isn't that what you called them) than having a discussion.

Where did I defend the bill?

Only raising a perfectly valid question regarding the legal and ethical view of the "personhood" of monozygotic twins if said "personhood" is to begin from the moment of fertilization.

A single zygote - by the definition of the law that you may or may not support (which is it, by the way?) - is a single human being vested with legal definition, recognition, and (presumably) rights. But, we end up with two fetuses and two living, breathing, self-aware babies in the end. Do they share a single legal definition of "personhood?"

If not, why? When did they become two "persons?" Sure, you can go ahead by magic fiat and simply declare that they count as two people because, duh, it's obvious, but you're still dealing with the illogical situation of one zygote, two people, when you're defining life and personhood to begin at conception.

As a result, I think we're looking square in the face of the law of unintended consequences here, and what appears to be a fairly simple piece of legislation/non-binding resolution/general sentiment carries with it some legal (and existential) questions that need to be considered.

Generally, I am fairly pro-life and, like others have expressed in this thread, share a concern with the culture of convenience that often revolves around abortion (although I've never been in that situation and am hesitant to throw stones on the matter). Even so, I have a hard time extending the definition, recognition, and protection of the label of "human being" all the way back to a zygote or the early, early stages of development.

Now, obviously I'm no obstetrician. So, I won't hazard a guess as to when a developing fetus in a womb crosses the line into full on "personhood," but a zygote isn't that time.

But, back to my original question, which I'm asking for a third time.

If a zygote is a full-on, real-deal human being, what about identical (i.e. monozygotic) twins that come from one zygote?

It is obvious that I do not think such a law should be written at all so why would I point out how to write it?

Your turn. I'm not interested in arguing. I don't desire any response about prior posts, the law as written, how I asked, semantics, or any related issues. All I request is your opinion on if you think such a state law should be written in Oklahoma. And if so, how should it be written to avoid "ridiculous" concerns like those raised in the thread and like I have raised before.

They are two different people. Don't confuse the obvious.

Where did I defend the bill?

Seriously? You are claiming I want to argue and then double posted that when this (below) was my last post. You are impossible. I guess I'll need to go back to ignoring your replies.

Steros you have at least twice in this thread attributed statements to me that I did not say or suggest. Then you posted a picture which in an other thread you claimed such posting was for Jr. High.

So seriously, why would you do that?

Now, you want to have a normal discussion and suggest I'm impossible?

If you think ignoring my posts bothers me you are sadly mistaken. In fact I prefer it if you are going to attribute things to me that I didn't say.

He can certainly suck you in with his game of misdirection and Socratic questioning, I'll tell you what.

Are you not defending the bill? Or are you not defending the bill and just defending defining personhood/life at a specific stage of fetus development?

Where did I defend the bill? In fact in this very thread I said I wouldn't vote for it.

I quote "As written I don't believe I could vote in favor of it."

I'm not sure it can be any more clear than that.

You and steros are set on nothing but arguments for the sake of an arguement.

I have not defended the bill.

Now, have a good day.

The only that's been sucked into here is the two of you sucking me into this silly discussion you choose to have. I'll let the two of you continue making crap up.

I suggested you were impossible after I tried to have a normal discussion and you would not do it.

You claimed I wanted to argue. I tried as hard as possible not to argue, and you just kept arguing. I disagree with you that you did not suggest those things but, again, I'm wasn't going to reply as then you accused me of arguing.

I was trying not to argue, you kept arguing. That is what you do. That is impossible.

I will not ignore you to bother you. I will ignore you to keep my sanity. If you must just keep bickering about nothing instead of actually having a normal discussion as I kindly requested then you will be ignored.

And yet you made this comment less than 2 hours ago!

"Maybe if instead of replying to comments and defending the bill"

Again, where did I defend the bill?

Post that bickering 7 million more times and each time you can refer back to this same answer. See post # 68 if at any point you would like to stop bickering and actually discuss something.

I don't care to have a "normal" discussion when something is attributed to me that I didn't say. You refuse to defend your comments regarding me which were inaccurate (and lets not forget the picture). You attribute statements to someone which they didn't say and then you accuse me of bickering? That's rich steross.

I'm really sorry that I misinterpreted your remarks as support of the bill and completely rescind my attempt at humor with Pelosi and any other comments that I might have made that implied or stated you supported the bill based on your positive comments about the bill. I am sorry I reposted the picture that State posted regarding your style on the message board.

I can assure you, I will do my best to never, ever get into this type of discussion with you again.

Now, will you please answer the two specific questions that I asked in #68 with your opinion and no discussion of past posts, quotes, other people's thoughts, problems or concerns?