User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:53:06 PM EDT
[#1]
The only reason DNC will bring up abortion is to rally their troops and dissuade some from voting GOP.
It fits the "war on women" narrative for DNC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:55:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's not a child, it's just a fetus. You realize that fetus is Latin for child, right? Translate everything to English & you just said "its not a child, its just a child." Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. From the moment of conception it possesses the same DNA it will have for the rest of its life. Every marker that makes it human is present. People give birth to people and not dogs and cats for a reason. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. That's really all you have to make you important too. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. Simply untrue. All DNA & chromosonal constructs are present in an unborn child from conception. An embryo is one of the most complex organisms in nature. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. Speculative |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not considered "potential" life at fertilization since, at that point, there is no medical difference between it and a human outside the womb besides size, level of development, degree of dependency, and environment - none of which are human-determining factors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the mind of the anti-choice crowd, it's the same as murder, legal definitions mean nothing. Since their logic says killing a potential life is murder, than jacking off must make you a genocidal maniac. It's not considered "potential" life at fertilization since, at that point, there is no medical difference between it and a human outside the womb besides size, level of development, degree of dependency, and environment - none of which are human-determining factors. I feel obligated to inform you that you're arguing with a helmet-wearing moron who a) doesn't know the difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized embryo and b) refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:02:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If there was ONE type of welfare/subsidy I'd have zero problem paying for with my taxes, it would be free contraception. Teaching "abstinence" does jack shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always figured the best way to shrink the welfare rolls would be free birth control for everyone. If there was ONE type of welfare/subsidy I'd have zero problem paying for with my taxes, it would be free contraception. Teaching "abstinence" does jack shit. I don't want my taxes going to your abortion. Taxes should never go toward sex or the result of sex. Sex is an elective activity. If you play, YOU pay. I shouldn't have to pay for your play. Didnt quite think that through, huh? Why in the fuck should taxes ever pay for sexual activity? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:03:39 PM EDT
[#5]
are you fucking serious?
it's a CHILD.. idiot! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:04:24 PM EDT
[#6]
IT IS MURDER.
Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:07:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. Do they? Because it never seems to be the Republicans bringing it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:12:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not intended to be practical. The nature of the position is principle, not practicality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. There's nothing practical about the far right's abortion fetish. It's all symbolic counterpoint a largely otherwise ultra-hardass/blowhard worldview. Sentimentality and brutality are an odd couple, but a frequent pair. My response was to OP. His phrasing of it as "a self correcting problem" poses it as a practical question. I don't see it as "principle." I see it as a hedge in a moral economy. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:15:09 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always figured the best way to shrink the welfare rolls would be free birth control for everyone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. I always figured the best way to shrink the welfare rolls would be free birth control for everyone. You realize many of them get pregnant on purpose as a meal ticket, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:16:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. So kiddy porn is cool? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:26:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putting people to death without due process is the antithesis of freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My question is: why are "pro abortion" people always "save the animals" people? They're not. Some are freedom nuts. Putting people to death without due process is the antithesis of freedom. If you believe they're people, I can see how you might feel that way. But they're not people, merely potential people and it's not within your power to protect them. It's outside of the things you control. Much like a dictator in Zimbabwe can carry out executions of Zimbabweans and your interfering with it is an act of war. Neither you nor the govt has jurisdiction over the nation of my body. I govern here. If you can't stop yourself from trying to rescue my fetuses from me, it's war. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:28:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the problem. She's acknowledged it's a human life with potential and then goes on to say that it's OK to kill it if she doesn't want it. That's straight eugenics again, which is pure evil. Somebody else not wanting you doesn't mean they get to kill you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's sad to kill things, and you have to think about the little person the fetus could turn into. The wasted potential. Especially when pregnancy prevention is relatively easy. Having a kid would fuck me up, but I certainly couldn't waste the chance if I got pregnant. Making a person is just too cool. Things. Funny how when it's a baby you don't want, it's a thing. When it's a baby you want, you already love him or her more than yourself as soon as you see the ultrasound images. Actually, I'm speaking of a fetus I want as a thing, so your point is totally invalid. A husband is something I want, a best friend is a wonderful thing. Try to hear what I'm saying instead of trying to play "gotcha" games. I misunderstood you, I thought you intensionally said "things" to make a point. Wasn't playing gotcha games. So the reason it's awful to you is because killing is sad, and you have to think about who he might have become, and you'd hate to waste the chance to let him live because making a person is cool. That's the awful part of abortion. It's all about your feelz? What about the actual slaughtering of the unborn child? Not so much? This is the problem. She's acknowledged it's a human life with potential and then goes on to say that it's OK to kill it if she doesn't want it. That's straight eugenics again, which is pure evil. Somebody else not wanting you doesn't mean they get to kill you. Human life, not a person. How is it eugenics? I think we're using different definitions of the word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:34:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Human life, not a person. how in the world can you actually differentiate between the two? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:36:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you believe they're people, I can see how you might feel that way. But they're not people, merely potential people and it's not within your power to protect them. It's outside of the things you control. Much like a dictator in Zimbabwe can carry out executions of Zimbabweans and your interfering with it is an act of war. Neither you nor the govt has jurisdiction over the nation of my body. I govern here. If you can't stop yourself from trying to rescue my fetuses from me, it's war. Plain and simple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My question is: why are "pro abortion" people always "save the animals" people? They're not. Some are freedom nuts. Putting people to death without due process is the antithesis of freedom. If you believe they're people, I can see how you might feel that way. But they're not people, merely potential people and it's not within your power to protect them. It's outside of the things you control. Much like a dictator in Zimbabwe can carry out executions of Zimbabweans and your interfering with it is an act of war. Neither you nor the govt has jurisdiction over the nation of my body. I govern here. If you can't stop yourself from trying to rescue my fetuses from me, it's war. Plain and simple. This is one of the most infuriating arguments I hear on the abortion issue. "It's my body." Biology dictates that the female of the species is responsible for gestating the young. It's not your body, but it is contained within your body because biology dictates it. You have a right to get a ridiculous tattoo (or dozens of them). You have the right to look like a linebacker. You have the right to do whatever you want with your body. I am not exactly sure how that translates into "I have the right to murder another human life because it's growing inside of me as the result of my voluntary actions" (excluding potential involuntary causes). You do not have the right to infringe upon another's right - the most basic right, I argue - that of life. It's another human body, genetically and physically, not yours. Keep in mind this position also advocates for abortion on demand until the moment of birth and, in fact, sometimes beyond birth. Ultimately you're not arguing that it's your body (unless you're a high school sophomore, in which case you may very well be). You're arguing that the genetically and physically distinct human body growing within you is not a person. Which, again, devolves into eugenics. Liberalismus macht frei, indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:38:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I feel obligated to inform you that you're arguing with a helmet-wearing moron who a) doesn't know the difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized embryo and b) refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the mind of the anti-choice crowd, it's the same as murder, legal definitions mean nothing. Since their logic says killing a potential life is murder, than jacking off must make you a genocidal maniac. It's not considered "potential" life at fertilization since, at that point, there is no medical difference between it and a human outside the womb besides size, level of development, degree of dependency, and environment - none of which are human-determining factors. I feel obligated to inform you that you're arguing with a helmet-wearing moron who a) doesn't know the difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized embryo and b) refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice." It's obvious you've lost an argument when you discard your untenable position and resort to personal attacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:45:26 PM EDT
[#16]
When's the last time you've seen a liberal politician asked about his/her stance on partial-birth abortion, or 3rd trimester abortion, or minors getting abortions without parental consent?
Abortion is a "tough question" topic that the leftist dominated media-entertainment complex uses to make conservatives look bad, while liberals get a pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:47:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. Potential goes from ZERO to INFINITE in a single moment. There is no other more logical point to declare that life has begun, all other times are speculative or self-serving. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the mind of the anti-choice crowd, it's the same as murder, legal definitions mean nothing. Since their logic says killing a potential life is murder, than jacking off must make you a genocidal maniac. That's an idiotic statement. There is zero potential for life until conception, after which there is immeasurable potential. Pretending that we believe any biological material constitutes a life is disingenuous and speaks poorly of you. It's no less idiotic to consider a spermatozoa life than it is to consider a zygote life. Until a being can live without artificial assistance, it's not alive. That goes for both organisms under discussion. Bullshit. Potential goes from ZERO to INFINITE in a single moment. There is no other more logical point to declare that life has begun, all other times are speculative or self-serving. Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:50:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the mind of the anti-choice crowd, it's the same as murder, legal definitions mean nothing. Since their logic says killing a potential life is murder, than jacking off must make you a genocidal maniac. That's an idiotic statement. There is zero potential for life until conception, after which there is immeasurable potential. Pretending that we believe any biological material constitutes a life is disingenuous and speaks poorly of you. It's no less idiotic to consider a spermatozoa life than it is to consider a zygote life. Until a being can live without artificial assistance, it's not alive. That goes for both organisms under discussion. Bullshit. Potential goes from ZERO to INFINITE in a single moment. There is no other more logical point to declare that life has begun, all other times are speculative or self-serving. Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? They are certainly not human life nor are they capable of reproducing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:50:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's murder and should be treated as such Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many elections have been lost by Republicans for this reason alone. Many women agree with Republican ideals, except for this one issue. That's a point of contention that they could leave alone and through other policies, let people change their own minds on later. But women sure as shit don't like being told what they can and cannot or should and should not do with their own body, it just pisses them the Fuck off. Perhaps later they'll come around, but not this way. There are a hell of a lot of women against tax payer funded abortion. You have to be one sick bitch to rabidly fight for your "right" to butcher your unborn baby. It's a huge miscalculation to assume all women are like that. I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. What's awful about it? It's murder and should be treated as such It is perfectly legal, how can it possibly also be murder? You want it to be murder, but the problem you have is that murder is a legal term, it's like saying licking a photo is rape, or kicking a mannequin is assault. It makes your entire premise unjustifiable. You need to come up with another term, one that is not inherently incorrect to be taken seriously. Unless of course it is made illegal, then you would be exactly right, it would be murder in that case. Is abortion legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:53:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Is abortion illegal? If not, then how can it be murder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:55:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's obvious you've lost an argument when you discard your untenable position and resort to personal attacks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the mind of the anti-choice crowd, it's the same as murder, legal definitions mean nothing. Since their logic says killing a potential life is murder, than jacking off must make you a genocidal maniac. It's not considered "potential" life at fertilization since, at that point, there is no medical difference between it and a human outside the womb besides size, level of development, degree of dependency, and environment - none of which are human-determining factors. I feel obligated to inform you that you're arguing with a helmet-wearing moron who a) doesn't know the difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized embryo and b) refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice." It's obvious you've lost an argument when you discard your untenable position and resort to personal attacks. LOL, I thought he was talking about me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:55:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is abortion illegal? If not, then how can it be murder? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Is abortion illegal? If not, then how can it be murder? killing without justifiable cause is the definition of murder. I didn't see any thing in there about "legality" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 2:57:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are certainly not human life nor are they capable of reproducing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's an idiotic statement. There is zero potential for life until conception, after which there is immeasurable potential. Pretending that we believe any biological material constitutes a life is disingenuous and speaks poorly of you. It's no less idiotic to consider a spermatozoa life than it is to consider a zygote life. Until a being can live without artificial assistance, it's not alive. That goes for both organisms under discussion. Bullshit. Potential goes from ZERO to INFINITE in a single moment. There is no other more logical point to declare that life has begun, all other times are speculative or self-serving. Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? They are certainly not human life nor are they capable of reproducing. So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:00:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
killing without justifiable cause is the definition of murder. I didn't see any thing in there about "legality" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Is abortion illegal? If not, then how can it be murder? killing without justifiable cause is the definition of murder. I didn't see any thing in there about "legality" Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:02:33 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glorifiedG: I guess that's like your opinion man... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glorifiedG: Quoted: Racists support abortion. Always been that way. I guess that's like your opinion man... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:07:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bullshit. Potential goes from ZERO to INFINITE in a single moment. There is no other more logical point to declare that life has begun, all other times are speculative or self-serving. Are you saying that spermatozoa or ovum are not life by themselves? As I define it, yes. The sperm is, at least, animated biological material, but it has no potential to develop further without human (or greater) involvement. That involves transport to viable ovum via fucking or test tubes...overcoming the air gap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:08:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:10:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. We aren't discussing the legal semantics of the issue. 
Hey, someone in GD called it a clip, shouldn't you be over there correcting them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:17:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Nothing short of a constitutional amendment or a new supreme court ruling will ban abortion. There is no feasible way to significantly change abortion laws. Talking about banning abortion drives away younger voters, and there is zero potential to gain anything from it, other than possibly exciting one portion of the party base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:19:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. but you're also talking about an industry that quite literally has 10 or 15 different "names" for killing a person (based on the intent, and circumstances). a discussion on murder which occurs outside of a courtroom or a police precinct should not use definitions which are devised to be used solely within those two locations. (i.e. drop the blacks and pick up the webster) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:22:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:24:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We aren't discussing the legal semantics of the issue.
Hey, someone in GD called it a clip, shouldn't you be over there correcting them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. We aren't discussing the legal semantics of the issue.
Hey, someone in GD called it a clip, shouldn't you be over there correcting them? I think we are, you used a word that is inherently wrong. We can't discuss fundamental issues if we can not agree on terminology. This is the basis of a didactic conversation, you will learn as we discuss, the first thing you learned is that abortion is not presently murder, I might learn something on our next go around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:27:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:27:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, yes, murder as a legal term is unlawful, therefore it will be referred to as unlawful by the definition within the law. but you're also talking about an industry that quite literally has 10 or 15 different "names" for killing a person (based on the intent, and circumstances). a discussion on murder which occurs outside of a courtroom or a police precinct should not use definitions which are devised to be used solely within those two locations. (i.e. drop the blacks and pick up the webster) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. but you're also talking about an industry that quite literally has 10 or 15 different "names" for killing a person (based on the intent, and circumstances). a discussion on murder which occurs outside of a courtroom or a police precinct should not use definitions which are devised to be used solely within those two locations. (i.e. drop the blacks and pick up the webster) I just did and webster defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Again, we are faced with the reality that abortion being legal, abortion can then not be unlawful. It is basic terminology, that we must get right before we can move on. Your entire argument can not be simply based on that one word, can it? If it is, it is a rather weak argument. I suggest you come up with another word to describe it. Or, use the next argument you have to defend your position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:28:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Maybe because the wholesale slaughter of babies (regardless of their possible future political affiliation) is a reprehensible act that will one day be looked back on with the same disgust we look back on slavery with now?
Once again, the left is supporting it. It seems like history shows that reasonable people should be on the other side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:29:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. Actually you are incorrect, we have already seen an ovum fertilized without the spermatozoa. In that case, is the resulting individual a human, or is it not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:29:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. So if a couple has IVF and the procedure involves selective abortion of certain zygotes or the destruction of unused zygotes, are they murderers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:31:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if a couple has IVF and the procedure involves selective abortion of certain zygotes or the destruction of unused zygotes, are they murderers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. So if a couple has IVF and the procedure involves selective abortion of certain zygotes or the destruction of unused zygotes, are they murderers? Quoted:
Actually you are incorrect, we have already seen an ovum fertilized without the spermatozoa. In that case, is the resulting individual a human, or is it not? where have "we seen" that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:32:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually you are incorrect, we have already seen an ovum fertilized without the spermatozoa. In that case, is the resulting individual a human, or is it not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if you bring the two cell together, they are not capable of reproducing? I think you might have that wrong. How about an ovum, sans spermatozoa, do you think that ovum can not be fertilized without the spermatozoa? ... Of course...? Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? If you bring the two cells together, that's a pretty big step, no? Aren't they no longer separate cells? Of course, but in the case of non-spermatozoa fertilization, is that fertilized ovum then a human being? ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. Actually you are incorrect, we have already seen an ovum fertilized without the spermatozoa. In that case, is the resulting individual a human, or is it not? Please cite your sources. I want to see if you're referring to what I think you're referring to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:36:08 PM EDT
[#40]
he's probably referring to where it's been done in MICE..
for the libtards in here, no, MICE aren't people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:37:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we are, you used a word that is inherently wrong. We can't discuss fundamental issues if we can not agree on terminology. This is the basis of a didactic conversation, you will learn as we discuss, the first thing you learned is that abortion is not presently murder, I might learn something on our next go around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. We aren't discussing the legal semantics of the issue.
Hey, someone in GD called it a clip, shouldn't you be over there correcting them? I think we are, you used a word that is inherently wrong. We can't discuss fundamental issues if we can not agree on terminology. This is the basis of a didactic conversation, you will learn as we discuss, the first thing you learned is that abortion is not presently murder, I might learn something on our next go around. Then ackowledge that there are various sets of laws, and that for those that base their argument on religious grounds, the MURDER of an unborn child is still in fact MURDER based on those same religious LAWS. Fuck me I hate the internet sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:54:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. Maybe because some people don't believe political expediency is the final standard of right and wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:55:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yup. where have "we seen" that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ya'll are barking up the wrong tree. cells on their own (sperm/ovum) are not "people/babies/humans/etc" fertilization occurs when the male/female gametes combine to form a zygote. no other union is considered a fertilized egg. no other union can develop into a person. So if a couple has IVF and the procedure involves selective abortion of certain zygotes or the destruction of unused zygotes, are they murderers? Quoted:
Actually you are incorrect, we have already seen an ovum fertilized without the spermatozoa. In that case, is the resulting individual a human, or is it not? where have "we seen" that? Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and much of modern mass media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 3:56:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then ackowledge that there are various sets of laws, and that for those that base their argument on religious grounds, the MURDER of an unborn child is still in fact MURDER based on those same religious LAWS. Fuck me I hate the internet sometimes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, how about you check out a Blacks Legal dictionary, it is online, you will get something like "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Unlawful being the operative word in this case. If abortion is legal, how can it also be murder. You simply have a case of mistaken terminology you are working under. You need another word to describe it, though you will be hard pressed to find one so emotionally charged, which I suspect is why you all seem to want to overlook your grammatical faux pas. We aren't discussing the legal semantics of the issue.
Hey, someone in GD called it a clip, shouldn't you be over there correcting them? I think we are, you used a word that is inherently wrong. We can't discuss fundamental issues if we can not agree on terminology. This is the basis of a didactic conversation, you will learn as we discuss, the first thing you learned is that abortion is not presently murder, I might learn something on our next go around. Then ackowledge that there are various sets of laws, and that for those that base their argument on religious grounds, the MURDER of an unborn child is still in fact MURDER based on those same religious LAWS. Fuck me I hate the internet sometimes. Relax, changing a position because of new evidence is the mark of an intelligent person. It's ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:03:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you talk to children about Santa Claus, do you say "The imaginary bearded guy who brings presents, but who is really your parents"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. So, I guess when you talk to a pregnant woman, you ask her when her fetus is due? When you talk to children about Santa Claus, do you say "The imaginary bearded guy who brings presents, but who is really your parents"? I have been known to call him St. Nick... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:05:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Why would an adopted child be for abortion
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:11:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been known to call him St. Nick... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. So, I guess when you talk to a pregnant woman, you ask her when her fetus is due? When you talk to children about Santa Claus, do you say "The imaginary bearded guy who brings presents, but who is really your parents"? I have been known to call him St. Nick... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:11:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you believe they're people, I can see how you might feel that way. But they're not people, merely potential people and it's not within your power to protect them. It's outside of the things you control. Much like a dictator in Zimbabwe can carry out executions of Zimbabweans and your interfering with it is an act of war. Neither you nor the govt has jurisdiction over the nation of my body. I govern here. If you can't stop yourself from trying to rescue my fetuses from me, it's war. Plain and simple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My question is: why are "pro abortion" people always "save the animals" people? They're not. Some are freedom nuts. Putting people to death without due process is the antithesis of freedom. If you believe they're people, I can see how you might feel that way. But they're not people, merely potential people and it's not within your power to protect them. It's outside of the things you control. Much like a dictator in Zimbabwe can carry out executions of Zimbabweans and your interfering with it is an act of war. Neither you nor the govt has jurisdiction over the nation of my body. I govern here. If you can't stop yourself from trying to rescue my fetuses from me, it's war. Plain and simple. At the moment of conception, the embryo forms a membrane that is a boundary between the mother's body and the child's. The child has its own distinct DNA, blood, organs, and nervous system. While it might be inside your body, it is distinctly different from you and is not a part of your body. The child in utero is in fact protected by the laws of this nation. That's why drunk driver are charged with two murders if they kill a mother carrying a child. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the face of another. The only way you could possibly think otherwise is if they exclusively think with their feels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:18:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and much of modern mass media. then produce an article, it shouldn't be difficult as you've listed so many publications. what you're discussing has NOT been done in human cells. mice, yes.. but not HUMAN cells. and no, I'm not upset when I hear about a mouse being aborted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2015 4:19:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. because they have a problem with murder? don't you? It has nothing to do with a womens body it has everything to do with the child. Here some liberal logic for you Kill a pregnant women in NC you go up for TWO murders. Same women has an abortion...same child just as dead. no murder. Makes no sense. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
