A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Because your questions are red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you wanna wonder on back around to the topic, you lemme know. I'll be happy to engage with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Oh, piss up a rope with that bullshit. I don't remember starting this thread and saying, "Hey! This is a general discussion about whatever bullshit you wanna bring up that you think will make you look good,"

Read the fucking thread title, and reread the fucking OP. After that, if you think you have a cogent thought on the subject, I will happily engage with you. If not, feel free to go troll, and piss on someone else's thread.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Because your questions are red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you wanna wonder on back around to the topic, you lemme know. I'll be happy to engage with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Oh, piss up a rope with that bullshit. I don't remember starting this thread and saying, "Hey! This is a general discussion about whatever bullshit you wanna bring up that you think will make you look good,"

Read the fucking thread title, and reread the fucking OP. After that, if you think you have a cogent thought on the subject, I will happily engage with you. If not, feel free to go troll, and piss on someone else's thread.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'm sorry you're incapable of articulating the extent of the beliefs you've expressed, maybe after you've completed the 8th grade you'll be better at it. Bye, I'm done with you.

 

[Czernobog]

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Because your questions are red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you wanna wonder on back around to the topic, you lemme know. I'll be happy to engage with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Oh, piss up a rope with that bullshit. I don't remember starting this thread and saying, "Hey! This is a general discussion about whatever bullshit you wanna bring up that you think will make you look good,"

Read the fucking thread title, and reread the fucking OP. After that, if you think you have a cogent thought on the subject, I will happily engage with you. If not, feel free to go troll, and piss on someone else's thread.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'm sorry you're incapable of articulating the extent of the beliefs you've expressed, maybe after you've completed the 8th grade you'll be better at it. Bye, I'm done with you.

Bye.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Now, maybe we can get back to the topic at hand…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Chuz Life]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

 

[Czernobog]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

 

[Vigilante]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The EXCEPTION in the fucked up wisdom of SCOTUS is abortion! Logic has NOTHING to do with law, morality, ethics and principles....OR SCIENCE for that matter!

 

[Czernobog]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

I'm a progressive. Please post where I once endorsed women having unfettered access to abortion of viable fetuses?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The EXCEPTION in the fucked up wisdom of SCOTUS is abortion! Logic has NOTHING to do with law, morality, ethics and principles....OR SCIENCE for that matter!

Actually, that wasn't SCOUTS. It was specifically spelled out in the law.

That being said, I hate that law. I hated it when progressives we're tricked into supporting it with promises that it would never be used to justify bans on abortions. Those laws should never have been passed, and I, for one, would celebrate their repeal.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

I'm a progressive. Please post where I once endorsed women having unfettered access to abortion of viable fetuses?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How can anyone logically believe that abortion is NOT taking life?....The DNA of that fetus or UNBORN HUMAN is different that the mothers, making it a second entity. The mother is only the host in the matter of human extension!

 

[Divine Wind]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

.....Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

 

[Vigilante]

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The EXCEPTION in the fucked up wisdom of SCOTUS is abortion! Logic has NOTHING to do with law, morality, ethics and principles....OR SCIENCE for that matter!

Actually, that wasn't SCOUTS. It was specifically spelled out in the law.

That being said, I hate that law. I hated it when progressives we're tricked into supporting it with promises that it would never be used to justify bans on abortions. Those laws should never have been passed, and I, for one, would celebrate their repeal.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Just as I, a firm believer in SCIENCE and logic reject the assholes of the SCOTUS that allowed such murder to take place legally with NO RESTRICTIONS!

 

[Czernobog]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

I'm a progressive. Please post where I once endorsed women having unfettered access to abortion of viable fetuses?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How can anyone logically believe that abortion is NOT taking life?....The DNA of that fetus or UNBORN HUMAN is different that the mothers, making it a second entity. The mother is only the host in the matter of human extension!

Don't change the subject. Demonstrate where I ever supported what your asinine cartoon implies, or admit that your broad brushing of "liberals" - implying all, or even a majority of liberals, as espousing that absurd position is simply dishonest.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

I'm a progressive. Please post where I once endorsed women having unfettered access to abortion of viable fetuses?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How can anyone logically believe that abortion is NOT taking life?....The DNA of that fetus or UNBORN HUMAN is different that the mothers, making it a second entity. The mother is only the host in the matter of human extension!

Don't change the subject. Demonstrate where I ever supported what your asinine cartoon implies, or admit that your broad brushing of "liberals" - implying all, or even a majority of liberals, as espousing that absurd position is simply dishonest.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is?????...I presume you're an advocate for PP!

Planned Parenthood’s Honesty: Admitting Post-Birth Abortions Okay

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

.....Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

 

[2aguy]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Your problem is you think paying something that is required is the same as doing it voluntarily. It isn't. If you truly cared about the poor people you claim to care about, you wouldn't involve the government or taxes. You'd find them and support them leaving the government out of it. Why can't you do that IF you truly care?