A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[chikenwing]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

The fatal flaw in your imagined dilemma is that you ignore the fact that scientists, doctors, lawmakers and even most high school grads can determine the differences between an actual human organism created in a reproductive process and a clump of cancer cells.

They also define the difference between viable, and non-viable. You want to ignore those definitions, so why shouldn't I ignore yours?

By your standards cancer has just as much right to live as a fetus.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What!! Yep your lost,give it up
You yourself early in your life you were just what you deny. Nobody in their mind would even bring cancer into the discussion.

 

[Mertex]

What I do not favor is "Unlimited Choice" for women or anyone. We don't get that in life. We make choices, they have consequences.

Please list a state that allows unlimited elective abortions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. I don't believe there are any in the US, so all this hoopla from conservatives about abortion is mainly to do away with it completely, and women at risk and victims of rape/incest be damned, and that is what we who are pro-choice are against. There has to be legal abortions for those instances even if there are few and far between.

 

[Iceweasel]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

 

[Mertex]

When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

People that have nothing shouldn't have to pay. But, here you are supporting Trumpf. He didn't pay taxes in 1978 and 1979......although he brags of being a multi millionaire or billionaire......and you want him to be President. Just proves over and over you don't know what you are talking about, besides being a hypocrite.

Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79

 

[Jack4jill]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

 

[Mertex]

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

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?

You're delusional. We only complain about the rich and corporations not paying their fair share. You psuedo compassionates want people who have nothing to pay while letting the rich like Trump escape without paying. That's really stupid, but then, conservative logic has never been considered supreme. And, Trumpf must not be following the law, as he got away without paying taxes back in 78 and 79...yet you illogical conservatives want to make him President.

One by one, all that called Trump a con artist, a cancer, a liar and a pariah among other nasty things are now, like good little lemmings falling in step defending him and supporting him. Hypocrites, conservative is thy name.

Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79

 

[Iceweasel]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

According to you. Tell that to a mother who is six months in and has the room already decorated. Or the cops when she gets stabbed and the baby dies. You live in a shallow world, under the skin it's fetal tissue, cut her open, pull it out and it's a baby. Just like magic.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're delusional. We only complain about the rich and corporations not paying their fair share.

Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79

And that's why we laugh at you. The rich pay most of the taxes and you don't understand that income is not profit.

 

[Boss]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

Noun
being ‎(plural beings)

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.

I'm sorry if you are too illiterate to comprehend word definitions. Perhaps that's the root of your problem here? You also seem to be having difficulty comprehending what an "organism" is... (In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant, fungus, or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.)

Cancer clusters are not contiguous living systems. They are mutations of cells within an organism. Fingernails and appendixes are also not organisms. A fetus is an independent living organism from point of conception.

 

[Jack4jill]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

According to you. Tell that to a mother who is six months in and has the room already decorated. Or the cops when she gets stabbed and the baby dies. You live in a shallow world, under the skin it's fetal tissue, cut her open, pull it out and it's a baby. Just like magic.

Having a baby is not the same as you have a baby. Common sense.

And yeah, if sucks when you lose one too early but that is the nature of the beast.

 

[Boss]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

 

[Czernobog]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

Noun
being ‎(plural beings)

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.

I'm sorry if you are too illiterate to comprehend word definitions. Perhaps that's the root of your problem here? You also seem to be having difficulty comprehending what an "organism" is... (In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant, fungus, or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.)

Cancer clusters are not contiguous living systems. They are mutations of cells within an organism. Fingernails and appendixes are also not organisms. A fetus is an independent living organism from point of conception.

Yup. It's an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it. I'll let you figure out what kind of an organism that is.

 

[Czernobog]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Which is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous that you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

 

[Iceweasel]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

According to you. Tell that to a mother who is six months in and has the room already decorated. Or the cops when she gets stabbed and the baby dies. You live in a shallow world, under the skin it's fetal tissue, cut her open, pull it out and it's a baby. Just like magic.

Having a baby is not the same as you have a baby. Common sense.

And yeah, if sucks when you lose one too early but that is the nature of the beast.

If it dies before exiting the birth canal it never was a baby to you. So no mother ever lost a premature baby. Sucks to have to slip and slide around to defend your view.

 

[Iceweasel]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Babies don't have voting rights either so your point makes no sense.

 

[Mertex]

You're delusional. We only complain about the rich and corporations not paying their fair share.

Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79

And that's why we laugh at you. The rich pay most of the taxes and you don't understand that income is not profit.

Bwahahaha....the Republican party has done a marvelous job with your brain. Nobody claims that income is profit....but when you hide your income in tax havens to avoid paying taxes....that's cheating. You've been conned and don't know it.

And laugh all you want.....retards are amused easily....they don't realize they're the ones that are actually funny....Bwahahaha.

 

[Czernobog]

If it dies before exiting the birth canal it never was a baby to you. So no mother ever lost a premature baby. Sucks to have to slip and slide around to defend your view.

Again, you are making an appeal to emotion. When one speaks of "losing a baby" through miscarriage, they are not talking about what was, but what would have been had the fetus come to term. And, I think you know this. Trying to make an argument by emotion is fallacious, and irrational.

 

[Jack4jill]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

According to you. Tell that to a mother who is six months in and has the room already decorated. Or the cops when she gets stabbed and the baby dies. You live in a shallow world, under the skin it's fetal tissue, cut her open, pull it out and it's a baby. Just like magic.

Having a baby is not the same as you have a baby. Common sense.

And yeah, if sucks when you lose one too early but that is the nature of the beast.

If it dies before exiting the birth canal it never was a baby to you. So no mother ever lost a premature baby. Sucks to have to slip and slide around to defend your view.

You don't have to be a person, to die. Fetuses die and are spontaneously aborted all day long. And sometimes they die but don't abort, which can be very dangerous, and one of the reasons for legal induced abortion.

You are way too hung up on what might have been a person, but in the end wasn't? There's a laundry list of why that might be, most of which we have nothing to do with, it just is what it is.

Pro-choice people know what's in there, and what it could become with time and luck. That changes nothing, it is what it is and when you need a microscope to see it, that's not a person so don't try calling it one.

 

[Czernobog]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Babies don't have voting rights either so your point makes no sense.

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights. There is not one jot of the constitution that confers rights to a fetus. This is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous when any of you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Even your stupid "fetal homicide" laws were not designed with the "rights" of fetuses in mind. They were designed to get justice for the pregnant women who were victims of violent crimes, and were forced to miscarry against their will.

 

[Boss]

What I do not favor is "Unlimited Choice" for women or anyone. We don't get that in life. We make choices, they have consequences.

Please list a state that allows unlimited elective abortions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. I don't believe there are any in the US, so all this hoopla from conservatives about abortion is mainly to do away with it completely, and women at risk and victims of rape/incest be damned, and that is what we who are pro-choice are against. There has to be legal abortions for those instances even if there are few and far between.

You're taking me out of context, that's not what I meant. Women have the choice of whether or not to have sex. Women have the choice of whom to have sex with and when. Women have the choice of what kind (if any) birth control or protection to use. You're wanting women to have the choice to avoid the consequences of their previous choices and no one has unlimited choices. We don't get to just keep making choices to avoid the consequence of our previous decisions.

I am a pro-life conservative and I've repeatedly stated that I have no problem with STATES deciding the parameters of abortion within the first trimester. So you can unfairly accuse me of all sorts of things but you can't back that up with statements I've made.