A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[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.

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.

Nope... Sorry... Cancer is not an animal or plant living inside another. It is not a living organism according to the scientific definition of an organism because it doesn't meet that criteria. A tapeworm is an organism.

 

[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.

Nope... Sorry... Cancer is not an animal or plant living inside another. It is not a living organism according to the scientific definition of an organism because it doesn't meet that criteria. A tapeworm is an organism.

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

 

[Czernobog]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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.

Nope... Sorry... Cancer is not an animal or plant living inside another. It is not a living organism according to the scientific definition of an organism because it doesn't meet that criteria. A tapeworm is an organism.

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh sorry.. no you weren't. You were trying to equate a human being with a clump of cancer cells. It's also not a parasite, although I can see how someone as retarded as you would make that mistake. A parasite is an organism dependent upon another host organism for nutrition and survival and while the human fetus does seem to meet that standard, so do ALL mammals... obviously, all mammals are not parasites. With a parasite, this is an exclusive arrangement that doesn't change. A tapeworm only exists as a parasite... it can never be anything else.... unlike a fetus, it will not eventually live independently of it's host.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh sorry.. no you weren't. You were trying to equate a human being with a clump of cancer cells. It's also not a parasite, although I can see how someone as retarded as you would make that mistake. A parasite is an organism dependent upon another host organism for nutrition and survival and while the human fetus does seem to meet that standard, so do ALL mammals... obviously, all mammals are not parasites. With a parasite, this is an exclusive arrangement that doesn't change. A tapeworm only exists as a parasite... it can never be anything else.... unlike a fetus, it will not eventually live independently of it's host.

I meant with my previous post. I was conceding that you were right. A fetus is an organism - a parasite.

 

[chikenwing]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you been drinking?

 

[Czernobog]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you been drinking?

Why? Does the idea that a fetus has a right to own a gun seem absurd to you?

 

[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.

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.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

 

[Boss]

For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Have you been drinking?

Has he stopped?

 

[chikenwing]

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh sorry.. no you weren't. You were trying to equate a human being with a clump of cancer cells. It's also not a parasite, although I can see how someone as retarded as you would make that mistake. A parasite is an organism dependent upon another host organism for nutrition and survival and while the human fetus does seem to meet that standard, so do ALL mammals... obviously, all mammals are not parasites. With a parasite, this is an exclusive arrangement that doesn't change. A tapeworm only exists as a parasite... it can never be anything else.... unlike a fetus, it will not eventually live independently of it's host.

I meant with my previous post. I was conceding that you were right. A fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Who teaches people to think like this poster,they must hate themselves.

 

[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.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

 

[Iceweasel]

For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

It's fine if the woman can get a concealed carry permit.

 

[Boss]

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh sorry.. no you weren't. You were trying to equate a human being with a clump of cancer cells. It's also not a parasite, although I can see how someone as retarded as you would make that mistake. A parasite is an organism dependent upon another host organism for nutrition and survival and while the human fetus does seem to meet that standard, so do ALL mammals... obviously, all mammals are not parasites. With a parasite, this is an exclusive arrangement that doesn't change. A tapeworm only exists as a parasite... it can never be anything else.... unlike a fetus, it will not eventually live independently of it's host.

I meant with my previous post. I was conceding that you were right. A fetus is an organism - a parasite.

No, it's not a parasite and I just explained why it's not.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

 

[Boss]

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Sorry but it's certainly not personal and private if it effects the life of another human being.

 

[chikenwing]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you been drinking?

Why? Does the idea that a fetus has a right to own a gun seem absurd to you?

The absurdity is you bringing gun ownership into the thread .

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby. You moralists continue to try to make the words fetus, and baby interchangeable. They aren't.
And to answer your question, no they shouldn't. When I was growing up, ya know what one of the possible punishments was for breaking the rules? "You're going to bed without supper," That is choosing not to feed me. And guess what? None of us growing up at the time felt so abused that we thought the government should come in and interfere with our parents parenting.

 

[Czernobog]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights.

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you been drinking?

Why? Does the idea that a fetus has a right to own a gun seem absurd to you?

The absurdity is you bringing gun ownership into the thread .

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?