A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[hadit]

..you're being ridiculous...

Of COURSE it's ridiculous! Because a fetus Is. Not. A. Person!!!! Thus, a fetus does not have any of those rights! And, it is absurd to claim that it is, or that it does. So. Now that we have established that calling a fetus a person is absurd, and ridiculous, can we please stop talking about the "rights" of a fetus?

It's only absurd because those rights MAKE. NO. DIFFERENCE. Now that we've established that, let's talk about the rights that really matter, like the rights to life and liberty. At least you're not trying to claim that a successful abortion does not result in a dead human.

Huh. Nice to know that you place so little value on human rights...

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

 

[Boss]

..you're being ridiculous...

Of COURSE it's ridiculous! Because a fetus Is. Not. A. Person!!!! Thus, a fetus does not have any of those rights! And, it is absurd to claim that it is, or that it does. So. Now that we have established that calling a fetus a person is absurd, and ridiculous, can we please stop talking about the "rights" of a fetus?

WHAT IS A "PERSON?" What in the fuck does that even mean? It is a purely ARBITRARY and ABSTRACT term that can be defined any number of philosophical ways depending on the author. It is simply NOT a clinical definition of anything.

Humans have human rights... it does not matter whether you want to consider them persons. Black slaves were not considered persons... they were still human beings deserving of human rights.

Once again, your argument FAILS miserably. You are getting your ass kicked. All you want to do is keep repeating the same failed arguments over and over again... as if somehow, they will eventually take. Well guess what? The arguments you're making are never going to be valid. You've not supported them with anything other than your repeated assertions.... that doesn't make an argument correct.

 

[Conservative65]

Post #591 -
These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

I addressed that. They are fulfilling their obligation. Just because the government decided they needed that money more than the government did, that does not negate their meeting their obligation as citizens.

Incidentally, I'm now kinda curious what your annual income is. Because, speaking as one of those families under 50 grand, I can tell you that 50 grand annually isn't a great deal of money. We make 30+ (how much, specifically, is irrelevant), and we are still living paycheck to paycheck...barely.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If, as you say, they have a responsibility to help fund the government of the nation and they aren't helping fund it, they aren't being doing what you say they should do. When the result of their funding is zero, they provide nothing to society, something you say each citizen, with the added part about with an income, should do.

I noticed you didn't address the fact that many of those not paying a dime get more back than they had taken out. Who do you think pays that?

I see, you're one of those not paying a dime to help fund the government of the nation, yet believes you actually are doing your part. Since what you put in is nothing, the amount of your contribution to society is nothing.

Whether or not 50 grand is enough is a matter of opinion. That's not the issue. 50 grand is over 2x the level of what is considered poverty and still no income taxes are paid.

Not my problem your financial situation isn't the best. However, since you make an income and YOU said those making an income have the responsibility of helping fund the government of the nation, when are you going to start doing what YOU said should be done?

I do...ya know what? How about you tell me what taxes have to do with abortion, and I'll be happy to continue following this rabbit trail. Otherwise, how about you get back on the topic.

You wanna discuss the tax code? Start a thread. This discussion is about abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This discussion is about choice if you read the OP. In fact, the title of the thread has the word "choice" in it.

If your income is 30+ but less than slightly less than 50 grand and you are in the 2 adults 2 children situation, you don't pay federal income taxes. I don't need to know the exact amount you make. In that 2/2 situation unless the gross family income is $48,100 or higher, that family does not pay income taxes and it's based solely on the 2/2 situation. Don't believe me, I can prove it with numbers using the 1040 form.

My original post on this thread posed the situation of a woman making a choice to have a child(ren) she couldn't afford to support instead of having an abortion, telling others and the government to butt out of whatever choice she made, then expecting that very government to force those of us she told to butt out to pay for something she told us was none of our business.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Really, 40 years ago?

People like you whine about those already doing all the paying not paying their fair share yet think paying nothing is a fair share for those you can pander to for votes by giving them someone else's money.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Shame you weren't lost or aborted. It would have done the world a favor.

 

[Conservative65]

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

A family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is over $48,000. That's more than 2x what is considered poverty level. They have something and still don't pay. So much for your argument.

 

[chikenwing]

Using your Free Dictionary that you like so much:

a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Now, "child", in that Free Dictionary, includes a definition of "infant: fetus". Interestingly enough, "fetus" does not include child:

fe·tus
(fē′təs)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

In fact, it specifically notes that after birth there is no longer a fetus. This is because, after birth there is a baby, infant, child. A fetus is not a child. a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is a potential human being, nothing more, nothing less.

Nope.. .A fetus IS a human being. Not a "potential" one... but a human being in the fetal development stage. It is a potential infant.. a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult. An infant is a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult... a toddler is a potential teenager... a potential adult.... a teenager is a potential adult. ALL OF THEM are human beings. They began being human beings at point of conception.

Not according to the definition of human being.

Yep... according to the definition of a human being:
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Science defines an unborn child as both human and alive. Anything beyond that is semantics, because what is a fetus but a human being at an early stage of development? This is why talking about abortion with some people is so frustrating. They insist on cloaking activities behind rhetoric designed to conceal the reality of what they are doing.

Science defines a fetus as genetically, biologically human. Calling it a human being is semantics, and rhetoric designed to equate a fetus with a baby.

What else is it? Goldfish?

 

[Jack4jill]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

 

[Jack4jill]

Nope.. .A fetus IS a human being. Not a "potential" one... but a human being in the fetal development stage. It is a potential infant.. a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult. An infant is a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult... a toddler is a potential teenager... a potential adult.... a teenager is a potential adult. ALL OF THEM are human beings. They began being human beings at point of conception.

Not according to the definition of human being.

Yep... according to the definition of a human being:
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Science defines an unborn child as both human and alive. Anything beyond that is semantics, because what is a fetus but a human being at an early stage of development? This is why talking about abortion with some people is so frustrating. They insist on cloaking activities behind rhetoric designed to conceal the reality of what they are doing.

Science defines a fetus as genetically, biologically human. Calling it a human being is semantics, and rhetoric designed to equate a fetus with a baby.

What else is it? Goldfish?

A "potential" person, if it makes it, with a working body and brain.

 

[Faun]

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.

Abortions did not just begin in 1973. And being a conservative means you're forced to muddle through life with a defective brain. So yes, you are indeed guilty of being conservative.

And women still have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose and you still can't tell them what they must do.

 

[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.

Shame you weren't lost or aborted. It would have done the world a favor.

God hates you. He put me here to tell you so.

He also says, stop calling yourself pro-life, since you aren't.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Abortions did not just begin in 1973. And being a conservative means you're forced to muddle through life with a defective brain. So yes, you are indeed guilty of being conservative.

And women still have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose and you still can't tell them what they must do.

When are those women choosing to have kids, one of the possible choices, that can't afford them going to quit asking for help funding a choice you say is none of our business?

If I'm not supposed to tell a woman what to do with her body when it comes to having a kid she can't support, why does she have a say about the money of others when it comes to supporting a choice SHE made?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Shame you weren't lost or aborted. It would have done the world a favor.

God hates you. He put me here to tell you so.

He also says, stop calling yourself pro-life, since you aren't.

Since God doesn't hate, you lie again.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

Shame you weren't lost or aborted. It would have done the world a favor.

God hates you. He put me here to tell you so.

He also says, stop calling yourself pro-life, since you aren't.

Since God doesn't hate, you lie again.

God is God, He can do whatever he likes, including hating you.

 

[Boss]

Abortions did not just begin in 1973. And being a conservative means you're forced to muddle through life with a defective brain. So yes, you are indeed guilty of being conservative.

And women still have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose and you still can't tell them what they must do.

Like I said before.... IF the argument here is whether or not abortions are legal and upheld by SCOTUS then, as of 1973, you WIN that argument... no question. I can't offer anything to defeat that argument. That's simply not the argument or conversation the rest of us are having here.

 

[Czernobog]

..you're being ridiculous...

Of COURSE it's ridiculous! Because a fetus Is. Not. A. Person!!!! Thus, a fetus does not have any of those rights! And, it is absurd to claim that it is, or that it does. So. Now that we have established that calling a fetus a person is absurd, and ridiculous, can we please stop talking about the "rights" of a fetus?

WHAT IS A "PERSON?" What in the fuck does that even mean? It is a purely ARBITRARY and ABSTRACT term that can be defined any number of philosophical ways depending on the author. It is simply NOT a clinical definition of anything.

Humans have human rights... it does not matter whether you want to consider them persons. Black slaves were not considered persons... they were still human beings deserving of human rights.

Once again, your argument FAILS miserably. You are getting your ass kicked. All you want to do is keep repeating the same failed arguments over and over again... as if somehow, they will eventually take. Well guess what? The arguments you're making are never going to be valid. You've not supported them with anything other than your repeated assertions.... that doesn't make an argument correct.

Well, the law, the courts, and your Conservative representatives all disagree with you. Hence the "Personhood" amendments they keep trying to pass. They aren't trying to pass amendments to have fetuses recognised as "humans", but as "persons". So, it would seem that the person who's opinion fails is yours.

 

[Czernobog]

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

I addressed that. They are fulfilling their obligation. Just because the government decided they needed that money more than the government did, that does not negate their meeting their obligation as citizens.

Incidentally, I'm now kinda curious what your annual income is. Because, speaking as one of those families under 50 grand, I can tell you that 50 grand annually isn't a great deal of money. We make 30+ (how much, specifically, is irrelevant), and we are still living paycheck to paycheck...barely.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If, as you say, they have a responsibility to help fund the government of the nation and they aren't helping fund it, they aren't being doing what you say they should do. When the result of their funding is zero, they provide nothing to society, something you say each citizen, with the added part about with an income, should do.

I noticed you didn't address the fact that many of those not paying a dime get more back than they had taken out. Who do you think pays that?

I see, you're one of those not paying a dime to help fund the government of the nation, yet believes you actually are doing your part. Since what you put in is nothing, the amount of your contribution to society is nothing.

Whether or not 50 grand is enough is a matter of opinion. That's not the issue. 50 grand is over 2x the level of what is considered poverty and still no income taxes are paid.

Not my problem your financial situation isn't the best. However, since you make an income and YOU said those making an income have the responsibility of helping fund the government of the nation, when are you going to start doing what YOU said should be done?

I do...ya know what? How about you tell me what taxes have to do with abortion, and I'll be happy to continue following this rabbit trail. Otherwise, how about you get back on the topic.

You wanna discuss the tax code? Start a thread. This discussion is about abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This discussion is about choice if you read the OP. In fact, the title of the thread has the word "choice" in it.

If your income is 30+ but less than slightly less than 50 grand and you are in the 2 adults 2 children situation, you don't pay federal income taxes. I don't need to know the exact amount you make. In that 2/2 situation unless the gross family income is $48,100 or higher, that family does not pay income taxes and it's based solely on the 2/2 situation. Don't believe me, I can prove it with numbers using the 1040 form.

My original post on this thread posed the situation of a woman making a choice to have a child(ren) she couldn't afford to support instead of having an abortion, telling others and the government to butt out of whatever choice she made, then expecting that very government to force those of us she told to butt out to pay for something she told us was none of our business.

Yes, and then wandered off into the weeds about the tax code. Feel free to come on back over to the discussion about abortion whenever you'd like.

 

[Boss]

And women still have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose and you still can't tell them what they must do.

I don't care what they do with their own body... I care about what they do with the human being living inside their body.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope.. .A fetus IS a human being. Not a "potential" one... but a human being in the fetal development stage. It is a potential infant.. a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult. An infant is a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult... a toddler is a potential teenager... a potential adult.... a teenager is a potential adult. ALL OF THEM are human beings. They began being human beings at point of conception.

Not according to the definition of human being.

Yep... according to the definition of a human being:
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Science defines an unborn child as both human and alive. Anything beyond that is semantics, because what is a fetus but a human being at an early stage of development? This is why talking about abortion with some people is so frustrating. They insist on cloaking activities behind rhetoric designed to conceal the reality of what they are doing.

Science defines a fetus as genetically, biologically human. Calling it a human being is semantics, and rhetoric designed to equate a fetus with a baby.

What else is it? Goldfish?

It's a human fetus, with the potential to become a human child. Really not too bright there, are you?

 

[Czernobog]

And women still have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose and you still can't tell them what they must do.

I don't care what they do with their own body... I care about what they do with the human being living inside their body.

You mean the human fetus. Simply being genetically human does not make it a human being. A Human being is, as the definition says, a man, woman, or child. Not a fetus.

And according to Mosby's Medical Dictionary, since science, and medical understanding is our standard, defines a child as: the human young, from infancy to puberty. Still no fetus.

Sorry. A fetus, while genetically human, does not fit the definition of human being, no matter how much you wish it did.