Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You feel science proves you right, we don't.
Time has been on our side
Not gonna happen. Democrats aren't going to ban abortions because they believe in women's rights and Republicans aren't going to ban abortions because they know that keeps their base coming out to vote for them, hoping they will ban it.No, its not. You just want to believe that it is so that you can justify turning America into an Moralistic Authoritarian State. Whatever. Good luck with that. I feel confident that lovers of individual liberty will never allow you to do that.We've already discussed morality... every law that has ever been made is based on some moral determination. You do not have the autonomous right to declare your immorality for the rest of society... that is authoritarianism.
You can call it whatever you want to, I will continue to stand up for the right to life for the unborn. After nearly 1,200 posts, the only area of the argument you can win is that it's still currently legal to kill the unborn. That's why you continue to run back to that point over and over.
I am for individual liberty too but individual liberty doesn't mean you have the right to kill innocent people. They should also have the individual liberty to live, just like you have.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.They'd have 50% in common, a bit more if it's a boy.I too am against the killing of a pre-born child. If you placed a fertilized egg inside a woman and she carried it full term. The genetics of the baby and the mother would not have anything in common. In other words the mother is no more than the carrier of the baby which makes the child a separate being. The baby is no more part of the mother than the father. Sterilize the mother for abortion to keep her from killing anymore pre-born babies.
You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the motheeIf a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.They'd have 50% in common, a bit more if it's a boy.I too am against the killing of a pre-born child. If you placed a fertilized egg inside a woman and she carried it full term. The genetics of the baby and the mother would not have anything in common. In other words the mother is no more than the carrier of the baby which makes the child a separate being. The baby is no more part of the mother than the father. Sterilize the mother for abortion to keep her from killing anymore pre-born babies.
If it's an elective late term abortion they should both be tried for 1st degree murder.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?
Preferably with the electric chair.But if it is murder as you righties believe it is, shouldn't the doctor and the woman both be convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death?Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.
Philosophy is superior to science because it's based on universal logical conclusions, like mathematics.You feel science proves you right, we don't.
That's because you want to deny science and pretend philosophy is science instead.
Philosophy is superior to science because it's based on universal logical conclusions, like mathematics.You feel science proves you right, we don't.
That's because you want to deny science and pretend philosophy is science instead.
"Science" is just an institution invented by fallible mortals which has been used to justify genocide and racism.
Preferably with the electric chair.But if it is murder as you righties believe it is, shouldn't the doctor and the woman both be convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death?Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword".
You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Read the post again, dipshit.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
Okay. I stand corrected. You're talking about artificial insemination.You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Read the post again, dipshit.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
Okay. I stand corrected. You're talking about artificial insemination.You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Read the post again, dipshit.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
Two problems. First, is abortion a big concern with artificial insemination? I mean, I rather thought that surogates were, like, willing 100% of the time. Second, the embryo would still be relying 100% on the host for all biological functions for, at least the first 11 weeks. Kinda hard to make the case for individuality, when the organism is completely dependent on the host for function.
Sorry. When a dumbass starts with this, I just stop reading. Moving on...Okay. I stand corrected. You're talking about artificial insemination.You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Read the post again, dipshit.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
Two problems. First, is abortion a big concern with artificial insemination? I mean, I rather thought that surogates were, like, willing 100% of the time. Second, the embryo would still be relying 100% on the host for all biological functions for, at least the first 11 weeks. Kinda hard to make the case for individuality, when the organism is completely dependent on the host for function.
You are such a fucking dumbass....
Sorry. When a dumbass starts with this, I just stop reading. Moving on...
Sorry. When a dumbass starts with this, I just stop reading. Moving on...Okay. I stand corrected. You're talking about artificial insemination.You're comment is absurd, and self-contradictory. You say there would be nothing in common and then admit that at least 50% of the genetic material would be a match with the mothee
So which is it? Would it have no commonality, or would it be at least a 50% match?
By the way, just to you know, science already has a answer to that question...
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Read the post again, dipshit.
If a fertilized egg was placed in a woman there would be nothing in common. There would only be 50% if she were actually the mother of the egg.
Two problems. First, is abortion a big concern with artificial insemination? I mean, I rather thought that surogates were, like, willing 100% of the time. Second, the embryo would still be relying 100% on the host for all biological functions for, at least the first 11 weeks. Kinda hard to make the case for individuality, when the organism is completely dependent on the host for function.
You are such a fucking dumbass....
Well, that's true. Of course the same could be said of everyone posting here. So, you know...there's that...Sorry. When a dumbass starts with this, I just stop reading. Moving on...
There's really no reason for you to read anything here that opposes your viewpoint because you've decided you're never going to change your mind. It doesn't matter what anybody says, so why bother reading it?
Well, that's true. Of course the same could be said of everyone posting here. So, you know...there's that...Sorry. When a dumbass starts with this, I just stop reading. Moving on...
There's really no reason for you to read anything here that opposes your viewpoint because you've decided you're never going to change your mind. It doesn't matter what anybody says, so why bother reading it?
