A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Boss]

So you think a person's humanity is based on what he looks like?

Or... arbitrary criteria they conjure up in their heads like a bunch of Third Reich Nazis about who IS and ISN'T a human being.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you think a person's humanity is based on what he looks like?

Wait, you're a progressive death cultist. Of course you do.

No, I don't. Why did you dodge the question? What are you hiding?

Why the bullshit accusation?

 

[koshergrl]

So you think a person's humanity is based on what he looks like?

Wait, you're a progressive death cultist. Of course you do.

No, I don't. Why did you dodge the question? What are you hiding?

Why the bullshit accusation?

You provided a picture of animal and human fetuses, and asked us to identify the human....the implication is that human fetuses are not recognizably human, and therefore undeserving of protection.

So you obviously think humanity is based upon appearance. If a person looks different than what you expect, then it's okay to kill them. Right?

 

[Chuz Life]

Regarding abortion, here is a simple concept that rational people should be able to agree with.

Abortion should be illegal at any point the developing child can feel pain.

This line of thinking really puzzles me.

May I ask why you think the child's ability to feel pain is in any way connected to their rights or their personhood as a human being?

Though it is rare... there ARE children born with no ability to feel any pain at all.

You wouldn't say that they are any less deserving of their rights and protections. . . Would you?

 

[Mertex]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

Except that nobody is trying to do away with gun rights. Regulation is what the Constitution demanded and somehow conservatives love to ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own an AR15.....especially one who is on a no-fly list because of suspicion, but regressive gun idolizers think that every suggestion toward gun safety is meant to take their precious guns away, so they would rather continue to see the carnage than to be reasonable.

"A well regulated Militia,

It's quite obvious that you are idiot when it comes go gun control so I won't even bother except to say that claiming no one wants to do away gun rights is all anyone needs to see you write to know that you are dishonest. OF COURSE there are people who want to do away with gun rights. You're one of them.

You're an idiot just like the rest of the paranoid gun nuts. No one is trying to take your guns, idiot, but considering you're such an idiot, maybe they should.

In fact, in your quoted statement, not only did you advocate doing away with portions of the 2nd Amendment, you also advocated doing away with portions of the 4th Amendment. Jesus Christ cat lady, get a grip.

It's obvious you don't even understand the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere in there does it say that idiots should be able to buy military type weapons.....it's no wonder we have so many crimes being committed, there are so many idiots like you protecting other idiots like you.

 

[Mertex]

Yeah...it's that"…agreed upon time…" that everyone seems to be getting hung up on…

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And that's because you want to deny biology and apply your philosophy. A fetus is already a human, it was a human when it was a zygote.

If I start a fire in your living room and I tell you that it's a waterfall until it completely consumes your room, then when the fire department arrives, it becomes a fire... is that a true assessment? Of course not... it was a fire all along. It didn't suddenly become what it already was.

If I give you a "glass of water" and you take a sip to discover it's vodka... and you say... this is not water, it's vodka... and I say... ridiculous, it can't be vodka because you're not drunk yet! When you get drunk, it will be vodka... until then, it's water... so shut up and drink! Is it vodka because that's what it is, or is it water because that's what I say it is?

You see, you can't change biology... it's science, it doesn't change to suit your needs. I know that is inconvenient for you, but that's how science works. A fetus is as human as you are or it couldn't be a fetus.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

No idiot. You're the one that wants to force the woman to have the child (even if she can't afford to raise it), but then bow out when it comes to feeding it and raising it. You're on the wrong side of the argument and haven't fully recognized it yet.....keep trying.

So, if a mother (and/or father) of a 3 month old just "can't afford it," it's okay for her to kill the young human unless you hand over your wallet on demand? Is that the world you live in?

Where did I ever say anything like that, idiot?

Typical liberal who is literally incapable of perceiving anything outside the liberal dogma. At least be honest enough to stop pretending you value life.

Why are you so stupid? Did someone hit you on the head? When you conservatives start caring for the unborn after they are born, then and only then can you consider yourself pro-life. Until then you are just a bag of wind pretending to care about life, when you are willing to risk a mother's life for a clump of cells. Go take a hike dripping poorp.

 

[hazlnut]

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?

All the red welfare state (bible belt) keep making babies the rest of us have to pay for.

 

[Geaux4it]

So, we can suck a baby from the womb and no worries. Its all good

But when a pregnant mother is murdered we lose our minds. The judge even gives more harsh sentences in this case

Where's the disconnect?

-Geaux

 

[Mertex]

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

If prenatal children are not constitutionally persons, then those opposed to our fetal homicide laws should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those who are presently convicted.

A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

Yes.

It does.

Prove it.

The last time we were so arrogant as to determine whether or not a living, breathing, human being was a "person".... we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Are you saying you want us to act like that again?

Fetuses are not breathing human beings. A pregnant woman is....and she deserves more respect than you conservatives are willing to give. I want you to act like a "thinking" person and quit comparing oranges to apples.

 

[Mertex]

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?

All the red welfare state (bible belt) keep making babies the rest of us have to pay for.

You're not addressing the question asked.....what punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child? We already know that it is the "red" states that want to do away with "choice".

 

[Mertex]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route....he was pro-choice once, and only changed to placate the gullible that will vote for him.

No one has the right to violate the rights of a child.

A fetus is not a child. Therein lies the problem.....you don't know the difference between a child and a fetus.

Your denials have already been defeated by common dictionary definitions and even more so by our fetal homicide laws. So, how about shutting your pie hole until you have a clue about what reality is.

All you have is semantics, idiot.....the law is the law, and idiots like you have been trying to change it for over 40 years and have not been successful.....so maybe it is time for you and your ilk to shut your pie holes. Americans do not want to go back to prehistoric times.

Well but, we're NOT going to shut our pie holes.

It is obvious you are not, but more and more there are more sensible people that will keep ignoring your ignorant demands.

We are going to continue to push for legal protections of the constitutional rights for the unborn.

You're not aware of the legal mess that you are suggesting by trying to create constitutional rights for a fertilized egg. Like in most cases, conservatives don't think before they leap....and end up creating a mess that progressives have to clean up.

We already given them property rights.. if you die, you can leave your estate to your unborn child. We protect their right to life in cases of violence... Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two counts of manslaughter. So the unborn is definitely a "person" in these cases. It's simply a matter of time before they have FULL protection.

That doesn't mean the fertilized egg is a person. I could donate my estate to a future child that I'm not even pregnant with.....that doesn't mean there ever will be one. And the fact that punishment for killing a potential life doesn't mean that the fertilized egg was a person.

What we have to do is educate you knuckledraggers about ethics and biology. When we finally drag you into the 21st century, maybe you won't be so determined to kill innocent human beings like a bunch of goddamn barbarians anymore? Perhaps we use your own stupidity against you and go with this "personhood" bullshit... just deem that your neanderthal asses aren't "persons" anymore and then we can exterminate you like the cockroaches you've become?

You got it all wrong, bubba. You want to take us back into the 18th Century. When you start caring for the unborn after they are born, then you can demand that the unborn be considered a person. You are not pro-life, you are just pro-birth, because most of you don't give a rat's ass about that fetus after it is born and that child doesn't have health care or food.

 

[Divine Wind]

So, we can suck a baby from the womb and no worries. Its all good

But when a pregnant mother is murdered we lose our minds. The judge even gives more harsh sentences in this case

Where's the disconnect?

-Geaux

Murdered mother, for starters.

I'm fine with the 24 week limit, so if a black Muslim terrorist murders a 23-week pregnant mother, I'm fine with only charging him with one murder.

 

[Divine Wind]

....It's obvious you don't even understand the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere in there does it say that idiots should be able to buy military type weapons.....it's no wonder we have so many crimes being committed, there are so many idiots like you protecting other idiots like you.

This is backasswards thinking and one reason why some Founders were concerned about even writing a Bill of Rights: that some Federalist assholes would see those rights as a limitation on "We, the People" and not a limit on the Federal government.

 

[Mertex]

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

In 28 States, the GAO found over 1000 plans sold through the Obamacare exchanges included abortion coverage. If you know how insurance works and since Obamacare is a mandate, that means those participating in those plans are being forced to pay for abortions in order to have something the federal government says they have to buy. If the premiums for any of those plans are funded by taxpayer funded subsidies, those required to pay the taxes are forced to fund abortions. You want to make it out as something it isn't. Glad you were informed and can no longer claim ignorance.

Post a link......your credibility here is zero....so you can say the sky is purple all day long, but unless you can provide something to back you up, you're just regurgitating pap from the conservative mill.

The only time that it is allowed is when the woman's life is at risk, or in case of rape or incest. Now, please tell me you don't want a woman who is at risk to be able to choose an abortion, because if you do, then don't call yourself "pro-life" because by definition you are condemning the woman to death.


Since 1977, federal law has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or if it is determined to endanger the woman’s life.
Coverage for Abortion Services in Medicaid, Marketplace Plans and Private Plans

www.dailycaller.com/2014/09/15/gao-obamacare-exchanges-funnel-taxpayer-dollars-to-plans-that-cover-abortion/

That's rhetoric created by the right-wing.



The claim that “hard-earned taxpayer dollars” are paying for abortions “on demand” implies that taxpayers foot the abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality, some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.

Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit the billing and funding separation requirement for elective abortion services. Billing doesn’t matter, they say, because federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can’t be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO report do not support this argument.

Does Obamacare provide federal subsidies for elective abortions?

Acknowledge the facts. I don't give a shit what her reason is. It's still a choice. If you want a rape, incest, or life endanger female to have an abortion, provide it yourself. If taxpayer dollars go to it, it's one cent too much.

You don't have facts, you have rhetoric. And it's not about "you".....it's the law of the land. If you don't like it, then change it, but there aren't enough backward thinking people like you to make the change, so deal with it.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

All the red welfare state (bible belt) keep making babies the rest of us have to pay for.

Actually, the blue district in my red state is the one producing them. It's 60% black and they produce bastard children at a 70% rate.

 

[Conservative65]

I am going to start a pro-life campaign to end all abortion, and push legislation to end gay-marriage and ton of other right-wing causes.

I don't have much money, so before doing any of that, I'm going to push laws to force *YOU* to fund my campaign.

um... do you have any problem with that? No, you good? No issues with my plan? Force you to pay for things you disagree with? Jefferson anyone?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" -Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

So.... we disagree with murdering a child. We will always disagree with murdering a child. But I don't flip out about it, because this is a pagan dominated country, and the pagans love murder and blood of the innocent. I get it.

However..... trying to force me to pay for your child murdering policies? Can I force you to pay for my policies that you abhor?

See the problem? You want to murder children, fine. It's your laws, and in your mind murdering innocent children is legal. Ok. But you pay for it yourself. Not with my money. And I will vote for any man who refuses to allow my money to be used to murder for you. Period.

Someone is forcing you to pay for abortions? No? Then you're okay with us pagans getting abortions, so long as we don't ask you to pay for them, right? Glad we're on the same page.

In 28 States, the GAO found over 1000 plans sold through the Obamacare exchanges included abortion coverage. If you know how insurance works and since Obamacare is a mandate, that means those participating in those plans are being forced to pay for abortions in order to have something the federal government says they have to buy. If the premiums for any of those plans are funded by taxpayer funded subsidies, those required to pay the taxes are forced to fund abortions. You want to make it out as something it isn't. Glad you were informed and can no longer claim ignorance.

Post a link......your credibility here is zero....so you can say the sky is purple all day long, but unless you can provide something to back you up, you're just regurgitating pap from the conservative mill.

The only time that it is allowed is when the woman's life is at risk, or in case of rape or incest. Now, please tell me you don't want a woman who is at risk to be able to choose an abortion, because if you do, then don't call yourself "pro-life" because by definition you are condemning the woman to death.


Since 1977, federal law has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or if it is determined to endanger the woman’s life.
Coverage for Abortion Services in Medicaid, Marketplace Plans and Private Plans

www.dailycaller.com/2014/09/15/gao-obamacare-exchanges-funnel-taxpayer-dollars-to-plans-that-cover-abortion/

That's rhetoric created by the right-wing.



The claim that “hard-earned taxpayer dollars” are paying for abortions “on demand” implies that taxpayers foot the abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality, some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.

Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit the billing and funding separation requirement for elective abortion services. Billing doesn’t matter, they say, because federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can’t be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO report do not support this argument.

Does Obamacare provide federal subsidies for elective abortions?

Acknowledge the facts. I don't give a shit what her reason is. It's still a choice. If you want a rape, incest, or life endanger female to have an abortion, provide it yourself. If taxpayer dollars go to it, it's one cent too much.

You don't have facts, you have rhetoric. And it's not about "you".....it's the law of the land. If you don't like it, then change it, but there aren't enough backward thinking people like you to make the change, so deal with it.

You asked for facts and when you get them, you ignore them because you don't like what they prove.

There sure are a lot of damn freeloaders that you hold in high regard.

 

[Divine Wind]

You provided a picture of animal and human fetuses, and asked us to identify the human....the implication is that human fetuses are not recognizably human, and therefore undeserving of protection.

So you obviously think humanity is based upon appearance. If a person looks different than what you expect, then it's okay to kill them. Right?

On the contrary, I believe human beings are grown.

If I cut down someone's apple tree for firewood, then offered them seeds as replacement, I'm certain they wouldn't be happy since an apple seed isn't the same as an apple tree.

Likewise, a zygote is not a human being. Saying "Life begins at conception" is bullshit since both the sperm and egg were already alive. Same goes for cheek cells washed down the drain every time someone brushes their teeth. Same goes for every one of those fetuses pictured previously.

At some point in growth, a fetus becomes a human being. By law, based on science, that is 24 weeks.

 

[Boss]

No one has the right to violate the rights of a child.

A fetus is not a child. Therein lies the problem.....you don't know the difference between a child and a fetus.

Your denials have already been defeated by common dictionary definitions and even more so by our fetal homicide laws. So, how about shutting your pie hole until you have a clue about what reality is.

All you have is semantics, idiot.....the law is the law, and idiots like you have been trying to change it for over 40 years and have not been successful.....so maybe it is time for you and your ilk to shut your pie holes. Americans do not want to go back to prehistoric times.

Well but, we're NOT going to shut our pie holes.

It is obvious you are not, but more and more there are more sensible people that will keep ignoring your ignorant demands.

We are going to continue to push for legal protections of the constitutional rights for the unborn.

You're not aware of the legal mess that you are suggesting by trying to create constitutional rights for a fertilized egg. Like in most cases, conservatives don't think before they leap....and end up creating a mess that progressives have to clean up.

We already given them property rights.. if you die, you can leave your estate to your unborn child. We protect their right to life in cases of violence... Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two counts of manslaughter. So the unborn is definitely a "person" in these cases. It's simply a matter of time before they have FULL protection.

That doesn't mean the fertilized egg is a person. I could donate my estate to a future child that I'm not even pregnant with.....that doesn't mean there ever will be one. And the fact that punishment for killing a potential life doesn't mean that the fertilized egg was a person.

What we have to do is educate you knuckledraggers about ethics and biology. When we finally drag you into the 21st century, maybe you won't be so determined to kill innocent human beings like a bunch of goddamn barbarians anymore? Perhaps we use your own stupidity against you and go with this "personhood" bullshit... just deem that your neanderthal asses aren't "persons" anymore and then we can exterminate you like the cockroaches you've become?

You got it all wrong, bubba. You want to take us back into the 18th Century. When you start caring for the unborn after they are born, then you can demand that the unborn be considered a person. You are not pro-life, you are just pro-birth, because most of you don't give a rat's ass about that fetus after it is born and that child doesn't have health care or food.

Shut the fuck up you ignorant ass clown hick.

A zygote has already qualified itself as a living organism... if it is the product of a human sperm and egg gamete, it is a human organism. Nothing needs to be added to make it a being... it is a being by virtue of it's existing in a state of being.

You are such a despicable piece of shit to be sitting here lecturing me about compassion for children born to the poor while defending your infanticide policies. Fuck you!

 

[Boss]

I could donate my estate to a future child that I'm not even pregnant with.

No... actually, you can't do that.

 

[Boss]

And the fact that punishment for killing a potential life doesn't mean that...

Hold on... you CANNOT KILL a "potential" life... that is impossible.