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.
Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…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.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
See? Even you call it an "it". When I talk about a person, I talk about "his, or her". When I talk about a thing, I talk about "its". Your own recognition of a fetus as a thing, not a person, betrays your position.I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?
And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…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.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
Agreed on the legal point.At some point in growth, a fetus becomes a human being. By law, based on science, that is 24 weeks.
No... By LAW... that is when the fetus becomes "viable" ...not when it becomes a human being.
By SCIENCE it becomes a human being the moment the fused egg cell produces another cell.
If there is "growth" then logic should tell you SOMETHING is alive and growing... if it's not a human organism, tell us what it is?
It does NOT "at some point in growth" begin to be what it already is and what it was from the moment it began growing.
I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.
hu·man be·ing
noun
- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?
And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?
I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?
And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?
Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:
1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?
Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.
I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?
And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?
Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:
1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?
Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.
It's a scam. It's the have-nots forcing the haves to support them, and pretending that it's about supporting some other population that needs it more. We will take care of women and babies.
You feed your own damn self.
Agreed on the legal point.
I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.
And they lie to teens telling them it's safe and they are not obligated to tell their parents. Yet when the kids are deathly ill... Guess who brings them to the ER??Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…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.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
If the girl didn't have insurance, guess who gets the bill. Those of us told to butt out of her choice to have an abortion. Pro abortion people have no problem giving the choice yet a total problem with holding the one making the choice personally responsible.
I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.
The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?
And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?
Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:
1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?
Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.
It's a scam. It's the have-nots forcing the haves to support them, and pretending that it's about supporting some other population that needs it more. We will take care of women and babies.
You feed your own damn self.
I'd say let the woman with the baby she can't afford to support feed herself, too.
Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.
the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.
This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.
Dude, you're playing with semantics. A zygote is not a "being", human or otherwise. it's a fertilized egg, of which about a third self-abort without any assistance.
Self-abort from WHAT???
Organisms have 2nd Amendment rights, don'tcha know.Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.
the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.
This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.
Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.
the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.
This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.
<crickets>Then it should be no problem for you to find a post of yours where you referred to a born person as "it".....See? Even you call it an "it". When I talk about a person, I talk about "his, or her". When I talk about a thing, I talk about "its". Your own recognition of a fetus as a thing, not a person, betrays your position.
Well a human IS a thing... is it not? A person is a thing as well. Fetuses can be male or female, so I don't refer to them collectively as he or she because they could be either. It's merely semantics and semantics are not biology. You're going to need more than this to prove a fetus is not a human being.
If I say the baby is crying it need's it's pacifier... does that make the baby non-human?
If I say the infant is cold it need's it's blanket.... is it no longer a human being?
If I say the child needs both it's parents... does the child cease being human?
You see... in English... "It's" can be applied to any thing... a human is a thing.
You spoiled nothing. In an unguarded moment of clarity, you let your true feelings slip out. Then you tried to cover your tracks by idiotically claiming people are things who can be referred to as "it."
I've already responded to this, idiot.... how about reading the fucking thread for a change instead of acting like a jackass?
The baby is cold... it need's it's blanket.
The infant is hungry... it needs to be fed.
The child needs both of it's parents.
All examples of me clearly talking about persons but using the 'nominative pronoun' commonly known as "IT."
the definition of it's
used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.
Now, shut your pie hole and go study your English lessons some more, assclown.
You spoiled nothing. In an unguarded moment of clarity, you let your true feelings slip out. Then you tried to cover your tracks by idiotically claiming people are things who can be referred to as "it."
So show a post where you've ever done that. Show a post where you referred to a living, breathing person as "it." I'm not looking for examples of how "it" can be applied.... I'm looking for evidence you've ever called a person, "it."
