A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Chuz Life]

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

So am I. Maybe, then, we can finally see those badly written, irrational laws struck down. I wish someone would have the balls to challenge those very laws.

They have already been challenged several times. Didn't you see the link I provided earlier? So far, the SCOTUS HAS REFUSE to take up any of the challenges for Consideration.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence. Your unwillingness to accept it is based on you not wanting to believe it's true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ruling yesterday reaffirmed the fact that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

 

[Czernobog]

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

So am I. Maybe, then, we can finally see those badly written, irrational laws struck down. I wish someone would have the balls to challenge those very laws.

They have already been challenged several times. Didn't you see the link I provided earlier? So far, the SCOTUS HAS REFUSE to take up any of the challenges for Consideration.

Refusing to take up the challenge is not the same as upholding the Constitutionality. Sorry.

 

[Czernobog]

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

 

[Conservative65]

I told you why the state looks bad. All the leeches in the blue district suck it dry. Look at the demographics of that district and you'll understand why they do.

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, you have told us that. We just don't believe you, because you're a liar.

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Your belief isn't required in order for it to be true and never will.

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

 

[Czernobog]

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Yes, this is how liberals work: if you expect liberals to take you seriously, you need to be able to support your claims with verifiable facts. The key to that phrase being verifiable. You see, if it can't be verified, then it's not a fact, it is a claim. Claims are not evidence of anything.

Thanks for playing, Liar.

 

[Slade3200]

You sound very confident in the validity of your statement but I can assure you for many it is quite the opposite. The "human organism" you refer to is a mass of cells that is developing within a woman, It is a part of her body. It is more of a parasite than a human until it reaches a state where it can survive on its own.

Well okay.. First of all, a parasite is a living organism independent of the host. It is NOT a part of the host organism. The "mass of cells" are carrying on the process of life... it IS a biologically independent organism. Cancer is a part of her body, her fingernails are part of her body.... those cells are reproducing as a part of her organism. They are unable to maintain homeostasis and carry on the process of life. The fetus is not reproducing through her organism it is merely using her organism to develop as that is how humans reproduce. The fetus has it's own DNA, it's own heartbeat, it's own fingerprints, it's own brainwaves and nervous system. In biology, nothing is ever defined by it's ability to survive on it's own. Survival is subjective, some things can't ever survive on their own... it doesn't mean they weren't what they were. Newborn babies die every day because they couldn't survive on their own... it does not make them non-human. At some point, EVERY human being will be unable to survive on it's own. According to biology, the zygote qualifies as a living organism the moment the fused egg cell reproduces more cells. That instant, it becomes a living organism. It exists in the state of being,,, therefore, we call it a being. It is human, so we call it a human being.

I find it amusing to hear men who think they have all the answers about this yet they can never really understand what its like to grow something inside of them. It would be like a girl trying to tell you what it feels like to get kicked in the balls... There is just no way for her to know what kind of feeling that entails. jk

This isn't about feelings. This is about biology and ethics. What if it was a law that men could kill people who hit them in their testicles? Would you stand by the men fighting for that "right" because females don't know what it feels like?

So when the term "pro-choice" is used, it is a very literal, accurate and deliberate phrase used in respect to the right for a woman to have control over what she does with her body. This is a very complicated issue and there is much to debate, however, don't belittle and mischaracterize the other sides point of view.... Even if you might not agree with it.

But it's not accurate and it's not even literal... it's a lie. The woman had a choice... she chose to have unprotected sexual relations and she became pregnant as a result of her choice. For the record, it was also the male's choice and he should bear just as much responsibility. Our choices have consequences. Pro-abortionists like to call themselves "pro-choice" but they are actually opposed to taking responsibility for choices and they seek to escape their responsibility by removing ALL choices from another. You could more literally describe them as ANTI-choice.

Any point of view that does not recognize the biological fact that a fetus is a living human being is wrong and worthy of belittling and ridicule. I have NO problem with an honest objective debate over when it may be appropriate to terminate a human life. We can't have that conversation until we're on the same page. Denying the fetus is a human being is biological illiteracy.

Well you did an excellent job of restating your previous point. I wasn't calling a fetus a literal parasite btw, nor was I denying that it was a living organism, it sounds like you missed my point all together. The most important part of my point and the pro-choice movement is the fact that the organism is a part of the females body. Really think about that for a second.

The process of pregnancy and birth is a life altering event that changes a women's body forever. If she keeps the child it changes her life forever and either way has lasting psychological effects. This is a great and wonderful thing that for many is the purpose and source of joy in their lives. But it is also a major decision and whether a woman is ready and prepared to carry a child a assume all the risks and effects involved is a decision that only she can make. Sex is part of our human nature, we do it both for pleasure and for pro-creation. The act of aborting is punishment enough, we don't need the government making further legal consequences.

Your pro-abortion label is insulting and grossly inaccurate. I don't use absolutes so I won't say all but many on the pro-choice side do not want to see more abortions, they want to see less. They support better education, contraception access, and parental support. It's not their goal to promote abortions and it is, for most women, the hardest CHOICE a women will ha e to make in her life. And it is a choice that men have no ability to understand.

I do agree it is a worthy discussion to decide where the line is drawn. That comes down to public opinion based on personal and moral grounds.

 

[Slade3200]

Nor does your claiming that it is true, absent a single shred of evidence, make it so, liar.

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

 

[Czernobog]

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

 

[Conservative65]

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

I've provided the numbers. Not my fault he ignores the truth because he doesn't want to believe it.

The numbers I provided prove my claim.

 

[Conservative65]

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

 

[Czernobog]

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

I've provided the numbers. Not my fault he ignores the truth because he doesn't want to believe it.

The numbers I provided prove my claim.

You provided some numbers, with absolutely no points of verification, that you just expect us to believe you did not pull out of your lying ass.

Tell us what state you live in , and we can verify those numbers you provided. Or don't, and we can just continue to perceive you to be the liar that you are.

 

[Czernobog]

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

 

[Faun]

My claim is based on the evidence.

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?


Yeah...whatever, liar.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Yes, this is how liberals work: if you expect liberals to take you seriously, you need to be able to support your claims with verifiable facts. The key to that phrase being verifiable. You see, if it can't be verified, then it's not a fact, it is a claim. Claims are not evidence of anything.


Thanks for playing, Liar.

He won't tell you because he wants to create the impression that the money is being used for welfare and other related programs; when in fact...


Federal Assistance to Recipients in South Carolina 6 (James E. Clyburn) Congressional District, FY 2011, summary

 

[Czernobog]

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?


Yeah...whatever, liar.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Yes, this is how liberals work: if you expect liberals to take you seriously, you need to be able to support your claims with verifiable facts. The key to that phrase being verifiable. You see, if it can't be verified, then it's not a fact, it is a claim. Claims are not evidence of anything.


Thanks for playing, Liar.

He won't tell you because he wants to create the impression that the money is being used for welfare and other related programs; when in fact...


Federal Assistance to Recipients in South Carolina 6 (James E. Clyburn) Congressional District, FY 2011, summary

Actually, he won't because the "numbers" he keeps are insisting "prove his claim" were created entirely out of cloth, and pulled from his ass, proving nothing but the fact that he is a liar, which is why he will not tell us what state he lives in. He knows that the minute he does this, we will be able to go and fact check his bullshit numbers, and expose them for the lies that they are.

 

[Conservative65]

So you claim. But, since you won't tell anyone what state you live in, that's all you have - unconfirmed, unreliable claims from a liar.

It's confirmed based on the data. That you choose not to accept it proves my claim that you simply don't want to believe it.

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?


Yeah...whatever, liar.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Yes, this is how liberals work: if you expect liberals to take you seriously, you need to be able to support your claims with verifiable facts. The key to that phrase being verifiable. You see, if it can't be verified, then it's not a fact, it is a claim. Claims are not evidence of anything.


Thanks for playing, Liar.

He won't tell you because he wants to create the impression that the money is being used for welfare and other related programs; when in fact...


Federal Assistance to Recipients in South Carolina 6 (James E. Clyburn) Congressional District, FY 2011, summary

www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/snap-participation-by-congressional-district/

Seems SC 6 is one of those that has SNAP participation above 20%. Notice none of the other red districts do.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean the data that you provided, and we're just supposed to accept is accurate, and comes directly from the census bureau, based on nothing but your word, since you won't even tell us what state you reside in, so we can verify your claims? You mean that data?

Yeah...whatever, liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's how Liberals work. You mean you don't apply the same concept when you disagree with what you're told? Typical double standard.

Sounds to me like he is asking for simple proof that he can fact check and youve responded multiple times dodging. Why don't you just prove your claims if you can? Why the dodge?

Because he knows he's a liar, and that fact checking will expose his lies for what they are.

Like I said, son, that you don't believe them doesn't make them false. It only makes you a fool for ignoring the numbers.

Like I said, son, you stomping your feet, and insisting the numbers are real, doesn't make them real.

I posted facts. You refuse to accept them. Sign of a child.

My posting doesn't make them real. That they are real is what makes them real.