A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

 

[Chuz Life]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

 

[SmokeALib]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

The Supreme Court has no right to define a human being. Hell, they overturned "late term" abortions 10 years ago. So even these fuckstains suggest that the fetus in the womb is a human being, depending on the amount of time in the womb.
I find it amazing how these libs want to protect our children outside the womb, but fight to murder them inside the womb. Sick fucks.

 

[Chuz Life]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

The Supreme Court has no right to define a human being. Hell, they overturned "late term" abortions 10 years ago. So even these fuckstains suggest that the fetus in the womb is a human being, depending on the amount of time in the womb.
I find it amazing how these libs want to protect our children outside the womb, but fight to murder them inside the womb. Sick fucks.

Exactly

 

[Czernobog]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

The Supreme Court has no right to define a human being. Hell, they overturned "late term" abortions 10 years ago. So even these fuckstains suggest that the fetus in the womb is a human being, depending on the amount of time in the womb.
I find it amazing how these libs want to protect our children outside the womb, but fight to murder them inside the womb. Sick fucks.

It's that "depending on the amount of time" part that is the stickler.

You see, most pro-choice activists - such as myself - agree wholeheartedly that after viability - usually around 20 weeks - the fetus is a wholly independent entity with all the rights and protections that come with that determination.

It's the anti-choice retards, like ChuzRetard, who insist that isn't good enough, and insist that a clump of cells from the moment of conception, is an actual person, and want ALL abortions banned.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

I shouldn't look it up, anywhere. You made the retarded claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for that claim, retard.

If you don't know where to find that, then just admit you made that retarded shit up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

I shouldn't look it up, anywhere. You made the retarded claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for that claim, retard.

If you don't know where to find that, then just admit you made that retarded shit up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I would rather have those who care to look it up for themselves.

 

[Czernobog]

Anbd when I pointed out that those very laws are stupid, retarded, irrational, and self-contradictory, and will be overturned once we have a Supreme Court that does not have a conservative agenda, you insisted that they are based on a law that defines PERSONS as "human beings", and would, thus, never be overturned.

I am still waiting for you to produce that mythical law.

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

I shouldn't look it up, anywhere. You made the retarded claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for that claim, retard.

If you don't know where to find that, then just admit you made that retarded shit up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I would rather have those who care to look it up for themselves.

In other words, you lied, and just expected to get away with it.

Back to the corner with you, while you drool on yourself, and come up with a different lie to tell.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your fucking selective reading is even worse than hers is fucktard. Quote where I said it was based on a law.

I said that It's the fucking LEGAL DEFINITION that defines a natural person as "a human being."

Now where do you fucking suppose you should look for a "legal definition" shitstain?

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

I shouldn't look it up, anywhere. You made the retarded claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for that claim, retard.

If you don't know where to find that, then just admit you made that retarded shit up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I would rather have those who care to look it up for themselves.

In other words, you lied, and just expected to get away with it.

Back to the corner with you, while you drool on yourself, and come up with a different lie to tell.

LoL, we will see who is lying when someone posts the LEGAL definition for a "Natural person " for us.

 

[Czernobog]

And from whence do you think "legal definitions" come from, you retard?!?! You think we just pull them out of our asses?!?! No! They are based on laws, and case law!

So? Still waiting for the evidence that a "person" is legally defined as a "human being", without qualifier or caveat.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again, where do you suppose you should look that up stewpud?

I shouldn't look it up, anywhere. You made the retarded claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for that claim, retard.

If you don't know where to find that, then just admit you made that retarded shit up.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I would rather have those who care to look it up for themselves.

In other words, you lied, and just expected to get away with it.

Back to the corner with you, while you drool on yourself, and come up with a different lie to tell.

LoL, we will see who is lying when someone posts the LEGAL definition for a "Natural person " for us.

See, now you're moving the goal post. You didn't say natural person; you said person. Now we're back to the problem of there being no consensus, however much you want to claim otherwise, of a fetus being a human being. Yes, you can point to dictionaries, you can even cite medical professionals, and some online medical cites that will confirm that a fetus is, in fact, a human being. However, I can present just as many sources that will argue that it is not.

It's a worn cliché, but it's true - an acorn is not an oak tree, and the egg you had for breakfast this morning is not a chicken.

Therein lies the problem. Until there is consensus that a non-viable fetus is a human being, then to make a definitive statement about the nature of a fetus is hubris. The best that one can do is insist that, for them, a fetus is a human being. And it is that "for them" part that is important. Because that distinguishes between a personal opinion, and an established fact.

Those of us who are pro-choice will never support legislating personal opinion.

 

[Czernobog]

For those who insist that the "unique" genetic makup of the zygote is what makes a zygote a "human being", and a person, I have a question.

Is a clone a person? Now, I know, the immediate response is, "We don't have clones outside of science fiction". However, that is not because we can't, but, rather, because the law says we mustn't. The fact is that we are technologically quite capable of cloning human beings. So? Is that/would that clone be a person?

 

[g5000]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

 

[Czernobog]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

Well, since, prior to viability there is no "child" in the womb, your observation is inaccurate - at least in reference to most reasonable progressives.

 

[g5000]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

Well, since, prior to viability there is no "child" in the womb, your observation is inaccurate - at least in reference to most reasonable progressives.

It is a child, period.

I know you want to pretend it isn't, and just call it a lump of tissue. But you are legally allowed to murder what is undeniably a human being like this:

 

[Czernobog]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

Well, since, prior to viability there is no "child" in the womb, your observation is inaccurate - at least in reference to most reasonable progressives.

It is a child, period.

I know you want to pretend it isn't, and just call it a lump of tissue. But you are legally allowed to murder what is undeniably a human being like this:

No it's not, and posting photoshopped pictures to try to make your case doesn't make it so.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[g5000]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

Well, since, prior to viability there is no "child" in the womb, your observation is inaccurate - at least in reference to most reasonable progressives.

It is a child, period.

I know you want to pretend it isn't, and just call it a lump of tissue. But you are legally allowed to murder what is undeniably a human being like this:

No it's not, and posting photos hopped pictures to try to make your case doesn't make it so.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It isn't photoshopped. Your denial is so deep, you are deluding yourself.

You are sanctioning the murder of children, asshole.

 

[Czernobog]

Liberals are okay with killing a child in the womb, but if a dentist traveled to Africa to kill an elephant in the womb, the liberals would be screaming for his head. Big dramatic tears and pickets outside his office.

Well, since, prior to viability there is no "child" in the womb, your observation is inaccurate - at least in reference to most reasonable progressives.

It is a child, period.

I know you want to pretend it isn't, and just call it a lump of tissue. But you are legally allowed to murder what is undeniably a human being like this:

No it's not, and posting photos hopped pictures to try to make your case doesn't make it so.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It isn't photoshopped. Your denial is so deep, you are deluding yourself.

You are sanctioning the murder of children, asshole.

It is photoshopped, asshat, and you fail.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[g5000]

Is this a Photoshop?

Is this a Photoshop?