Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Uncensored2008]

We're not for UBI. Technology will make working 20 hours a week, five days weekly possible. You can keep your current home, all of your personal property. You won't work for a wage, because the capitalist system where you have a boss and they hire you for a wage..That's the old capitalist system. The new system, is you join a production team. That production team is led by people elected by the workers and you and I will still work, at least 20 hours weekly. Everyone that can work, will work supervising the system. Maybe you'll work four hours daily at the mine, supervising the mining robots. Maybe you will work as a drone operator, piloting high-speed drones that monitor convoys of self-driving 18-wheelers? Maybe you'll work as a physician or nurse, as part of a children's surgical team, that supervises surgical robots. at children's hospitals? Maybe you'll work in a factory supervising the robots that build robots? Maybe you'll work as a police officer, leading a team of patrol robots? Maybe after work, you'll go to the motorcycle shop as I will do, to work on our motorcycles. Maybe you like riding a motorcycle as I do, and we'll ride as part of a club.

Maybe you'll see other people riding their motorcycles and you'll be like "I want to ride a motorcycle"...and you'll go to the distribution center and get your motorcycle. You have a right to get a motorcycle for yourself, and your husband will also have that right. Both of you can now ride motorcycles. Heck your whole family can ride motorcycles. That's the new world we will live in thanks to technology. You and I will have a very high standard of living thanks to technology. We will socialize, democratize production. Capitalism with that little dictator over you, treating you like you're some cog in a machine, all of that is in the past. Socialism is the inevitable consequence of high tech production. No more wage labor, but so what? We don't need wages when we have everything, thanks to technology. We put in a little work, 20 hours weekly and that's it, we live the equivalent of an upper-middclass lifestyle. Are you getting the idea? That's 21st century socialism.

Socialism leads to something even better and more advanced. In the future, maybe in 100 or 200 years, we will have APMMs. Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines. Scientists are working on this right now. It's advanced nanotechnology. With APMMs, you will be able to produce everything in the comfort of your home. You'll pour a glass of water into a machine and that water will be transformed into a leather jacket or a spare part for your motorcycle. APMMs:

Communism is defined by Marx as a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Socialism is the process that leads to high-communism/high-tech communism. It's when the consumer has complete control over the means of production (APMMs). Socialism will produce APMMs. We will research and develop it. Freeing everyone, giving everyone power to produce whatever they want, practically. If you want to produce a nuclear bomb, we may have a problem. But practically everything else.








21st century socialism / communism...

View attachment 668956

View attachment 668957


View attachment 668958



View attachment 668959






​

And will there be unicorns and ice cream trees ....

 

[Uncensored2008]

technology makes none of that possible or plausible. It is nothing more than the same old tired worn out and disproven marxist claims with a technotwist.


Socializing and democratizing production means desatroying production. The world wide failure of communism every where it is attempted proves this and technology is not a magic solution to universal failure of an evil idea.

People do not work for wages becasuse they need to they do so because they WISH to and your utopian delusion will not change that. People demand pay for their labor whether twenty hours a week or or 100 hours a week,

People simply will not work at this vision of yours and they reject it. Once again you ignore how the working classes of the free world reject communism every time.

Techonology always increases the demand for labor whether forced or paid and that is not changing

So, No Unicorns then?

 

[marvin martian]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Get your fascist hands off my civil rights, Nazi.

 

[marvin martian]

BackAgain writes:​

No. I’m assuming that at conception, a human’s spermatozoon and a human’s ovum become life.

Response:

Sperm and ovums are already life and yes they can generate human life. Human life is not the same as a human being or person.

BackAgain writes:​

And the resulting life will never be anything other than human.

Response:

The resulting life, a zygote or embryo is human. Yes? The sperm that fertilized the egg was human. The body of cells that the embryo is attached to is a human body. However, the woman whose body is being used by the embryo, is a actual human being and person. A member of the community of actual human beings with rights. In our community of human beings, who have rights, a woman has the right to end her pregnancy. A human embryo, that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to remain attached to an actual human being in order to actualize itself into an actual human being. That human embryo that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to force an actual human being to actualize itself into an actual human being. That potential doesn't have a right over the actual. Sorry.

If I extract a human cell from my finger, that human life could potentially, become a clone of me. Another human being. However, I'm not morally obligated to actualize that potential. Get it? The embryo in the woman's womb, doesn't have a right to demand or force a woman to actualize it. To brave through nine months of pregnancy, and 12 months of sleepless nights, and all that comes with raising people. Throwing that unwanted child in the foster care system is not a solution. Most unwanted children put up for adoption aren't adopted. Many of them end up homeless or in prison. So you're not pro-life, your pro-death.

BackAgain writes:​

And I am saying that the Constitution protects the right to life.

Response:

The right to life for actual human beings, yes. Actual human beings have a right to life, not potential humans.

BackAgain writes:​

I am saying that we shouldn’t march to the tune played by liberals. They seek to shape the discussion by framing the issue improperly. “When does a preborn human become a ‘person?’” l think that’s a disingenuous way to frame the question. “Life” doesn’t require “personhood.”

Response:

No, life doesn't require personhood. The constitution assumes that it's people who have rights, not potential people or persons. The rights of the actual person, the woman, takes precedence over the potential human that is attached to her.

BackAgain writes:​

So it comes down to a matter of trivial and unprovable definitions. Is a zygote a “person?” How about an embryo? How about a fetus? Maybe we’ll go by “trimesters.” Maybe we’ll go by whether the child has been “born” and drawn its first breath. Or, maybe we can allow “it” to be partially “born” before we sever its spinal cord? Or maybe we can let it be fully born and breathing but pave it on a shelf make it comfortable and provide it with no food or liquid as long as it’s “comfortable.”

Some of those are “stage of development” issues. Well, ok. How do we come to determine what stage of development is the right one? Maybe we have to await the development of secondary sex characteristics? Maybe baby teeth need to come in? Maybe adult teeth need to come in? Until that artificially defined stage, we can snuff out the life?


A life (the right to life itself) shouldn’t be subjected to the whims of some other person, not even if it’s premised on “privacy” concerns.


Response:

The zygote, the embryo or fetus, that is in the process of actualizing itself into a human being/person, is not a human being or person yet. The actual human being or person is the one who has the right, to determine whether to remain in a position to actualize a potential human being. Why? Because she is the one that has to pay the price, as far as her health, finances..etc.

So if you want society to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children, that's your prerogative. Try convincing most people to accept that position and women across the United States will be forced to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children. I doubt you'll convince enough people that's the way to go, but hey, who knows? Maybe you'll get what you want until us Marxists take control of the state and liberate everyone from your religious tyranny and stupidity.

^^^Commies LOVE baby-killing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BackAgain writes:​

No. I’m assuming that at conception, a human’s spermatozoon and a human’s ovum become life.

Response:

Sperm and ovums are already life and yes they can generate human life. Human life is not the same as a human being or person.

BackAgain writes:​

And the resulting life will never be anything other than human.

Response:

The resulting life, a zygote or embryo is human. Yes? The sperm that fertilized the egg was human. The body of cells that the embryo is attached to is a human body. However, the woman whose body is being used by the embryo, is an actual human being and person. A member of the community of actual human beings with rights. In our community of human beings, who have rights, a woman has the right to end her pregnancy. A human embryo, that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to remain attached to an actual human being in order to actualize itself into an actual human being. That human embryo that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to force an actual human being to actualize itself into an actual human being. That potential doesn't have a right over the actual. Sorry.

If I extract a human cell from my finger, that human life could potentially, become a clone of me. Another human being. However, I'm not morally obligated to actualize that potential. Get it? The embryo in the woman's womb, doesn't have a right to demand or force a woman to actualize it. To brave through nine months of pregnancy, and 12 months of sleepless nights, and all that comes with raising people. Throwing that unwanted child in the foster care system is not a solution. Most unwanted children put up for adoption aren't adopted. Many of them end up homeless or in prison. So you're not pro-life, your pro-death.

BackAgain writes:​

And I am saying that the Constitution protects the right to life.

Response:

The right to life for actual human beings, yes. Actual human beings have a right to life, not potential humans.

BackAgain writes:​

I am saying that we shouldn’t march to the tune played by liberals. They seek to shape the discussion by framing the issue improperly. “When does a preborn human become a ‘person?’” l think that’s a disingenuous way to frame the question. “Life” doesn’t require “personhood.”

Response:

No, life doesn't require personhood. The constitution assumes that it's people who have rights, not potential people or persons. The rights of the actual person, the woman, takes precedence over the potential human that is attached to her.

BackAgain writes:​

So it comes down to a matter of trivial and unprovable definitions. Is a zygote a “person?” How about an embryo? How about a fetus? Maybe we’ll go by “trimesters.” Maybe we’ll go by whether the child has been “born” and drawn its first breath. Or, maybe we can allow “it” to be partially “born” before we sever its spinal cord? Or maybe we can let it be fully born and breathing but pave it on a shelf make it comfortable and provide it with no food or liquid as long as it’s “comfortable.”

Some of those are “stage of development” issues. Well, ok. How do we come to determine what stage of development is the right one? Maybe we have to await the development of secondary sex characteristics? Maybe baby teeth need to come in? Maybe adult teeth need to come in? Until that artificially defined stage, we can snuff out the life?


A life (the right to life itself) shouldn’t be subjected to the whims of some other person, not even if it’s premised on “privacy” concerns.


Response:

The zygote, the embryo or fetus, that is in the process of actualizing itself into a human being/person, is not a human being or person yet. The actual human being or person is the one who has the right, to determine whether to remain in a position to actualize a potential human being or not. Why? Because she is the one that has to pay the price, as far as her health, finances..etc.

So if you want society to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children, that's your prerogative. Try convincing most people to accept that position and women across the United States will be forced to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children. I doubt you'll convince enough people that's the way to go, but hey, who knows? Maybe you'll get what you want until us Marxists take control of the state and liberate everyone from your religious tyranny and stupidity.

Lucky you that you are here to argue for abortion and isn't 1 of the millions that get aborted yearly.

 

[Red Front]

^^^Commies LOVE baby-killing.

Ending the life of a zygote or embryo is not a baby or human being. You capitalists or capitalist fanboys, love to kill actual babies, that are outside of the womb. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan with all of those drone strikes, firing missiles into villages. All of that agent orange and massive bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Iraq. You're the warmongering devils.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BackAgain writes:​

No. I’m assuming that at conception, a human’s spermatozoon and a human’s ovum become life.

Response:

Sperm and ovums are already life and yes they can generate human life. Human life is not the same as a human being or person.

BackAgain writes:​

And the resulting life will never be anything other than human.

Response:

The resulting life, a zygote or embryo is human. Yes? The sperm that fertilized the egg was human. The body of cells that the embryo is attached to is a human body. However, the woman whose body is being used by the embryo, is an actual human being and person. A member of the community of actual human beings with rights. In our community of human beings, who have rights, a woman has the right to end her pregnancy. A human embryo, that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to remain attached to an actual human being in order to actualize itself into an actual human being. That human embryo that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to force an actual human being to actualize itself into an actual human being. That potential doesn't have a right over the actual. Sorry.

If I extract a human cell from my finger, that human life could potentially, become a clone of me. Another human being. However, I'm not morally obligated to actualize that potential. Get it? The embryo in the woman's womb, doesn't have a right to demand or force a woman to actualize it. To brave through nine months of pregnancy, and 12 months of sleepless nights, and all that comes with raising people. Throwing that unwanted child in the foster care system is not a solution. Most unwanted children put up for adoption aren't adopted. Many of them end up homeless or in prison. So you're not pro-life, your pro-death.

BackAgain writes:​

And I am saying that the Constitution protects the right to life.

Response:

The right to life for actual human beings, yes. Actual human beings have a right to life, not potential humans.

BackAgain writes:​

I am saying that we shouldn’t march to the tune played by liberals. They seek to shape the discussion by framing the issue improperly. “When does a preborn human become a ‘person?’” l think that’s a disingenuous way to frame the question. “Life” doesn’t require “personhood.”

Response:

No, life doesn't require personhood. The constitution assumes that it's people who have rights, not potential people or persons. The rights of the actual person, the woman, takes precedence over the potential human that is attached to her.

BackAgain writes:​

So it comes down to a matter of trivial and unprovable definitions. Is a zygote a “person?” How about an embryo? How about a fetus? Maybe we’ll go by “trimesters.” Maybe we’ll go by whether the child has been “born” and drawn its first breath. Or, maybe we can allow “it” to be partially “born” before we sever its spinal cord? Or maybe we can let it be fully born and breathing but pave it on a shelf make it comfortable and provide it with no food or liquid as long as it’s “comfortable.”

Some of those are “stage of development” issues. Well, ok. How do we come to determine what stage of development is the right one? Maybe we have to await the development of secondary sex characteristics? Maybe baby teeth need to come in? Maybe adult teeth need to come in? Until that artificially defined stage, we can snuff out the life?


A life (the right to life itself) shouldn’t be subjected to the whims of some other person, not even if it’s premised on “privacy” concerns.


Response:

The zygote, the embryo or fetus, that is in the process of actualizing itself into a human being/person, is not a human being or person yet. The actual human being or person is the one who has the right, to determine whether to remain in a position to actualize a potential human being or not. Why? Because she is the one that has to pay the price, as far as her health, finances..etc.

So if you want society to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children, that's your prerogative. Try convincing most people to accept that position and women across the United States will be forced to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children. I doubt you'll convince enough people that's the way to go, but hey, who knows? Maybe you'll get what you want until us Marxists take control of the state and liberate everyone from your religious tyranny and stupidity.

The "zygote" lie.

Tell me, has as zygote ever been aborted in human history? Is it even possible to abort a Zygote?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ending the life of a zygote or embryo is not a baby or human being. You capitalists or capitalist fanboys, love to kill actual babies, that are outside of the womb. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan with all of those drone strikes, firing missiles into villages. All of that agent orange and massive bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Iraq. You're the warmongering devils.

Every leftist should have been aborted

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ending the life of a zygote or embryo is not a baby or human being. You capitalists or capitalist fanboys, love to kill actual babies, that are outside of the womb. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan with all of those drone strikes, firing missiles into villages. All of that agent orange and massive bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Iraq. You're the warmongering devils.

Fuck you moron.

Stop lying and then get back to us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every leftist should have been aborted

A "zygote" is a fertilized egg. No one can about a single cell to a few hundred. It would take an electron microscope to even see it.

This is just one of the insidious lies the ghouls like to spew.

Any time you see this lie, you know you're dealing with someone who has zero integrity.

 

[Red Front]

Lucky you that you are here to argue for abortion and isn't 1 of the millions that get aborted yearly.

My mother was ready to be pregnant and gave birth to me, as an actual human being. I didn't exist before I was actualized as a human being, so your point is moot. If that zygote or embryo that existed before I existed as a person, had a soul, then I would've returned to heaven with the angels, to be thrown back into another womb. However, you should ask yourself, why would a god that is supposedly all-knowing, allow an unwanted pregnancy? If he already knows a pregnancy is going to be terminated by a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant, why would he allow a soul to enter into that womb? Perhaps we don't have souls, at least not until we are born and breathing, conscious. Perhaps living souls are created once a person takes their first breath? Anyways, soul or no soul, the woman is the actual human being and she is the one that should determine whether she's going to remain pregnant or not. It's not pro-life to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children.

 

[Red Front]

Fuck you moron.

Stop lying and then get back to us.

Boohoo, you don't like history. Baby killer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Boohoo, you don't like history. Baby killer.

History?

WTF

You are trying to peddle the "zygote lie" that is so popular among ghouls.

 

[Red Front]

A "zygote" is a fertilized egg. No one can about a single cell to a few hundred. It would take an electron microscope to even see it.

This is just one of the insidious lies the ghouls like to spew.

Any time you see this lie, you know you're dealing with someone who has zero integrity.

You so-called "pro-lifers" don't want to allow women to take the pill, because it eliminates the fertilized egg or zygote. So again, like always, it's you who lacks integrity.

 

[Red Front]

If I extract a human cell from my finger, that human life could potentially, become a clone of me. Another human being. However, I'm not morally obligated to actualize that potential. Get it? The embryo in the woman's womb, doesn't have a right to demand or force a woman to actualize it. To brave through nine months of pregnancy, and 12 months of sleepless nights, and all that comes with raising people. Throwing that unwanted child in the foster care system is not a solution. Most unwanted children put up for adoption aren't adopted. Many of them end up homeless or in prison. So you're not pro-life, you're pro-death.

BackAgain writes:

And I am saying that the Constitution protects the right to life.

Response:

The right to life for actual human beings, yes. Actual human beings have a right to life, not potential humans.


BackAgain writes:

I am saying that we shouldn’t march to the tune played by liberals. They seek to shape the discussion by framing the issue improperly. “When does a preborn human become a ‘person?’” l think that’s a disingenuous way to frame the question. “Life” doesn’t require “personhood.”


Response:

The constitution assumes that it's people who have rights, not potential people or persons. The rights of the actual person, the woman, takes precedence over the potential human that is attached to her.

BackAgain writes:

So it comes down to a matter of trivial and unprovable definitions. Is a zygote a “person?” How about an embryo? How about a fetus? Maybe we’ll go by “trimesters.” Maybe we’ll go by whether the child has been “born” and drawn its first breath. Or, maybe we can allow “it” to be partially “born” before we sever its spinal cord? Or maybe we can let it be fully born and breathing but pave it on a shelf make it comfortable and provide it with no food or liquid as long as it’s “comfortable.”

Some of those are “stage of development” issues. Well, ok. How do we come to determine what stage of development is the right one? Maybe we have to await the development of secondary sex characteristics? Maybe baby teeth need to come in? Maybe adult teeth need to come in? Until that artificially defined stage, we can snuff out the life?


A life (the right to life itself) shouldn’t be subjected to the whims of some other person, not even if it’s premised on “privacy” concerns.


Response:

The zygote, the embryo or fetus, that is in the process of actualizing itself into a human being/person, is not a human being or person yet. The actual human being or person is the one who has the right, to determine whether to remain in a position to actualize a potential human being or not. Why? Because she is the one that has to pay the price, as far as her health, finances..etc.

So if you want society to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children, that's your prerogative. Try convincing most people to accept that position and if you succeed, women across the United States will be forced to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children. I doubt you'll convince enough people that's the way to go, but hey, who knows? Maybe you'll get what you want until us Marxists take control of the state and liberate everyone from your religious tyranny and stupidity.

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain writes:​

No. I’m assuming that at conception, a human’s spermatozoon and a human’s ovum become life.

Response:

Sperm and ovums are already life and yes they can generate human life. Human life is not the same as a human being or person.

BackAgain writes:​

And the resulting life will never be anything other than human.

Response:

The resulting life, a zygote or embryo is human. Yes? The sperm that fertilized the egg was human. The body of cells that the embryo is attached to is a human body. However, the woman whose body is being used by the embryo, is an actual human being and person. A member of the community of actual human beings with rights. In our community of human beings, who have rights, a woman has the right to end her pregnancy. A human embryo, that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to remain attached to an actual human being in order to actualize itself into an actual human being. That human embryo that is a potential human being, doesn't have the right to force an actual human being to actualize itself into an actual human being. That potential doesn't have a right over the actual. Sorry.

If I extract a human cell from my finger, that human life could potentially, become a clone of me. Another human being. However, I'm not morally obligated to actualize that potential. Get it? The embryo in the woman's womb, doesn't have a right to demand or force a woman to actualize it. To brave through nine months of pregnancy, and 12 months of sleepless nights, and all that comes with raising people. Throwing that unwanted child in the foster care system is not a solution. Most unwanted children put up for adoption aren't adopted. Many of them end up homeless or in prison. So you're not pro-life, your pro-death.

BackAgain writes:​

And I am saying that the Constitution protects the right to life.

Response:

The right to life for actual human beings, yes. Actual human beings have a right to life, not potential humans.

BackAgain writes:​

I am saying that we shouldn’t march to the tune played by liberals. They seek to shape the discussion by framing the issue improperly. “When does a preborn human become a ‘person?’” l think that’s a disingenuous way to frame the question. “Life” doesn’t require “personhood.”

Response:

No, life doesn't require personhood. The constitution assumes that it's people who have rights, not potential people or persons. The rights of the actual person, the woman, takes precedence over the potential human that is attached to her.

BackAgain writes:​

So it comes down to a matter of trivial and unprovable definitions. Is a zygote a “person?” How about an embryo? How about a fetus? Maybe we’ll go by “trimesters.” Maybe we’ll go by whether the child has been “born” and drawn its first breath. Or, maybe we can allow “it” to be partially “born” before we sever its spinal cord? Or maybe we can let it be fully born and breathing but pave it on a shelf make it comfortable and provide it with no food or liquid as long as it’s “comfortable.”

Some of those are “stage of development” issues. Well, ok. How do we come to determine what stage of development is the right one? Maybe we have to await the development of secondary sex characteristics? Maybe baby teeth need to come in? Maybe adult teeth need to come in? Until that artificially defined stage, we can snuff out the life?


A life (the right to life itself) shouldn’t be subjected to the whims of some other person, not even if it’s premised on “privacy” concerns.


Response:

The zygote, the embryo or fetus, that is in the process of actualizing itself into a human being/person, is not a human being or person yet. The actual human being or person is the one who has the right, to determine whether to remain in a position to actualize a potential human being or not. Why? Because she is the one that has to pay the price, as far as her health, finances..etc.

So if you want society to force women to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children, that's your prerogative. Try convincing most people to accept that position and women across the United States will be forced to remain pregnant and give birth to unwanted children. I doubt you'll convince enough people that's the way to go, but hey, who knows? Maybe you'll get what you want until us Marxists take control of the state and liberate everyone from your religious tyranny and stupidity.

Tl/dr. I got as far as your thesis that a spermatozoon and an ovum are “already” life and stopped bothering with you. Get a life. Get an education.

 

[Red Front]

Tl/dr. I got as far as your thesis that a spermatozoon and an ovum are “already” life and stopped bothering with you. Get a life. Get an education.

Projection much? Life in and of itself, doesn't equate to a human being, much less does it have rights over people. It's actual people that have rights, not potential people.

 

[BackAgain]

Projection much? Life in and of itself, doesn't equate to a human being, much less does it have rights over people. It's people that have rights, not potential people.

Your ignorance is astounding. But it’s also funny. Please keep posting.

 

[Red Front]

Your ignorance is astounding. But it’s also funny. Please keep posting.

How am I ignorant? Go ahead.

 

[BackAgain]

How am I ignorant? Go ahead.

Probably in more ways than we could count.

Educate yourself.

But I’m a charitable kinda guy. Being a conservative, that’s actually redundant.

What is a living thing? Well, that’s an interesting question and often comes down to a matter of definition.

Sperm . . . is just a vehicle- it doesn't have the potential to sustain itself; its sole aim is to deliver the potential to the egg so that life can be created.

Fertilization begins human life. Just consider the chromosomes. An egg alone, in humans, will never reproduce. Neither will a spermatozoon, alone. But when you combine them, bam. Life.

No need to thank me.