Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[Czernobog]

Wrong. It is a medical determination. Lawyers don't decide viability, doctors do. You just want to ignore the issue of viability, because you know that it destroys your juvenile, simplistic view of abortion.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

 

[ding]

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

 

[Czernobog]

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

 

[thanatos144]

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What a crock of shit. A fetus is not an infant, and equating abortion to infanticide is pure rhetoric designed to create an emotional response. If you can't make your argument without resorting to emotional appeals, then your argument lacks reason, and is not worth responding to.

mass killings of babies is infanticide..... 59,115,995 from 1973 till 2014. thats a whole lot of mass killings. Thats a damn site more then the Jews killed in the Holocaust...Only to be beaten out by your heroes Stalin and Mao

 

[thanatos144]

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

 

[Czernobog]

.
and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What a crock of shit. A fetus is not an infant, and equating abortion to infanticide is pure rhetoric designed to create an emotional response. If you can't make your argument without resorting to emotional appeals, then your argument lacks reason, and is not worth responding to.

mass killings of babies is infanticide..... 59,115,995 from 1973 till 2014. thats a whole lot of mass killings. Thats a damn site more then the Jews killed in the Holocaust...Only to be beaten out by your heroes Stalin and Mao

Fetuses aren't babies. So there were zero instances of killing babies from 1973 to 2014. Trying to equate the two is just emotional rhetoric. Now, if you can't tell the difference between a fetus, and a baby, then by all means, I advise that you never have an abortion. But, please quit using disingenuous, intentionally inaccurate language to try and guilt the rest of us into agreeing with your religiously based morality.

Incidentally, would I be correct in presuming that you are Christian?

 

[ding]

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

I didn't, christian ... nor did the recipient have a choice in the matter - just how you expect her to live her life, as a zombie.

 

[thanatos144]

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

I didn't, christian ... nor did the recipient have a choice in the matter - just how you expect her to live her life, as a zombie.

I expect her not to become a murderer because something horrific happened to her.... you liberals love killing the innocent and defending the guilty

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

I didn't, christian ... nor did the recipient have a choice in the matter - just how you expect her to live her life, as a zombie.

I expect her not to become a murderer because something horrific happened to her.... you liberals love killing the innocent and defending the guilty

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I expect her not to become a murderer because something horrific happened to her.... you liberals love killing the innocent and defending the guilty

you are simply an irrational zealot looking for an innocence victim to victimize again by your awful religion and diabolical mentality.

 

[ding]

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

 

[Czernobog]

And we're done, you lose. When you have to resort to name calling, you have admitted that you have no rational argument left. Thank you for playing. do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out. And the point is "being alive:' is not enough. Vegetative patients are "alive", but because they are not viable we have no problem taking them off life support, and ending their lives. Similarly fetuses that are not viable, do not get a vote in whether a woman ends them.

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

 

[ding]

Bye, dumbass.

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

 

[BreezeWood]

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

.

Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"
......................

and how many of these beings will be saved ... dumb ass.

 

[ding]

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

.

Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

and how many of these beings will be saved ... dumb ass.

That depends upon you, athee.

 

[thanatos144]

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

.

The baby was the rapist???? How did you come to that twisted logic?

I didn't, christian ... nor did the recipient have a choice in the matter - just how you expect her to live her life, as a zombie.

I expect her not to become a murderer because something horrific happened to her.... you liberals love killing the innocent and defending the guilty

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I expect her not to become a murderer because something horrific happened to her.... you liberals love killing the innocent and defending the guilty

you are simply an irrational zealot looking for an innocence victim to victimize again by your awful religion and diabolical mentality.

What crime Did the baby commit that he/she deserves the death penalty?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

.

Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

and how many of these beings will be saved ... dumb ass.

That depends upon you, athee.

.

That depends upon you, athee.

your a joke - I do my best ... the ignorance alone of 4th century christianity has been a thorn in the side of Garden Earth for centurys.

the asphalt jungle, their latest testament to an insufferable past of neglect and waste.

 

[Czernobog]

Just remember this the next time you try to pass off your twaddle, and claim I "ran away"; it was you who ran out of rational arguments, and had to resort to ad hominems, as usual. Bye, bye.

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just fuck on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

 

[ding]

But you are a dumbass and you do run away and you do try to pass yourself off as things you are not.

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just fuck on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.