If abortion is so great why don't they show what it looks like?

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

But no one would call an egg a chicken. Just like no one would call an acorn a tree.

a) not everyone is as uneducated as yourself

b) not often calling something as what it literally, technically, objectively is… does not equate to it somehow not being the thing that it is

c) Your retarded statements before equate to “A Quercus alba acorn isn’t alive” or a “A Quercus alba acorn isn’t a Quercus alba.” Neither of which is true, fucking obviously. A young Homo sapiens is still alive and a member of Homo sapiens. Denying this is tantamount to denying 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it's more than that. I will be fair and say that most anti-abortion activists come from a good place. They see abortion as unpleasant, and a lot of women have them for frivolous reasons. If contraception was used and women chose better men, this wouldn't be an issue.

where it falls apart is that they aren't willing to institute the policies that actually reduce abortion - Universal health care, distribution of contraception, sex education, paid family leave.

The definition of a terrorist is someone who is willing to kill, or threaten to kill, or otherwise cause great harm to innocent, uninvolved third-parties, to promote a political cause.

And here you are, showing almost this exact trait, demanding malevolent socialism and abuses of government power, with an implied threat to kill innocent people if you do not get your way.

In fact, for you and your kind, killing innocents isn't necessarily even a vehicle to promote a cause, but very often it is the very cause, itself.

Of course, none of this tells us anything about you that everyone here doesn't already know.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You are the one who jumped to the issue about a young tree and an older tree which doesn't really matter.

It does matter. I am correcting your inaccurate and stupid statement.

The chicken egg brings out a technicality that needs to be explained out thoroughly, as chickens are oviparous and thus have a structure that we commonly call an egg post fertilization, which is not to be confused with an egg cell. The giant yolk sac and the hard outer shell do not equate to human egg cells, obviously - the germinal disc within the chicken egg DOES however. The germinal disc is the exact equivalent of an egg cell, and if the sperm of an oviparous sexually reproducing species fertilizes it, then a new member of that species is created.

If a chicken egg is fertilized, then that chicken egg contains an organism which is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus. Saying the egg that contains a living chicken somehow does not contain a living chicken is just a lie, and other formulations to that effect are going to be at best misleading or blatant misinformation.

Consequently, we are just talking about age. The chicken inside that chicken egg is not an adult chicken, it is a young chicken, but it is still a chicken. Saying that the chicken is not a chicken at all would be a blatant lie.

 

[JoeB131]

An embryo is the same form of life that it is at a different stage of life.

So is a medical school cadaver... but we don't think they should have rights outside of voting in Chicago (just kidding!)

A human embryo is the same organism as a newborn infant, a toddler, a teenager, an adult, an elderly person. It's the same form of life, the same human being, just at different stages of his life. It is no more justifiable to kill an innocent human being at any stage of life, than at any other stage of life.

Except that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb... that's why it doesn't get the same consideration as an infant, toddler, etc.

If your "right to life" involves imposing on another person, then a woman has as much right to reject that fetus as you have to reject paying for the social welfare safety net.

In insisting that it is OK to kill a human being at any stage of life, you have no point, other than to demonstrate what an evil, murderous piece of shit you are.

Aren't you the one who supports the death penalty for minor offenses, Mr. Blood Atonement?

 

[JoeB131]

a) not everyone is as uneducated as yourself

b) not often calling something as what it literally, technically, objectively is… does not equate to it somehow not being the thing that it is

c) Your retarded statements before equate to “A Quercus alba acorn isn’t alive” or a “A Quercus alba acorn isn’t a Quercus alba.” Neither of which is true, fucking obviously. A young Homo sapiens is still alive and a member of Homo sapiens. Denying this is tantamount to denying 2 + 2 = 4.

A fetus isn't a person. It can't breathe on it's own, it can't ingest nutrients on its own, etc.
My great niece spent the first few weeks of her life in a NICU because she was born a month early and her ability to feed herself wasn't switched on yet. If she had been born in any other century but this one, she probably would have died. Awesome that we have the technology now, but we also have the technology to end pregnancies safely. At the end of the day, that's the woman's choice... not yours.

 

[Curried Goats]

It does matter. I am correcting your inaccurate and stupid statement.

The chicken egg brings out a technicality that needs to be explained out thoroughly, as chickens are oviparous and thus have a structure that we commonly call an egg post fertilization, which is not to be confused with an egg cell. The giant yolk sac and the hard outer shell do not equate to human egg cells, obviously - the germinal disc within the chicken egg DOES however. The germinal disc is the exact equivalent of an egg cell, and if the sperm of an oviparous sexually reproducing species fertilizes it, then a new member of that species is created.

If a chicken egg is fertilized, then that chicken egg contains an organism which is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus. Saying the egg that contains a living chicken somehow does not contain a living chicken is just a lie, and other formulations to that effect are going to be at best misleading or blatant misinformation.

Consequently, we are just talking about age. The chicken inside that chicken egg is not an adult chicken, it is a young chicken, but it is still a chicken. Saying that the chicken is not a chicken at all would be a blatant lie.

You're working really hard to miss the obvious point. While a fetus, a baby and an adult are all living homo sapiens that doesn't mean they should all be afforded the same Rights. You don't think children should be allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars or vote do you?

 

[JoeB131]

The definition of a terrorist is someone who is willing to kill, or threaten to kill, or otherwise cause great harm to innocent, uninvolved third-parties, to promote a political cause.

And here you are, showing almost this exact trait, demanding malevolent socialism and abuses of government power, with an implied threat to kill innocent people if you do not get your way.

Nope. I just point out WHAT WORKS.

I really could care less if women have abortions or not. It really has no impact on my life. But if you want women to choose other options, you actually have to give them options.

The Philippines have the kinds of laws you want. I mean, they don't execute women for having abortions, but abortion in the Philippines is illegal in all cases except a threat to the mother's life...

and they have more abortions per capita than we do. 500K to 800K in a country of about 90 million people. because the country is grindingly poor. Because they don't have the social programs that most countries have. So a poor Filipina, no matter what the law is and no matter how religious she is, will choose abortion.

We can do better... but we have to be better than... you.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

A fetus isn't a person.

Meaningless legal technicality. Means nothing objective. Change the law and they are people, boom, done.

It can't breathe on it's own, it can't ingest nutrients on its own, etc.

Who gives a fuck, bigot?

My great niece spent the first few weeks of her life in a NICU because she was born a month early and her ability to feed herself wasn't switched on yet. If she had been born in any other century but this one, she probably would have died.

Yeah, which proves how arbitrary you are being in saying that viability is somehow a good standard for personhood when it is a moving target as technology changes.

At the end of the day, that's the woman's choice... not yours.

Premeditated homicide for personal gain is always a choice people can make. It should never be legal, though, you sick fuck.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You're working really hard to miss the obvious point. While a fetus, a baby and an adult are all living homo sapiens that doesn't mean they should all be afforded the same Rights. You don't think children should be allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars or vote do you?

You are putting legal rights based on societal norms and technologies and situations on the same tier as natural human rights that are the basis for all law and for governments to exist in the first place.

Driving isn’t even a right, it’s a privilege - technically, owning a car that you buy and driving it in private is part of your human right to property, but that doesn’t mean you can use government roads. You can have your license revoked for misbehavior, incompetence, or disability. But it’s more than that - the theoretical “right to drive cars” is situational on cars even existing. Another sapient species probably exists out there in the universe somewhere - they have a right to life, they may or may not have ever or will ever invent cars.

The right to life is fundamental. No one is saying that an infant neonate should have the right to enlist to join the military or a toddler can consent to sex. But the infant is a human being, which means it should be a legal person, which means you should not legally be allowed to attack him. The same is true of all living human beings - the unborn are objectively alive and objectively human beings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My great niece spent the first few weeks of her life in a NICU because she was born a month early and her ability to feed herself wasn't switched on yet. If she had been born in any other century but this one, she probably would have died. Awesome that we have the technology now, but we also have the technology to end pregnancies safely.

So, at birth, was your great niece a human being or wasn't she? Was her very humanity, her personhood, contingent on what technology was available to save her life?

Awesome that we have the technology now, but we also have the technology to end pregnancies safely.

“Ending a pregnancy” kills an innocent human being. It truly takes an Incel Joe level of of sociopathic depravity to describe an act of cold-blooded murder as “safe”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're working really hard to miss the obvious point. While a fetus, a baby and an adult are all living homo sapiens that doesn't mean they should all be afforded the same Rights. You don't think children should be allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars or vote do you?

Does that mean, then, that children who are too young to drive or to drink alcohol or vote are not human beings? Is it more acceptable to kill a ten-year-old than a thirty-year-old?

 

[Curried Goats]

You are putting legal rights based on societal norms and technologies and situations on the same tier as natural human rights that are the basis for all law and for governments to exist in the first place.

It's not the basis of my thoughts process. I don't base my beliefs in fairytales

Driving isn’t even a right, it’s a privilege - technically, owning a car that you buy and driving it in private is part of your human right to property, but that doesn’t mean you can use government roads. You can have your license revoked for misbehavior, incompetence, or disability.

The right to life is fundamental. No one is saying that an infant neonate should have the right to enlist to join the military or a toddler can consent to sex. But the infant is a human being, which means it should be a legal person, which means you should not legally be allowed to attack him. The same is true of all living human beings - the unborn are objectively alive and objectively human beings.

Yet we are legally allowed to attack human beings for all sorts of reasons. I can attack a human being that enters my home against my will so why shouldn't a woman be allowed to attack another life form gestation inside her own body?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to life is fundamental. No one is saying that an infant neonate should have the right to enlist to join the military or a toddler can consent to sex.

The same political side that supports murdering unborn children, is now rather openly trying to push for that as well. They're not even trying, as they once did, to hide it.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It's not the basis of my thoughts process. I don't base my beliefs in fairytales

Neither do I, fuckwad.

Yet we are legally allowed to attack human beings for all sorts of reasons.

No you are demonstrably NOT.

I can attack a human being that enters my home against my will

Defense is not ATTACKING. Attacking means you initiate the use of force, a home invader has attacked you.

so why shouldn't a woman be allowed to attack another life form gestation inside her own body?

The kid isn’t attacking anyone, the kid isn’t capable of attacking anyone, the kid is helpless and innocent and in exactly the place his mom and dad put him.

Moreover, the kid didn’t even exist before his mom and dad created him and put him there. Both parents have responsibilities to take care of the kid they created.

Comparing a known helpless, sleeping kid to a home invader with unknown intentions is beyond fucked in the head. Devious and psychopathic.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not the basis of my thoughts process. I don't base my beliefs in fairytales

Yet we are legally allowed to attack human beings for all sorts of reasons. I can attack a human being that enters my home against my will so why shouldn't a woman be allowed to attack another life form gestation [sic] inside her own body?

You cannot invite someone into your home, and then attack him for being there. And you certainly cannot bring someone into your home, in a manner in which he doesn't even have a choice as to be in your home or not, and then attack him for being there.

 

[Curried Goats]

Does that mean, then, that children who are too young to drive or to drink alcohol or vote are not human beings? Is it more acceptable to kill a ten-year-old than a thirty-year-old?

I just said they were all human beings in the very post you quoted you illiterate moron.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I just said they were all human beings in the very post you quoted you illiterate moron.

And yet you would deny their humanity, and their very right not to be killed, at a younger stage of life.

The point that you seemed to be making is that young children, because they are not allowed certain privileges of adulthood, are somehow less human than adults, and by extension, that those still in the womb are even less human.

 

[Curried Goats]

Neither do I, fuckwad.

You're the one who brought up Natural Rights you short bus riding little bitch.

No you are demonstrably NOT.

And yet I demonstrated it succinctly.

Defense is not ATTACKING.

Defense is not attacking, attacking is attacking. I'd argue running away or picking up a shield to ward off assault is Defense. Shooting at someone who has entered your home is an assault, just a legal one. You're confusing legal terms with objective observation.

The kid isn’t attacking anyone, the kid is helpless and innocent and in exactly the place his mom and dad put him, moreover the kid didn’t even exist before his mom and dad created him and put him there. Both parents have responsibilities to take care of the kid they created.

As soon as you explain where this responsibility comes from.

Comparing a helpless sleeping kid to a home invader with unknown intentions is beyond fucked in the head. Devious and psychopathic.

Not a kid. A fetus. I don't care about the lives of developing but as of yet, unviable independent human beings. Not more than I care about the desires of the woman they're gestating inside of.

 

[Curried Goats]

And yet you would deny their humanity, and their very right not to be killed, at a younger stage of life.

I don't deny their humanity I just don't care about it.

The point that you seemed to be making is that young children, because they are not allowed certain privileges of adulthood, are somehow less human than adults, and by extension, that those still in the womb are even less human.

No. The point I'm making is that rights aren't universal or unlimited.

 

[Curried Goats]

You cannot invite someone into your home, and then attack him for being there. And you certainly cannot bring someone into your home, in a manner in which he doesn't even have a choice as to be in your home or not, and then attack him for being there.

I can invite someone into my home and then kick them out.