JoeB131, I'm calling you out on your claim that a human fetus is NOT a Child!

I agree with

  • Chuz Life; a human fetus is in fact, a child

  • JoeB131; a human fetus is not a child


Results are only viewable after voting.

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Jun 18, 2015
9,154
3,607
345
USA
JoeB131, I am calling you out on your continued claim that a human fetus is not a child.

Despite many attempts to educate your retarded ass in various other threads, you still continue to regurgitate the same denials as though you have never even once been proven wrong.

I call.

I challenge you to a debate on the facts.

The onus will be on me to prove that a human being in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development, is in fact "a human being" and as such, a "child."

The onus will be on YOU to prove that they are NOT.


Bull Ring - A Human Fetus is a Child; Chuz Life vs JoeB131
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baby_Made_It_Democrats.jpg
Republicans after forcing the birth:

tenor.gif

You should change your avatar and name to "false flag."

Troll.
 
Last edited:
. . all that stuff is way too complicated for me to be able to have an honest opinion, so I go with the Bible approach.

Wow.

That's fucking hilarious.

A bit scary too.

Please tell me you Don't vote.
 
Last edited:
. . all that stuff is way too complicated for me to be able to have an honest opinion, so I go with the Bible approach.

Wow.

That's fucking hilarious.

Hey, that is what it says in the Bible. Adam and Eve weren't "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them. Up to that point, they were just lumps of clay.

So.

What the fuck did God mean when he said "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you?"

Derp?

So much for your cherry picking.
 
A person is a person.


And a fetus is a fetus.

Know the difference.

You know, this is how I look at it. A blueprint, if followed exactly, will produce the kind of house shown. And, while following the blueprints and building the house, it's not really a house until all the wiring, plumbing and finishing work have been completed. Just having the walls and roof up doesn't make it a house, it makes it a house being built. When it's finally completed, THEN it's a house.

A fertilized egg is basically a blueprint for a human being, but it's not yet a human until it's completely developed and has been born and is breathing.

Apples and oranges.

If a house was an organism or if a child in the womb was not an organism. . . Your comparison might have some merit.

However, houses are NOT organisms.

Are they.
 
. . all that stuff is way too complicated for me to be able to have an honest opinion, so I go with the Bible approach.

Wow.

That's fucking hilarious.

Hey, that is what it says in the Bible. Adam and Eve weren't "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them. Up to that point, they were just lumps of clay.

So.

What the fuck did God mean when he said "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you?"

Derp?

So much for your cherry picking.

Because (depending on your belief system), according to some religions, your soul is made up of a small piece of God that He carved off of himself to make you. Judaism has that belief.

Nice fantasy.

Now you jist have prove God is real souls actually exist beyond your "beliefs" and you'll have it made.
 
Isn't it funny, ironic and telling how it is the proabort leftardz trying to bring religion into the discussion here?

True sign of desperation, if ever there was one.
 
Bump.

Bull Ring - A Human Fetus is a Child; Chuz Life vs JoeB131


I ask you again.

Are human beings mammals?

Specifically, are we (human beings) placental mammals? Or not?

No, they are magical being made in God's very image. Still not sure why God needed a dick and nipples, but he totally did, since man is made in his image and evolution totally wasn't a thing.

So many directions I would like to go on this.

If any of you have been following along. . .


I'm trying very hard to stay on topic with the biological aspects and as you can see, It's like trying to nail a jellyfish to a tree.

Any suggestions or advice?
 
"+Outside of participating members, the Bull Ring is READ-ONLY. Failure to comply will result in non-participating members being removed from the Bull Ring (Forum will no longer be visible to member)"
 
"+Outside of participating members, the Bull Ring is READ-ONLY. Failure to comply will result in non-participating members being removed from the Bull Ring (Forum will no longer be visible to member)"

Ummm Will. This (discussion and callouts) section is not the actual bull ring. This is the discussion section and (the way I read the rules) it is open for all to discuss the debates as they unfold in the other section.

The actual bull ring section is the one that is invite only.

We just dealt with this only days ago.

Please confirm with Kat and the other mods.
 
Last edited:
Can we get cereal_killer's input on the format and rules for this section, please?

The rules do NOT say that the call outs and discussion section is limited only to the debate participants, as the actual (Bull Ring) debate section is.

Please Read

"*To discuss current/past/future debates or to challenge other members/teams please use the Bull Ring Discussion and Call-Outs Forum. Again, the Bull Ring is READ-ONLY*

THIS IS the discussion and call out section. . . and according to that guideline, it should be open to all who want to discuss the current, past and future debates.

 
Clicked on your link, found this:

"The Bull Ring is now open!! Let the challengers challenge and the debates begin!!!! Remember folks this forum is a catch all for all Bull Ring related topics. This is the place to discuss past, present and future debates between members and/or teams. Have someone you want to debate one on one? Call them out and see what they are made of. Enjoy!"


What does 'one on one' mean to you?
 
Clicked on your link, found this:

"The Bull Ring is now open!! Let the challengers challenge and the debates begin!!!! Remember folks this forum is a catch all for all Bull Ring related topics. This is the place to discuss past, present and future debates between members and/or teams. Have someone you want to debate one on one? Call them out and see what they are made of. Enjoy!"


What does 'one on one' mean to you?

It means exactly what it says. However, context is key.

1. If there is someone that you want to debate "one on one?" Call them out publically in the appropriate "call out and discussion " section; where the challenge and debate (along with all the other "past present and future" debates) can be discussed by all. Teams can be formed, etc.

2. Threads in the actual bull ring are invite only and will not be open to all. They will eventually be locked.

What sense would it make to have both sections, invite only? It doesn't make any sense at all, that two adversaries would engage in a heated debate in one thread (the Bull Ring) and then have discussions about "past, present and future debates" exclusively between themselves in the "call out and discussion" section.

We should ask cereal_killer, to see what his thoughts are.
 
CK hasn’t been an admin for almost two years. The rules of the Bull Ring are very clear. It’s for one on one discussion. There is nothing confusing about it. If you want to have more than one person then you can invite them
 
This particular discussion is in the Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs area. With that said, others ARE allowed to comment in this section. Had this been the thread under The Bull Ring, then no, others are NOT allowed to participate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top