"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[Ghost of a Rider]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life. However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

 

[deanrd]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old

I want to know. What group of Americans will Republicans attack next?
They’re not going to try to get people healthcare. They’re not gonna get tax cuts for the middle class. They’re not going to promote education.
They only exist to try to drag other people down. Who’s next? Who will be there next target? Do you know?

 

[BWK]

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."


Life - Wikipedia

As your post shows, you didn't.


Here's your 'god.'

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

We'll, when you define it, as God, be sure to drop by and give us a heads up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Give your redundant crap a rest Derp. It's past old

I want to know. What group of Americans will Republicans attack next?
They’re not going to try to get people healthcare. They’re not gonna get tax cuts for the middle class. They’re not going to promote education.
They only exist to try to drag other people down. Who’s next? Who will be there next target? Do you know?

Nobody cares Derp. You've worn your tired redundant shit out. No cred

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."


Life - Wikipedia

As your post shows, you didn't.


Here's your 'god.'

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

You can't. You are not God. Which is why Life is only defined by your own philosophical or religious views. The very fact that you did not take the opportunity to debunk my link, and just used a gobbly goo explanation, just proves to us all how fos you are. Life - Wikipedia

As I showed, it is a biological definition.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."


Life - Wikipedia

As your post shows, you didn't.


Here's your 'god.'

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Republicans want to take away healthcare for children and the disabled. They want to take away programs that help the elderly and the infirm.
Even their leader referring to soldiers who were captured during times of war said he likes the ones that weren’t captured.

Look how Republicans want to treat a young child who has been sexually assaulted by an adult male:

How do you explain that? This monstrous.

I could be wrong but I don’t think the girl in the poster is supposed to represent a sexual assault victim. They’re just saying that she will (likely) be a future mother.

 

[BWK]

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?

 

[BWK]

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

ttps://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ We did, and there is no precedence to prove it is killing it, because "life" cannot be established. We are not God. Only your religious beliefs tell you that. I don't practice your religion, "THANK GOD."


Life - Wikipedia

As your post shows, you didn't.


Here's your 'god.'

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

You can't. You are not God. Which is why Life is only defined by your own philosophical or religious views. The very fact that you did not take the opportunity to debunk my link, and just used a gobbly goo explanation, just proves to us all how fos you are. Life - Wikipedia

As I showed, it is a biological definition.

Is it? That's not what I read.There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. The biological definition is a theory, and no more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.

Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.

Would know better than what? Than an idea that a leftist has cooked up and projected onto Republicans, without Republicans having ever indicated that they have any interest in it?

Here's a thought. Maybe you should excoriate Republicans for things they're actually doing, rather than for things that leftists imagine that they "ought to want to do", based on what leftists assume they think.

 

[BWK]

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.

On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No! Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?

Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it?

Other than the fact that the states you want to wave around like a flag because "they're red states, so that means POLITICS are responsible!" often also have higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in their populations?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

e


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.

On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No! Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

"You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.



My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.

 

[BWK]

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?

Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.

And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet. So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.

 

[beagle9]

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..

10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:

Killing human beings is murder. Plain and simple.

 

[BWK]

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

e


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.

On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No! Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

"You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.



My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.

Too bad you never took maximum advantage of the education afforded to you. Because you failed miserably in defending your views.

And by the way, between my link and my argument, your resume just got flushed down the toilet.

 

[dblack]

Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.

Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.

Would know better than what?

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

 

[BWK]

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..

10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:

Killing human beings is murder. Plain and simple.

Yea, as long as they are fully developed human beings. Do you have proof that the fetus is?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionarynition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has then right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

e


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was? Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus? There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

Did you say 'fetus'?



fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



Next time, take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth, dunce.

On the contrary. You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged. You were talking about defining "life." Did you? No! Where do the scholars talk about proof of "life" with the fetus? Lol! They don't, and neither have you. Try again with the fetus definition that tells us that the fetus is in development to become a fully developed human. And? What about it? LOl! Nothing! The woman still has the right to her own body, you do not, unless you are God, and you still haven't proved life, because there is no definition.

"You obviously graduated from the school of the intellectually challenged."


Be sure to let me know when you're ready to compare educational resumes.

I don't mind embarrassing you.



My alma mater has the best fight song in the nation.

Too bad you never took maximum advantage of the education afforded to you. Because you failed miserably in defending your views.

And by the way, between my link and my argument, your resume just got flushed down the toilet.

No it didn't. You only think so and to be frank your track record is awful.

You spew left loon gibberish