What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on

It's your turn

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later.

Gen 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Today's homework assignment. Explain why we have day and night.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Day 1 - Night and Day

Day 3 - Plants

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

'

Hey, you bolded it for me. So now the sun and moon are created... except the moon's not really a light, but a bunch of Jewish cavemen didn't know that. When was this?

17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Wait... It said he already separated them... and that plants were made the day before the sun and other stars.

You were just talking about you being a retard, weren't you?

Gen 2

YAY! More contradictions.
The entire timelines clash, but there's really no need to bother explaining it because (1) you're an illiterate retard with no reading comprehension skills anyway and (2) I already debunked you religion and your claims above.

I know that

No, you don't. Well, you didn't until I just taught you. That's why you said there was no life after death, despite Jesus' entire promise being eternal life after physical death.

- but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust

Not quite. The body does, but the body doesn't matter. The soul matters, and it's the death of the soul that is the second death (the Outer Darkness). First you base your argument on religion, and now I have to teach you your religion?

About you being a fucking retard...

Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave, there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

Psalm 89:48
No one can live forever; all will die.No one can escape the power of the grave.

References to the First Death. Please, if you're going to quote bible passages, try to get a clue about what they mean first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.

Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.

Please stop disingenuously conflating different issues. We are not talking about "independent" in the sense of being able to cook his own meals. We are talking independence in the biological sense, something you have made painfully obvious you cannot answer, given the way you run off and start talking about extraneous topics every time biology rears its ugly head in your path. You are fooling no one with this bait-and-switch nonsense.

Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's. In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally. She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.

Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream, then there is no way that you can make the inference that her actions and day to day activities, even, do not affect the fetus as well. If she so much as lays on her back a certain way, her major arteries can experience just enough blockage to slow the fetus' oxygen delivery from HER body, as a result of HER decision to rest herself in a comfortable way, that the fetus can, and sometimes does, cease to continue growing.

Actually, her bloodstream DOESN'T run directly into the fetus's, as you've been told and shown multiple times. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by stubbornly clinging to and repeating thoroughly debunked misinformation.

By the way, to be consistent in your own beliefs, applying the logic that the metabolism or a hiccup is some form of autonomy and self governance, then you must also apply this logic to that of the also metabolizing embryo, and early fetus.
Having reflexes is not autonomy, in any event.

Who says? And who ever said the embryo wasn't just as autonomous in the exact same sense? The only person I see around here desperately clinging to any possible straw in order to classify an entire group as expendable is YOU.

And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range, then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this space as well? How do you even BEGIN to figure on that one? LOL!!

Um, one space is not another space, that's how. Pima County governs the space entirely surrounding the city of Tucson, but the city government governs the space inside the city limits. If I hug my son, I'm in charge of the space around him made up of my arms and body, but that doesn't mean he's not governing the space taken up by his own body.

Sorry if the difference between "surrounding" and "absorbing" is too tough for you, Dog Girl.

I never said like an adult. I said that a newborn premature baby will have MORE response than its counterpart fetus, even if both were conceived on the exact same day. Stop playing semantics soldier with me, and twisting my words around to have a new meaning. I swear you people just LOOOOVE those pathetic strawman arguments. =)

There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb. Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I don't like and can't answer".

No you fucking dimbulb, I specifically said that there is NO study that measures actual personhood, because personhood is, as of yet, a subjective belief system. The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.

Brilliant. "I think the laws on abortion should be this because this is what the laws on abortion are." Talk about circular reasoning. Talk about dimbulbs.

PS I already showed you the studies. It is not MY ignorance that is preventing you from reading it.



When has anyone said anything derogatory about Christians???? LMAO!!!.

You trying to represent your noxious ignorance as state-of-the-art religious teaching is pretty insulting.

Glad none of your pregnancies came at a bad time for you. Also glad I am not strapped down by three kids..

Who said they didn't come at a bad time? The difference wasn't in the quality of circumstances between you and me. The difference was in the quality of woman.

Personally, I'm glad three children aren't "strapped down" by YOU. I feel very sorry for the child who IS cursed with you, and has to live being viewed as a burden to a waste of space, rather than valued as a blessing.

PS- I did SAY that observation of a pregnancy from a personal perspective made both of us none the wiser.. LOVE the way you, as per the usual, blissfully ignored that..

Oh, no, I'm well aware that being pregnant taught YOU nothing whatsoever. However, your experience is proof of nothing concerning anyone else's experience, unless they happen to be as shallow, selfish, and willfully obtuse as you are. I find it quite blissful that that doesn't describe me, thanks.

From the lack of a true to life avatar of the bags that are surely under your eyes, and the migraine medicine next to your keyboard, I wonder.. Tee hee!!

"Tee hee". Only a damned fool posts their own picture on the Internet for any crazed yahoo to get hold of. Just because you're as ignorant of Internet danger as you are of biology doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

I love your flaming.. It is certainly not up to par with anything anyone would consider logic, but hey, if it makes you feel better about your life...

Trust me, if you were to ever think anything I said lived up to what you consider logic, I would really have to rethink that position on the spot. I'll give you credit, though, for making my life look even better than usual. There, but for as traumatic brain injury, go I . . .

And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.

And still you flatter yourself, thinking that you are going to be allowed to arbitrarily define words and the parameters of the debate for everyone else. Tell me again why I'm going to accept your assertion on anything, Dog Girl?

No shit. You can talk to HIM about that, though. I never once claimed that INVOLUNTARY movements were somehow a form of autonomy. Again, ignorance is bliss..

Again, topic-hopping is ignorance, so you must be the most blissful person in the world. It's not even worth pointing out your deliberate misunderstandings anymore. I can just let them stand for everyone to laugh at.

The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.

LOL So now ONLY peer-reviewed medical journals are reliable sources of information, even for word definitions. Can you really be this stupid and desperate?

Boo.. Is that ALL you've GOT, REALLY?????

As long as I'm not claiming dogs can impregnate humans, I'm way ahead of you in the argument, Punkinhead.

Can't fight straightforward logic, my dear! Besides, nobody SAID that. You are not even sounding REASONABLE here. :

We'll never know if I can fight straightforward logic as long as I'm talking to you, my court jester. And as I've said many times, one of my main goals is to never descend into anything that YOU would view as reasonable, Dog Girl.

Matter of opinion. Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.

And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof. [/QUOTE]

Very true, but this is a thread about what the laws SHOULD be, not what they are at the moment. In the 60s, I could have said, "Just because you want to throw your children in the garbage because they get in the way of you bringing drunks home from the bar does NOT mean you have that right" and been just as correct, and just as irrelevant to the thread.

Really, if you can't thrash your way to rationality, at LEAST attempt to keep a hold on the topic, huh?

Noperss.. That's what you get for skimming. He posted ZILCH. Nothing. Not even ONE article to even begin debating.
Why am I defending myself against such a flaming little ignorant troll anyways???

Because it's the only slim hope you have of regaining any shred of credibility after spending pages insisting to everyone that your dog really can impregnate you.

As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.

OK

Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...

In terms of who's hearing you, you're not. In terms of who's actually buying your tripe, I hope with all my heart and soul that you are. I'd hate to think there are MORE people that dumb and gullible.

Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.

No, dumbass, because unlike you, I don't reject the entire dictionary as an unreliable source because it refuses to define words the way I want them. Therefore, I know what the word "fetus" means.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Fix your tags, Cecile.

 

[Bern80]

LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context.
I said that fetuses are not autonomous.

Then what would be the point of stating that the dictionary is not peer reviewed if one is not trying to justify using a word in a way in which the dictionary does not define it? We've already seen you do this with regard to the word person.

Short and sweet? Fine

1)A child doesn't care about your made up distinctions between types of dependence. I repeat for the umpteenth time. If it is not cared for by someone it will die. At best you can perhaps make a distinction between physical RESPONSIBILITY and social RESPONSIBILITY, that I'd buy. But that is a lot different then who and what the child is dependent on. Legally, YOU are responsible for your child until you go through the legal process of relinquishing your guardianship of it, BUT (next point)....

2) You stated NO one is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive. Therefore you are arguing it really should be your legal right to do absolutely nothing. Again I'm not playing semantics here. When someone says NO responsibility, I assume they mean NO responsibility. So either man up and put some qualifiers with NO or explain why you don't have that responsibility despite what the law says.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my stance on abortion,

Yes, you have illiteracy and ignorance behind you

And the unshakable belief that her dog impregnated her.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I get the distinct impression I confused her when I said 'neuroplasticity'
.

Too many syllables. Also, I think the letters MD after Mr.McCullagh's name might have thrown her off as well.

What really threw her is that you disagreed with her cherished worldview. Ergo, it couldn't have existed at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...

That is not what you argued. You wanna talk about annoying and cowardly, that would be watching you trying to make excuses and pretend you didn't say exactly what you said. You are the one playing semantics. Under YOUR argument, no one has the responsibility to keep anyone alive. NO responsibility means NO responsibility. IF that's true why go through the aggravation of the adoption process. Why not just lock it in a room till it stops making any sound. You can't twist it. You can't accuse me of semantics. That is what you're arguing your right is. In that case the law indeed does disagree with you

You fucking assmunch- I did not FUCKING say it that way. I said it and explained far differently, in the context of physical dependence, and you KNOW DAMN WELL what that ultimately means. YOU simply cannot wrap your tiny little pea brain around it, and come to accept it, because it is TRUTH and you HATE truth. You refuse to even listen to medical journals, you and proletarian both. Don't twist everything around, just to bicker, you ball-less little turd!!!




Fuck off. Now you want to throw more ad hominems at me, saying that I am being selfish, just because physical dependence is not some kind of entitlement. Whats next? We give everyone on life support our organs, also, just to keep the inevitable "d" word from happening??? DIFFERENTIATE for yourself, the meaning of the words sociological dependence and physiological fucking dependence. If LATE TERM physiological dependence was sooooo fucking necessary, then how is it that first trimester physiological dependence is expendable you fucking little termite head?? THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. Shove your emotional fucking hyperbole up your ass. Physiological dependence =/= sociological dependence.



For CHOOSING NOT TO PUT A CHILD IN GOOD HANDS OTHER THAN ONE'S OWN, ORRRRRRRRRR... FOR THINKING THAT ONE IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO, CORRECTLY, BUT NOT DOING IT RIGHT.

That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.

For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with.

Ad hominem... You don't hate ME, you hate my STANCE, and you are angry because my logic and sources are MOUNTAINS better than your own. Stay on topic, asshole. Try, for ONCE, to make an argument that is not chocked full of crying and whining, please.

You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.

It WAS fun to watch you be a complete ignorant ass at first, but now it is BLATANTLY obvious that by the facts mentioned below, you are doomed to remain in the state of blissful "I do not believe that, and will not educate myself further, as a result!":

1- You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people. Your stance is entirely emotional in it's basis, and you cant GET PAST the emotions that have crippled your own logic.

2- You refuse to even READ any of the sources I gave you, which both negate your own stance, as well as build mine, immensely.

3- You keep referring to me in a personal sense as being amoral or some variation of such, based on absolutely NO personal knowledge of me or my child, and only basing it on the facts I lay out for you, as well as the thorough explanations, which you also only read half of, as a part of your ignorant way of life.

4- You play semantics games and try to turn "The tree is green and growing" into "the tree is purple with pink polka dots and has been uprooted.", showing me that you have the intellectual capacity of a sapling.

5- You REFUSE to even ARGUE your own failing stance within the debate, and have spent the past week or so, only trying not to drown, by constantly trying to just belittle and berate my PLETHORA of sources, and logical explanations, just because your overactive emotions will not allow you to accept certain truths, such as sociological dependence being a far cry from physiological dependence, which I have spelled out in more ways than Webster.

GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.

Jackpot! We have a winner, folks! It's Miller time!

 

[Cecilie1200]

PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on, if you expect a response from now on. Thanks! =)

Okay. You're an evil, self-centered, uneducated slut. That short and pointed enough for you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fix your tags, Cecile.

Pardon me?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Fix your tags, Cecile.

Pardon me?

You already fixed them. Why are you responding after fixing them?

If you're trying to make me doubt my sanity, you're much too late.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fix your tags, Cecile.

Pardon me?

You already fixed them. Why are you responding after fixing them?

If you're trying to make me doubt my sanity, you're much too late.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Pardon me?

You already fixed them. Why are you responding after fixing them?

If you're trying to make me doubt my sanity, you're much too late.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Liar
'

Last edited by Cecilie1200; Today at 07:29 PM.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You already fixed them. Why are you responding after fixing them?

If you're trying to make me doubt my sanity, you're much too late.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Liar
'

Last edited by Cecilie1200; Today at 07:29 PM.

Oh, you mean when I accidentally hit the "Submit" before I was finished with the reply, and completed it later? Sorry about that. I'm using my husband's computer, and it's a sucky pain in the ass.

I had no idea what "tags" meant.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Excuses, excuses

 

[JD_2B]

No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later.

Gen 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Today's homework assignment. Explain why we have day and night.

Because a few days into creation, literally meaning a couple billion years, God's Earth began to rotate, and revolve around the sun. Before this, the earth was shapeless and void. It wasn't even ROUNDED all the way, until sometime in the era of the "second day". This is fluid with the Big Bang, you asshat.

Day 1 - Night and Day

Day 3 - Plants

You missed water, and the second day.

'

Hey, you bolded it for me. So now the sun and moon are created... except the moon's not really a light, but a bunch of Jewish cavemen didn't know that. When was this?

The moon is reflective of sunlight, therefore it is a night time light source.
Without the moon, there would be no sun rays which light the dark, giving us "moonlight"... The moon may not be the SOURCE of the light, but it causes light to happen for the Earth, without the requirement of it being a heat source.

Wait... It said he already separated them... and that plants were made the day before the sun and other stars.

That is not what it said. It said that the sun was made, then the water, then the plants. You are do idiotic it's scary.

YAY! More contradictions.
The entire timelines clash, but there's really no need to bother explaining it because (1) you're an illiterate retard with no reading comprehension skills anyway and (2) I already debunked you religion and your claims above.

1- My IQ is, no doubt, five times whatever yours is. I find it amazing that you even function at all.


2- Nope.. Again, you only showed your own consistent usage of twisting things into other things, rather than just following logically the basic pattern laid out in black and white for you.

No, you don't. Well, you didn't until I just taught you. That's why you said there was no life after death, despite Jesus' entire promise being eternal life after physical death.

There IS no EMPIRICAL life after death, even in the context of being resurrected, you moron. And why are you acting like this is some kind of entitlement anyways??? Wow!!

[quote[

- but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust

Not quite. The body does, but the body doesn't matter. The soul matters, and it's the death of the soul that is the second death (the Outer Darkness). First you base your argument on religion, and now I have to teach you your religion?[/quote]

"And he breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and Adam BECAME a LIVING SOUL."

A soul is just a body. This is also another one that is consistent in the Bible. The bible says that there is no life, when we die. Gee what a concept.

About you being a fucking retard...

Speak for yourself.

Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave, there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

Psalm 89:48
No one can live forever; all will die.No one can escape the power of the grave.

References to the First Death. Please, if you're going to quote bible passages, try to get a clue about what they mean first.

As I said.. We have the right to die. Death is final, take it or leave it.. I could care less... BUT Try to stay on topic, please.

 

[JD_2B]

A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.

Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.

Please stop disingenuously conflating different issues. We are not talking about "independent" in the sense of being able to cook his own meals. We are talking independence in the biological sense, something you have made painfully obvious you cannot answer, given the way you run off and start talking about extraneous topics every time biology rears its ugly head in your path. You are fooling no one with this bait-and-switch nonsense.

Any reasonable person would infer that a biological dependence that relies on ONE single solitary organism remaining alive for the sole purpose of sustainment for the other organism is one that only involves ONE independent organism, and that would be the woman. Nobody in their right fucking mind would consider a youngster anything other than independent just because someone else cooks for them. This is a societal responsibility, one that is only EVER taken willingly. Bringing a child into the world willingly is one person's choice for them, and another person can make the choice to do the diaper changing, cooking, breastfeeding, etc. If a woman births a baby and nurses it, and becomes that baby's caregiver, it is because she is adding a person to her familial society, by choice. This is not an empirically physical dependence that the baby has. If the woman dies, the baby's dad, aunt, uncle, grandparent, neighbor, mailman, etc, can just as easily ensure that it gets a bottle as the late mother could have..
With a fetus, the physical dependence is empirical. Without the mother, the fetus' chances of making it to birth are nill.
This is empirical, not some bait and switch bullshit that I am just pulling out of my ass. Prove otherwise, and we can talk. I will not entertain any more of these bullshit whiny fucking posts by you three. Get through it.

Actually, her bloodstream DOESN'T run directly into the fetus's, as you've been told and shown multiple times. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by stubbornly clinging to and repeating thoroughly debunked misinformation.

YES it DOES. The fetus without the mother's blood being delivered to it, is inevitably miscarried. THAT is empirical. The fetus can not produce an ample supply of blood to its own system to survive gestation, and it can not manage its own wastes during gestation either. EMPIRICALLY.
Prove me wrong, if you can't swallow it, or shut the fuck up.

Who says? And who ever said the embryo wasn't just as autonomous in the exact same sense? The only person I see around here desperately clinging to any possible straw in order to classify an entire group as expendable is YOU.

You have me all wrong. I am not pro death. I realize that you are anti abortion to the point of coercing your own (hypothetically) raped 13 year old daughter into having to deal with 9 months of gestation and painful childbirth, all because you think that a 13 year old is going to somehow experience all kinds of happiness by her screaming brat whose eyes would remind her of her attacker on a daily basis, and probably haunt her until the day that she dies.. But hey if that is what you call "pro life", then that is all you. I say let her decide for herself, without needing your permission. Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again, by FORCING them to give the rapist the winning ticket, and go through with an entire pregnancy, after which time, she will be on welfare, and have to explain to VARIOUS men and women and her little teenage friends where her kid's daddy is.. Fucking BITCH. You are goddamned lucky I am not your daughter. That is called POWER AND CONTROL, and even your teenaged daughter should not be subjected to it, BY YOU. How DARE you try to expect everyone to live up to some bullshit right to life standard that you have subjectively set for a fetus, with NO concern for the actual PERSON involved, as well??? I'm tellin ya.. if I was your kid, you would have a VERY different story to tell.

Um, one space is not another space, that's how. Pima County governs the space entirely surrounding the city of Tucson, but the city government governs the space inside the city limits. If I hug my son, I'm in charge of the space around him made up of my arms and body, but that doesn't mean he's not governing the space taken up by his own body.

Jurisdiction of municipalities is a far cry from human autonomy.

If you own your colon, you own the space inside of it, you stupid bitch. If you own your heart, you also own the blood that pumps through it. A Uterus is not some empty fucking space that is public fucking property for voters to decide on which procedures women should or should not be allowed to have done. Used to be that people like you would scream to high heaven over fucking BIRTH control, when it first came out. Get the fuck over yourself.

Sorry if the difference between "surrounding" and "absorbing" is too tough for you, Dog Girl.

Again, everything within the walls of a person's skin is theirs for the medical decision making.. I could care less what kind of strawman you are trying to pull at here, but it is a GIANT LEAP from reality.

There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb. Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I don't like and can't answer".

That, in and of itself, was an ad-hominem.. Your argument for "oh the space in your uterus is public property, for me to vote on, because I do not agree with the FACTS here" is not going to get any BETTER by claiming that my FACTS are the result of my not liking your arguments. Your arguments are just ridiculous.

Brilliant. "I think the laws on abortion should be this because this is what the laws on abortion are." Talk about circular reasoning. Talk about dimbulbs.

That is not what I said. Again, and this time I am saying it to you as a means to an end- I am not responding to any posts, even partially, if you are going to twist things around and play word games, or call me names all because you disagree.

You trying to represent your noxious ignorance as state-of-the-art religious teaching is pretty insulting.

Who said they didn't come at a bad time? The difference wasn't in the quality of circumstances between you and me. The difference was in the quality of woman.

Personally, I'm glad three children aren't "strapped down" by YOU. I feel very sorry for the child who IS cursed with you, and has to live being viewed as a burden to a waste of space, rather than valued as a blessing.

Oh, no, I'm well aware that being pregnant taught YOU nothing whatsoever. However, your experience is proof of nothing concerning anyone else's experience, unless they happen to be as shallow, selfish, and willfully obtuse as you are. I find it quite blissful that that doesn't describe me, thanks.

"Tee hee". Only a damned fool posts their own picture on the Internet for any crazed yahoo to get hold of. Just because you're as ignorant of Internet danger as you are of biology doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

Trust me, if you were to ever think anything I said lived up to what you consider logic, I would really have to rethink that position on the spot. I'll give you credit, though, for making my life look even better than usual. There, but for as traumatic brain injury, go I . . .

And still you flatter yourself, thinking that you are going to be allowed to arbitrarily define words and the parameters of the debate for everyone else. Tell me again why I'm going to accept your assertion on anything, Dog Girl?

Again, topic-hopping is ignorance, so you must be the most blissful person in the world. It's not even worth pointing out your deliberate misunderstandings anymore. I can just let them stand for everyone to laugh at.

LOL So now ONLY peer-reviewed medical journals are reliable sources of information, even for word definitions. Can you really be this stupid and desperate?

Autonomy is defined as self governance, which does not give any empirical results of personhood in the fetal stage.

As long as I'm not claiming dogs can impregnate humans, I'm way ahead of you in the argument, Punkinhead.

We'll never know if I can fight straightforward logic as long as I'm talking to you, my court jester. And as I've said many times, one of my main goals is to never descend into anything that YOU would view as reasonable, Dog Girl.

And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof.

Very true, but this is a thread about what the laws SHOULD be, not what they are at the moment. In the 60s, I could have said, "Just because you want to throw your children in the garbage because they get in the way of you bringing drunks home from the bar does NOT mean you have that right" and been just as correct, and just as irrelevant to the thread.

No you would not have been correct. The only problem before Roe was that no woman who had ever filed for abortion rights was actually pregnant at the time. Its a little thing called "standing". Roe had it first.

Really, if you can't thrash your way to rationality, at LEAST attempt to keep a hold on the topic, huh?

Because it's the only slim hope you have of regaining any shred of credibility after spending pages insisting to everyone that your dog really can impregnate you.

Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.

No, dumbass, because unlike you, I don't reject the entire dictionary as an unreliable source because it refuses to define words the way I want them. Therefore, I know what the word "fetus" means.

The dictionary is not a source of empirical evidence for personhood, at least where the definition of autonomy is concerned.

PS- = me laughing at your non attempts at debate, obviously having a meltdown. Get a fucking grip, will ya?

 

[Lizzy Massacre]

Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.

Please stop disingenuously conflating different issues. We are not talking about "independent" in the sense of being able to cook his own meals. We are talking independence in the biological sense, something you have made painfully obvious you cannot answer, given the way you run off and start talking about extraneous topics every time biology rears its ugly head in your path. You are fooling no one with this bait-and-switch nonsense.

Any reasonable person would infer that a biological dependence that relies on ONE single solitary organism remaining alive for the sole purpose of sustainment for the other organism is one that only involves ONE independent organism, and that would be the woman. Nobody in their right fucking mind would consider a youngster anything other than independent just because someone else cooks for them. This is a societal responsibility, one that is only EVER taken willingly. Bringing a child into the world willingly is one person's choice for them, and another person can make the choice to do the diaper changing, cooking, breastfeeding, etc. If a woman births a baby and nurses it, and becomes that baby's caregiver, it is because she is adding a person to her familial society, by choice. This is not an empirically physical dependence that the baby has. If the woman dies, the baby's dad, aunt, uncle, grandparent, neighbor, mailman, etc, can just as easily ensure that it gets a bottle as the late mother could have..
With a fetus, the physical dependence is empirical. Without the mother, the fetus' chances of making it to birth are nill.
This is empirical, not some bait and switch bullshit that I am just pulling out of my ass. Prove otherwise, and we can talk. I will not entertain any more of these bullshit whiny fucking posts by you three. Get through it.





YES it DOES. The fetus without the mother's blood being delivered to it, is inevitably miscarried. THAT is empirical. The fetus can not produce an ample supply of blood to its own system to survive gestation, and it can not manage its own wastes during gestation either. EMPIRICALLY.
Prove me wrong, if you can't swallow it, or shut the fuck up.




You have me all wrong. I am not pro death. I realize that you are anti abortion to the point of coercing your own (hypothetically) raped 13 year old daughter into having to deal with 9 months of gestation and painful childbirth, all because you think that a 13 year old is going to somehow experience all kinds of happiness by her screaming brat whose eyes would remind her of her attacker on a daily basis, and probably haunt her until the day that she dies.. But hey if that is what you call "pro life", then that is all you. I say let her decide for herself, without needing your permission. Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again, by FORCING them to give the rapist the winning ticket, and go through with an entire pregnancy, after which time, she will be on welfare, and have to explain to VARIOUS men and women and her little teenage friends where her kid's daddy is.. Fucking BITCH. You are goddamned lucky I am not your daughter. That is called POWER AND CONTROL, and even your teenaged daughter should not be subjected to it, BY YOU. How DARE you try to expect everyone to live up to some bullshit right to life standard that you have subjectively set for a fetus, with NO concern for the actual PERSON involved, as well??? I'm tellin ya.. if I was your kid, you would have a VERY different story to tell.



Jurisdiction of municipalities is a far cry from human autonomy.

If you own your colon, you own the space inside of it, you stupid bitch. If you own your heart, you also own the blood that pumps through it. A Uterus is not some empty fucking space that is public fucking property for voters to decide on which procedures women should or should not be allowed to have done. Used to be that people like you would scream to high heaven over fucking BIRTH control, when it first came out. Get the fuck over yourself.




Again, everything within the walls of a person's skin is theirs for the medical decision making.. I could care less what kind of strawman you are trying to pull at here, but it is a GIANT LEAP from reality.



That, in and of itself, was an ad-hominem.. Your argument for "oh the space in your uterus is public property, for me to vote on, because I do not agree with the FACTS here" is not going to get any BETTER by claiming that my FACTS are the result of my not liking your arguments. Your arguments are just ridiculous.




That is not what I said. Again, and this time I am saying it to you as a means to an end- I am not responding to any posts, even partially, if you are going to twist things around and play word games, or call me names all because you disagree.


































Autonomy is defined as self governance, which does not give any empirical results of personhood in the fetal stage.











No you would not have been correct. The only problem before Roe was that no woman who had ever filed for abortion rights was actually pregnant at the time. Its a little thing called "standing". Roe had it first.

Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.

No, dumbass, because unlike you, I don't reject the entire dictionary as an unreliable source because it refuses to define words the way I want them. Therefore, I know what the word "fetus" means.

The dictionary is not a source of empirical evidence for personhood, at least where the definition of autonomy is concerned.

PS- = me laughing at your non attempts at debate, obviously having a meltdown. Get a fucking grip, will ya?

LMAO!!! I love you JD_2B! I hope to have the time to add to this discussion later on but it seems you're doing my half just fine!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Today's homework assignment. Explain why we have day and night.

Because a few days into creation

Before this, the earth was shapeless and void. It wasn't even ROUNDED all the way,

It'
s not wholly rounded now, you twit.

The moon is reflective of sunlight, therefore it is a night time light source.

That which reflects light is not itself a light. By your reasning, a tree is a light.

That is not what it said. It said that the sun was made, then the water, then the plants. You are do idiotic it's scary.

Light, earth, water, plants, sun.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. UNless you claim the two greatlighjtsin the sky are some fireflies

here IS no EMPIRICAL life after death,

So we've established that you don't know what empirical means, or you'd know that it simply does not belong in that sentence. You don't want empirical evidemce and you're not allowed to use it, for to ask for such evidence is to spit in the face of faith and also open your religion up top debunking. The moment you places the bible above reality and fact, yu lost any claim to sanity, evidence, reason, or respect.

A soul is just a body. This is also another one that is consistent in the Bible. The bible says that there is no life, when we die.

:sigh:

Whatever. If you're too stupid to know your own religion, that's your own retardation and you have to live with it.

Body=/= Soul.

Try to stay on topic

Have you looked in the mirror?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ictims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again

Wait... Did you just compare every day you spend with your child to being raped?


And did you just cry that you should allowed to kill your baby because you like guys who beat you (as you said in another thread) and they don't like you having stretch marks?

So your own desire to get gangbanged by shallow guys is more important than the life of your child...

And they let you keep your kid?

Anyone else waiting for her to be the next woman in the news to drown her kid because the guy she wants doesn't want a child around?

There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb. Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I don't like and can't answer".

That, in and of itself, was an ad-hominem..

No, it';s not, you illiterate c*nt. Try learning what you're talking about for a change.

BTW, Norma McCormey didn't have an abortion, she admits to lying n court, and she's now an extreme pro-lifer.

Try selling her your little spiel.