Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[JBeukema]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?

 

[Immanuel]

When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.

Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up? They give me a headache every time.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Huh?

 

[AllieBaba]

When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.

Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up? They give me a headache every time.

Immie

The people who post in them are funny. Either intentionally, when yanking her chain, or inadvertently, when spouting stupidity.

 

[JBeukema]

tm and deany are on ignore

boring trolls, they are

 

[Cecilie1200]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS? And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense. I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".

 

[Immanuel]

When all else fails, subscribe to a Truthmatters thread. Those always cheer me up.

Hmmmm, how on earth do her threads cheer you up? They give me a headache every time.

Immie

The people post in them are funny. Either intentionally, when yanking her chain, or inadvertently, when spouting stupidity.

Her inconsistent view of truth and facts are mind-boggling to say the least. And her partisanship while actually seeming to believe that she is fair-minded is extremely irritating.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't even read her posts. It's the responses to them.

I guess I'm the only one, lol.

 

[Cecilie1200]

tm and deany are on ignore

boring trolls, they are

You know, I've never gotten around to ignoring rdean. He's just not important enough to warrant the effort.

 

[JBeukema]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS? And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense. I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".

Seeing as trees and humans are both organisms... I'm pretty sure synth is one of those special ed kids you told me to not make fun of

 

[xsited1]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Comparing human life to a tree... Maybe we can make paper out of human beings and save the trees. That's the ticket.

 

[AllieBaba]

He's just saying that babies aren't human.

 

[JBeukema]

humans and trees are both organisms...

 

[xsited1]

He's just saying that babies aren't human.

Since babies and young children can't take of themselves (i.e., aren't viable), I propose that mothers be given the right to abort their kids until the age of 7. Except in the case of a pregnant woman being murdered. In that case, it's a double homicide.

Isn't this fun? Make up crap to justify murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.

And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.

Unreal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's just saying that babies aren't human.

Just goes to show how many times I've heard these inane arguments, when I can glean them from complete incoherency.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't even read her posts. It's the responses to them.

I guess I'm the only one, lol.

That is probably a good thing for your own sanity. I have begun avoiding her threads at times just to keep mine, but sometimes a topic will just catch my attention.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.

And to think it was you who started this thread accusing the pro-choice people of not being able to make a cogent well thought out argument.

Unreal.

What about shooting it as it's crowning? Halfway out? One toe in?

Right after her water breaks?

Five minutes before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?
Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

Three seconds before that?

The day before that?

Ten seconds before that?

One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?
One millisecond before that?

When does what change?

 

[Synthaholic]

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?

Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS? And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense. I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".

JB said:

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Just because it's an organism doesn't make it a baby. It's a seed, like an acorn is a seed that under the right conditions can become a tree.

If you need another analogy, let me know.

 

[JBeukema]

an unborn child is a seed?


you fail biology forever