Dehumanization of the Left

[dblack]

What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

How does a dunce like you come to use a work like 'book'????


Clearly you've never read one.


If a woman doesn't want a child.....don't participate in creating one.


Now....get lost, and stop being an apologist for murder.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

So, your response is to take away the ability of the developing child to control the contents of their body?

 

[dblack]

Go read it again...

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

So, your response is to take away the ability of the developing child to control the contents of their body?

Yep. People inside my body have no rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

So, your response is to take away the ability of the developing child to control the contents of their body?

Yep. People inside my body have no rights.

OK....if you intend on continuing to appear an imbecile......explain why you ignored this question earlier:

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?


'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.

That's called logic.



You may continue to shrug off the murder, as all the other good Germans did as well.

 

[Justin Richardson]

Liberal student arrested for punching pro-lifer on UNC campus, triggered by images of aborted children

"Those who stand by abortion don’t have the love in there heart."

 

[dblack]

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

So, your response is to take away the ability of the developing child to control the contents of their body?

Yep. People inside my body have no rights.

OK....if you intend on continuing to appear an imbecile......explain why you ignored this question earlier:

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

One is the contents of her body. The other isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you think the petty insults give more weight to your arguments? Or is that just your schtick?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

So, your response is to take away the ability of the developing child to control the contents of their body?

Yep. People inside my body have no rights.

OK....if you intend on continuing to appear an imbecile......explain why you ignored this question earlier:

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

One is the contents of her body. The other isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you think the petty insults give more weight to your arguments? Or is that just your schtick?

Your post has catapulted your status from 'a hint of Stupidity' to an announcement.



The very same historical signature of the Democrat Party, slavery, is being played out again in their stand for infanticide, abortion on demand.

Just as the 19th century Democrats decided that a man is a human being depended upon whether he was to be found in Mississippi or in Connecticut, today they claim a human being an be slaughtered until, not whether it has fingers and does, or viability, but rather whether it has passed through the birth canal.




"Out of curiosity, do you think the petty insults give more weight to your arguments?"

It wasn't petty or you wouldn't feel the need to mention it....but:
You deserve it.
I like doing it.
And, I'm really good at it.


You find it offensive...I find it truthful. I'm just more perceptive.

 

[dblack]

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

One is the contents of her body. The other isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you think the petty insults give more weight to your arguments? Or is that just your schtick?

Your post has catapulted your status from 'a hint of Stupidity' to an announcement.

Heh.. nice.

"Out of curiosity, do you think the petty insults give more weight to your arguments?"

It wasn't petty or you wouldn't feel the need to mention it....but:
You deserve it.
I like doing it.
And, I'm really good at it.


You find it offensive...I find it truthful. I'm just more perceptive.

I don't find it offensive at all. Just silly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.

Please, don't be stupid.

I'm not. If a human being doesn't control the contents of their own body, they are a slave to whoever claims that control. That's unacceptable in my book.

Stop lying.

I provided irrefutable proof, earlier, that it isn't her body: it is a separate and distinct human being that you are copacetic with slaughtering.


Wanna try to dispute it?

The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?







And worse, in a documented 98.5% of the cases, the reason is no more dramatic than 'convenience.'

Not health, not rape, not incest: convenience.

I'd venture to say that if that were a valid reason for murder, you might not be here.

 

[dblack]

Stop lying.

Mkay.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

No tap dancing at all. Even if it is a separate entity, doesn't mean she's obligated to keep it in her body if she doesn't want to.

Still waiting for you nuts to tell me how you are going to enforce your new abortion laws. Are you going to put women in prison when they test positive for pregnancy?

Good example of an inhuman Lefttard . Talks about "standards" yet opposes when "standards" are applied to abortion. This is one of Jose's pet issues. This dude Jose B holds Kermet Gosnell in high regard.

No one holds him in high regard. HE was terrible at his job, but he existed in the same world where Immigrant Store Owners sell expired food to poor people paying with food stamps. It kind of sucks to be poor in America in general, but it's not like you guys want to do all that much to fix that. Give them just enough money to keep them from rioting.

Here's the reality... before Roe, most abortion providers were Gosnell level incompetent. You are the guys who want to go back to that, because you have yet to tell me how you are going to prevent women from getting abortions.

 

[JoeB131]

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

THe year old is outside her body and she's under no obligation to take care of it.

 

[JoeB131]

Just as the 19th century Democrats decided that a man is a human being depended upon whether he was to be found in Mississippi or in Connecticut, today they claim a human being an be slaughtered until, not whether it has fingers and does, or viability, but rather whether it has passed through the birth canal.

actually, nobody claimed that slaves weren't human. They were in fact, counted for purposes of Censuses as people.

Again, I'm waiting for you to tell me how you are going to enforce your belief that fetuses are people. It really doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what you can enforce as a law.

Women won't obey the law.
Police won't enforce it.
Juries won't convict.

This is worse than having no law at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

THe year old is outside her body and she's under no obligation to take care of it.

Now for the world savages like you would authorize:

"Newborn Baby Dies After Being Discovered Alive Near Trash In The Bronx"
Newborn Baby Dies After Being Discovered Alive Near Trash In The Bronx


"Chicago police: 16-year-old is mother of baby found in alley"
Chicago police: 16-year-old is mother of baby found in alley


"Newborn baby found alive on top of garbage can in alley, police say'
Newborn baby found alive on top of garbage can in alley, police say


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

 

[JoeB131]

Now for the world savages like you would authorize:

Funny thing... if those women had access to family planning, these things wouldn't have happened. In the world you want, this would be a lot more common.

So you found two cases of women abandoning babies (you sourced the same story twice)... that's awful and all...

Now, here's what happens when you DON'T have family planning.

Yes, I take you once again to the Philippines, number one exporter of mail order brides!

The Philippines has 1.8 million abandoned children. Here's what keeps many from adoption

Rescued from life among the dead, Sambalilo then lived for years among the Philippine capital's notoriously negligent state-run shelters.

The Philippines has an abandoned children problem. About 1.8 million children in the country, more than 1% of its entire population, are "abandoned or neglected," according to the United Nations' Children's Rights & Emergency Relief Organization.

Wow. Two vs. 1.8 Million? I kind of like my world better... One where you find solutions instead of moralist preaching.

 

[Crixus]

Now for the world savages like you would authorize:

Funny thing... if those women had access to family planning, these things wouldn't have happened. In the world you want, this would be a lot more common.

So you found two cases of women abandoning babies (you sourced the same story twice)... that's awful and all...

Now, here's what happens when you DON'T have family planning.

Yes, I take you once again to the Philippines, number one exporter of mail order brides!

The Philippines has 1.8 million abandoned children. Here's what keeps many from adoption

Rescued from life among the dead, Sambalilo then lived for years among the Philippine capital's notoriously negligent state-run shelters.

The Philippines has an abandoned children problem. About 1.8 million children in the country, more than 1% of its entire population, are "abandoned or neglected," according to the United Nations' Children's Rights & Emergency Relief Organization.

Wow. Two vs. 1.8 Million? I kind of like my world better... One where you find solutions instead of moralist preaching.

We know you like your world better, but which one? The tank driver at the battle of the bulge, the Vietnam vet, or the army vet who was in Bruit? And of those would they be the ones who were raised by hard working union folk in Michigan, or the ones that raised you in Chicago all your life and let Mormons and nuns hit you ?

 

[JoeB131]

We know you like your world better, but which one? The tank driver at the battle of the bulge, the Vietnam vet, or the army vet who was in Bruit?

wouldn't know, since I never said any of those things, and what the fuck is "Bruit". (Seriously, guy, you should really get Grammarly or something. )

If your reading comprehension is as bad as your writing, it would explain much.

 

[Pete7469]

It's ok...it's expected of the left...to downplay the discussion.
They just rather run their mouths without having any thinking in the matter. Or have any rational conversation.

I have been saying this for years...

They CANNOT THINK.

Either through birth defects or lack of use, they do not have the frontal cortex capacity of the average person.

Think about how stupid the average person is...

Do you now understand why libturds can believe in the shit they do? These are not people who THINK.

You can not be THINKING and conclude collectivist economics can be made to work in a society of individuals with variable skills, motivations, and goals. It's totally impossible, it has been tried on macro and national levels only to result in massive casualties and the most horrific tyranny known to man. No other idea has ever lead to the misery and deaths that marxism has.

You can not be THINKING and conclude that human production of CO2, which accounts for all of 3% of the atmospheric CO2, which is responsible for 3% of the greenhouse effect is going to be the fulcrum on which life ceases to exist on this planet, unless we Americans, 4% of the world's population descend into a medieval standard of living.

You can not be THINKING and conclude that evil mother fuckers who ignore laws that severely punish criminal acts of murder with penalties including death, will obey laws that restrict them from acquiring guns regardless of the penalty.

You can not be THINKING and conclude that evangelical Christians, as annoying as some of them are, threaten the freedom of anyone to do anything they like that won't otherwise harm themselves or anyone else. There may be nuances and room to argue, but to complain about these people being a threat to you is utter lunacy. Try being a gay rights activist in Dearborn and get back to me.

They believe in some sort of Santa Marx that flies around the world every night except for Non-Secular Holidays with 13 gender neutral reindeer handing out free shit to oppressed non-whites. He lives in Moscow, is divorced and married to Ho Chi Mihn. He freed the elves and then purged them for converting to Buddhism. He is regarded as Saint in the Church of Global Warming, is a pastor at the Unitarian Church and a Deacon at Satan's Temple. He has proof Jim Jones is a true prophet and a victim of a right wing guerrilla assassination funded by the Bush family and that the Chernobyl disaster was caused by Ronald Reagan.

If you think that last paragraph wasn't loony enough, look at what liberals say everyday about Trump.

.

 

[sealybobo]

“When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body,” Quinn said. “This is about a woman having full agency and control of her body…and making decisions about what is part of her body with medical professionals.” - New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn



So, choices should be made by a 13-year old "woman"? Only because it is her body? So, the baby that is supposedly "not human" doesn't get to decide whether she/he will be able to live?

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Do you remember anything about it the first 12 weeks you were alive?

Hey if women are ok with banning abortion I’ll live with it.

And if the people who typically get abortions don’t vote then they will learn voting or not voting has consequences