This is disgusting

[BackAgain]

Blah, blah, .....is too.


Got smoked.

You can always tell when horseshit has lost. He posts again.

 

[80zephyr]

They are biological ethicists speaking of "life" in a broad biological sense. It isn't "human" life....it's existence, undistinguished from a hen's egg.

They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?

 

[BackAgain]

They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?

I doubt he will want to answer that.

Also, he is likely to conflate the notion of the start of human life with “personhood.”

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I doubt he will want to answer that.

Also, he is likely to conflate the notion of the start of human life with “personhood.”

yup the dishonest fucks claim it isnt human until born.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You can always tell when horseshit has lost. He posts again.

No...

You have asserted that your case is"more apt" than mine, but have offered no support for your position.

Again, your original assertion was broad and entirely inaccurate. You haven't demonstrated credible authority on matters of the law.

 

[The5thHorseman]

They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?

No....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.

The same argument applies to fertilization across all species.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.

The same argument applies to fertilization across all species.

a fertilized Human egg is a human a fertilized pig egg is a pig pretty simply concept

 

[BackAgain]

No..

See? There you go posting again. Ergo, you’ve lost. Again.

You have asserted that your case is"more apt" than mine, but have offered no support for your position.

False. I quoted the law itself. You? Not so much.

I also didn’t speak of “apt.” Your ignorance is showing.

Again, your original assertion was broad and entirely inaccurate. You haven't demonstrated credible authority on matters of the law.

My original assertion was to dispute yours, you moron.

I could assign you some homework, but it’s obvious you couldn’t comprehend it all on your own. (That’s why I quoted excerpts from the SCOTUS case that shows I’m right. I even highlight some of the most pertinent parts in bold. Just for you! You’re welcome.)

 

[The5thHorseman]

See? There you go posting again. Ergo, you’ve lost. Again.

False. I quoted the law itself. You? Not so much.

I also didn’t speak of “apt.” Your ignorance is showing.

My original assertion was to dispute yours, you moron.

I could assign you some homework, but it’s obvious you couldn’t comprehend it all on your own. (That’s why I quoted excerpts from the SCOTUS case that shows I’m right. I even highlight some of the most pertinent parts in bold. Just for you! You’re welcome.)

Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the family is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Among other things, the Court said​

It is your citation to a case which is inapposite that lacks currency.

You wanna split hairs now?

 

[80zephyr]

No....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.

The same argument applies to fertilization across all species.

So, who should I believe? You or my link? Choices, choices...

 

[The5thHorseman]

So, who should I believe? You or my link? Choices, choices...

If you went back to the source paper you would see the distinction made...

 

[80zephyr]

If you went back to the source paper you would see the distinction made...

Is biology science?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Is biology science?

It is referenced in your citation

 

[The5thHorseman]

I doubt he will want to answer that.

Also, he is likely to conflate the notion of the start of human life with “personhood.”

When the unsolicited color commentary begins, you know someone got cleated.

 

[80zephyr]

It is referenced in your citation

Does human life begin at conception?

 

[BackAgain]

You wanna split hairs now?

I never said the family was beyond some government involvement.

Do you want to persist in denying the holding of Troxel?

Here. I’ll summarize it by quoting one of their holdings, again:

“In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972)”

Did you catch on yet? Fundamental right. Of parents. To make decisions concerning care … of their children. Citing a 1972 case in 2000.

 

[BackAgain]

When the unsolicited color commentary begins, you know someone got cleated.

Again, for the continuing education of the stupid libtards — like horseshit — this is what’s called a “message” board. In such places, one person may say something. Another may respond. And others may join in.

If you find yourself getting all bothered by those other people commenting on any given thread to some of the universally I ignorant and stupid shit you spew, you can always run away instead.

Pack your tampons, horseshit.

Bye.

And yes. You were “cleated.” That happens often to you very tragically stupid people. Alas. Poor you.

 

[San Souci]

You geniuses can’t figure out that these policies exist because kids are afraid of their parents and their bigotry.

Sick kids should be taken to Psychologists. Not taught that being Queer is Normal.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

The fundies want to kill these kids or at the very least force them to live in a living hell the rest of their lives. These people are evil. Religion held this species back for thousands of years and doesn't give a damn about what is right or understanding much of anything. It is disgusting.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Sick kids should be taken to Psychologists. Not taught that being Queer is Normal.

WTF is "normal"?