10 Yr Old Rape Victim: A Terrible Tale of Illegal Immigration

[NotfooledbyW]

Those are your personal religious beliefs.

No. I decided to get a vasectomy after my second child because I did not want my wife to get pregnant again because I do not personally believe in aborting a not viable fetus even though that right rightfully exists, because I am a secular humanist and anti communist in case you might be wondering about that, But as a secular humanist American my most valued freedom in America is freedom from religion which includes freedom from being a Christian. Therefore I do not impose my conscience and choice of values on any other law abiding American specifically on the private matter of keeping or terminating a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, Freedom from religion is the foundation for every woman to have her reproductive rights protected by the Constitution not taken away as ding Mashmont and CarsomyrPlusSix want their states and all states to do. They are perverts to the Constitution.

 

[Red Front]

Equality is dehumanizing to you, then.

Well, no accounting for brains given you have the most vile ideology in history right there in your handle.



Both are human beings. Be less ignorant of scientific fact.


I don’t have one of those, pro-abort bigot.

There is no equality between a potential human being and an actual one. Just because something is human, doesn't make it a human being or person. If I extract a living cell from my body, that cell is human, but that in and of itself doesn't make it a being or person. It's not a "human being" or "person", it's simply a human cell, with the potential to become a human being if attached to technology and a uterus (a woman/actual human being). Scientifically there's zero evidence for embryos being human beings or persons.

An infant human being isn't an adult human being. The infant is a potential adult, not an actual one. If the infant dies, an adult didn't die, it was an infant that died. An embryo:

Isn't equivalent to a human being:

​

If the embryo dies, a human being didn't die. The will, interests, and prerogatives of the woman (the actual human being), take precedence over the non-existent will, interests, and prerogatives of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Equating an embryo or an undeveloped fetus to a woman's humanity and being, is itself dehumanizing because you're reducing an actual human being to something that is a mere potential human being. Human society itself determines what is correct and incorrect, not you as an individual or me. It's the community that decides such questions.

​

 

[Red Front]

No. I decided to get a vasectomy after my second child because I did not want my wife to get pregnant again because I do not personally believe in aborting a not viable fetus even though that right rightfully exists, because I am a secular humanist and anti communist in case you might be wondering about that, But as a secular humanist American my most valued freedom in America is freedom from religion which includes freedom from being a Christian. Therefore I do not impose my conscience and choice of values on any other law abiding American specifically on the private matter of keeping or terminating a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, Freedom from religion is the foundation for every woman to have her reproductive rights protected by the Constitution not taken away as ding Mashmont and CarsomyrPlusSix want their states and all states to do. They are perverts to the Constitution.

I agree, that women should have a right to end their pregnancies, at least early on, before the life in their womb becomes viable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Equating an embryo or an undeveloped fetus to a woman's humanity and being, is itself dehumanizing because you're reducing an actual human being to something that is a mere potential human being

I Absolutely agree Thanks

 

[Bob Blaylock]

An infant human being isn't an adult human being. The infant is a potential adult, not an actual one. If the infant dies, an adult didn't die, it was an infant that died. An embryo:

View attachment 684623

Isn't equivalent to a human being:

View attachment 684624

​

If the embryo dies, a human being didn't die. The will, interests, and prerogatives of the woman (the actual human being), take precedence over the non-existent will, interests, and prerogatives of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Equating an embryo or an undeveloped fetus to a woman's humanity and being, is itself dehumanizing because you're reducing an actual human being to something that is a mere potential human being. Human society itself determines what is correct and incorrect, not you as an individual or me. It's the community that decides such questions.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

There is no equality between a potential human being and an actual one.

Irrelevant, since a Homo sapiens at any stage of life from the beginning until death is a human being.

Just because something is human, doesn't make it a human being

This is pedantic bullshit and dishonest - you are wrongS

or person.

That is true. Hateful societies worth destroying have often denied personhood from human beings. You are in good company with genociders and slavers, which… communist, makes sense.

If I extract a living cell from my body, that cell is human, but that in and of itself doesn't make it a being or person.

Yawn. One of your cells is not the equivalent of the entire body of cells that make up another organism. One of your cells is just you. Your kid isn’t you. Your kid isn’t your property.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your kid isn’t your property.

Why is the unviable fetus of a woman at 12 weeks pregnant and unknown to you your property?

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 684669

Except you had to actually have laws and organizations to control slaves and holocaust victims.

Fetuses, not so much. Pop a pill, little Globby goes into the toilet.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except you had to actually have laws and organizations to control slaves and holocaust victims.

Fetuses, not so much. Pop a pill, little Globby goes into the toilet.

A human being's humanity is not tied to the ease with which that person's rights can be violated or denied.

And for that matter, it did not take any laws to allow slavery to happen, but rather a lack of laws to protect these people from being enslaved and abused.

 

[JoeB131]

A human being's humanity is not tied to the ease with which that person's rights can be violated or denied.

And for that matter, it did not take any laws to allow slavery to happen, but rather a lack of laws to protect these people from being enslaved and abused.

Actually, quite the contrary, slavery requires a FULL set of laws to make it happen.

Otherwise, the slave could say, "I'm done" and walk away at any time. In fact, that is one of the things that preceded the Civil War was slaves were running away from their masters, and you had to pass things like the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the Dred Scot Decision to enforce the legal institution of slavery.

Contrariwise, there were laws protecting slaves from murder or cruel treatment.

In fact one man was executed for murdering a female slave in 1840.

“for the murder of his own female slave, a woman named Mira...” : Law, Slavery and Incoherence in Antebellum North Carolina

openyls.law.yale.edu

Would now be a bad time to point out Brigham Young made Utah a slave territory?

https://www.utahhumanities.org/stories/items/show/201

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Would now be a bad time to point out Brigham Young made Utah a slave territory?

https://www.utahhumanities.org/stories/items/show/201

Slavery was controversial, in those times, among Mormons as among everyone else.

Brigham Young generally favored it (though he has said some things that suggested he was rather on the fence at times). Joseph Smith staunchly opposed slavery; and in fact, opposed the general view that most white Americans had that they were superior to blacks—a rather radical and extreme view, in his time.

“On January 2, 1843, the Prophet [Joseph Smith] made an interesting statement to Elders Orson Hyde and Willard Richards concerning blacks—one that may have even specifically referenced Elijah Abel. Hyde apparently wanted Joseph Smith’s take on the “situation of the negro.” The Prophet replied, “They [the blacks] came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. To this Elder Hyde is reported as saying, “Put them on the level, and they will rise above me,” to which Smith replied, “If I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me?” The Prophet went on to declare that, in his opinion, blacks should be equal with whites—“I would … put them on a national equalization.” He appears, however, to have favored segregation: “I would confine them by strict law to their own species.” Such separation was evidently meant to prevent tension between whites and blacks, which the Prophet seems to have considered inevitable in the event of “equalization.” Elijah Abel had just moved from Nauvoo to Cincinnati, and it is entirely plausible that Smith was referring to Abel personally when he suggested his listeners “go into Cincinnati” where “you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.”
― W. Kesler Jackson, Elijah Abel: The Life and Times of a Black Priesthood Holder​

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery was controversial, in those times, among Mormons as among everyone else.

Brigham Young generally favored it (though he has said some things that suggested he was rather on the fence at times). Joseph Smith staunchly opposed slavery; and in fact, opposed the general view that most white Americans had that they were superior to blacks—a rather radical and extreme view, in his time.

Uh, yeah, this would be the same Joseph Smith who wouldn't let blacks become full members of LDS (A policy that wasn't changed until 1979!!!) and called dark skin the "Curse of Ham".

Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham" - FAIR

www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Uh, yeah, this would be the same Joseph Smith who wouldn't let blacks become full members of LDS (A policy that wasn't changed until 1979!!!) and called dark skin the "Curse of Ham".

Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham" - FAIR

www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

You didn't even read the article at the link that you supplied, did you? You hoped that no one else would, either, that people would just assume that it supported whatever lies you were trying to tell. Given that you surely know how everyone here knows what a lying piece of shit you are, why would you assume such a thing?

in any event, the policies of the church that treated blacks unfavorably took place under Brigham Young. No such policies ever were in effect while Joseph Smith was alive. A quick skim of the article that you linked doesn't seem to indicate that it addresses that at all.

In any event, your persistent and hateful lies about my religion are not relevant to this thread, nor to any of the many other threads that you persist in derailing with these lies; other than to demonstrate what a lying piece of shit you are, and thus how lacking in credibility you are on any topic that you try to address in any thread.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't even read the article at the link that you supplied, did you? You hoped that no one else would, either, that people would just assume that it supported whatever lies you were trying to tell. Given that you surely know how everyone here knows what a lying piece of shit you are, why would you assume such a thing?

in any event, the policies of the church that treated blacks unfavorably took place under Brigham Young. No such policies ever were in effect while Joseph Smith was alive. A quick skim of the article that you linked doesn't seem to indicate that it addresses that at all.

You avoid the point, that the stuff about dark skin being a curse from God is in Mormon Scripture written by Smith (not God).

In any event, your persistent and hateful lies about my religion are not relevant to this thread, nor to any of the many other threads that you persist in derailing with these lies; other than to demonstrate what a lying piece of shit you are, and thus how lacking in credibility you are on any topic that you try to address in any thread.

You belong to a racist, misogynistic cult. So when you call for the murder of black people committing minor offenses or women just getting medical care you don't approve of, it really needs to be pointed out.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You avoid the point, that the stuff about dark skin being a curse from God is in Mormon Scripture written by Smith (not God).



You belong to a racist, misogynistic cult. So when you call for the murder of black people committing minor offenses or women just getting medical care you don't approve of, it really needs to be pointed out.

Again, your persistent, hateful lies about me and my religion are not relevant to this thread; and contribute nothing to it other than to tell us all what we already know, which is that you are a lying piece of shit, and that nothing that you can possibly have to say on this thread's topic, or on any other topic, is to be regarded as having any relevance or credibility.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, your persistent, hateful lies about me and my religion are not relevant to this thread; and contribute nothing to it other than to tell us all what we already know, which is that you are a lying piece of shit, and that nothing that you can possibly have to say on this thread's topic, or on any other topic, is to be regarded as having any relevance or credibility.

again, you belong to a racist and misogynistic cult, and that should be taken into account when considering anything you say.

Hey, I take that back... most Mormons at least PRETEND to be nice people. You are openly nasty.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bob_Blaylock-#306
View attachment 684669

NFBW: Your personhood right to life propaganda cartoon Bob Blaylock depicts three groups of humans from circa 1815, 1945 and 2015.

Do you acknowledge there is a definite and critical distinction regarding humanness that separates 2015 from 1815 & 1945? Or are we required to ignore scientific, spiritual and biological facts to join your religion driven right to life crusade because your religion is superior to our religion or lack there of?

Social human society historically teaches that we as viable humans, with past and present experience of consciousness, consistently refer to “human life” as a person identifiable by parental lineage who has passed a physiological and biologically crucial stage of life contingent upon said person being physically formed sufficiently to make a once in a lifetime, spark of life switch at a moment when the individual persons’ time in the natural universe comes into being and the mysterious creation of new life as the switch is pulled to on.

It comes with that momentous first breath as in Jewish spiritual belief for thousands of years when biological science of the mammalian heart indicate that fetal shunts are naturally and functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.

Science describes the physiological flip of the switch:

Formation of the human heart involves complex biological signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional cardiovascular adaptations that are fundamentally different from the neonate.​

​

The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed​

​

At birth, upon separation from the placental circulation, the neonatal cardiovascular system takes over responsibility of vital processes for survival. The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life END2208200901​

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Why is the unviable fetus of a woman at 12 weeks pregnant and unknown to you your property?

Hey moron, human beings can’t / shouldn’t be property, see the 13th Amendment and the morals behind it.

Hey moron, it being not legal to kill someone else doesn’t mean I own them as property, that doesn’t make any sense and the implication confirms mental retardation on your part.

 

[Red Front]

Irrelevant, since a Homo sapiens at any stage of life from the beginning until death is a human being.


This is pedantic bullshit and dishonest - you are wrongS


That is true. Hateful societies worth destroying have often denied personhood from human beings. You are in good company with genociders and slavers, which… communist, makes sense.


Yawn. One of your cells is not the equivalent of the entire body of cells that make up another organism. One of your cells is just you. Your kid isn’t you. Your kid isn’t your property.

No, all life that belongs within the category of "Homo Sapien Sapien" (our genus and species), is not a being or person. An individual human cell, zygote or embryo:

Human Cell - Containing Human/Homo Sapien Sapien DNA & Life = Not Human Being

Human Zygote - Containing Human/Homo Sapien Sapien DNA & Life = Not Human Being

Human Embryo - Containing Human/Homo Sapien Sapien DNA & Life = Not Human Being


None of the above, even at the stage of an unviable fetus, is a human being/person, with rights, will, interests and prerogatives:

HUMAN BEING/PERSON ​

(A WOMAN, IS AN ADULT HUMAN FEMALE, THAT IS A MEMBER OF HUMAN SOCIETY, POSSESSING A VIABLE, INDEPENDENT, HUMAN SENTIENT EXISTENCE, IDENTITY, PERSONALITY, WILL, INTERESTS, PREROGATIVES, LEGITIMATE NEEDS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS CREATED, RECOGNIZED, AND ENFORCED BY A COMMUNITY OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS)

Only religious people like you reduce the value and status of women (i.e. actual human beings) to individual cells, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. You're degrading human beings, especially women. You don't really care about life in other people's wombs, you just want to punish women for engaging in what you consider to be illicit sexual activity. You're just butt hurt that these women are having sex in a way that you consider to be "unholy" or maybe you're just angry that they're not having sex with you?

More, your concern for prenatal life in other people's bodies, is hypocritical and shouldn't be taken seriously because as a religious right-wing conservative you hold political views that undermine the ability of low-income single mothers to raise their children. You defund and vote against the enaction of laws and social programs that adequately provide single mothers with the resources they need to feed, house, clothe, educate and care for their children. You cut programs that help single mothers with all of the aforementioned necessities of life, for themselves and their children. Single mothers (and women in general) need job protection laws (or at least a job guarantee in the public sector from the government), that prohibit their employers from firing them if they get pregnant. They need adequate maternity and sick leave benefits. They need access to assistance for food, housing, healthcare, job training, daycare, school lunch programs, school supplies..etc.

Religious, right-wing Republicans (Republicans in general, but especially the Bible-believing Christians), are against the government providing these services claiming that private charity or a "GoFundMe.Com" account, will take care of it. Well, unfortunately, private charity doesn't provide the required, large-scale, comprehensive, effective solution to resolve the problem and there's no reason why single mothers should suffer due to your skewed, arbitrary views about the role of government, much less go around begging for charity. Our government can and will adequately provide these women with the assistance they need, from tax income at the state and local level or/and the federal budget (not dependent upon taxes but rather national GDP).

You're not willing to pay an extra $20 monthly in taxes or an extra 2% sales tax to ensure that low-income single mothers have everything they need to raise their children, but are more than willing and able to spend $100+ monthly in Papa Johns Pizza, Taco Bell, Movies and other sources of recreation and entertainment. So how serious is your concern for life in other people's wombs? About ZERO. You're just disingenuously pretending to care about life in other people's wombs and trying to punish women who you consider to be "harlots", engaging in premarital, illicit sex by forcing them to remain pregnant against their will and at their great expense (including at the expense of society as well, for it is well known that children raised in hardship and poverty are more likely to turn to a life of violent crime and end up in prison).

If you want these women to consider carrying that life in their wombs for nine months, with all of the risks and hazards associated with it, then the least you can do is pay an extra $20 monthly or/and 2% more in sales tax. It's that simple. Prove that you're actually concerned for that life in her womb, by providing single mothers with the resources they need to care for that life once it is born, a human being and member of society. If you're not willing to do that, then your concern for life in other people's bodies shouldn't be taken seriously and it should be ignored. It's hypocritical religious bullshit.

​

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

No, all life that belongs within the category of "Homo Sapien Sapien" (our genus and species), is not a being or person.

All human beings are human beings. All human beings should be legal persons and would be if not for hateful bigots like you.

View attachment 684989
Human Cell - Containing Human/Homo Sapien Sapien DNA & Life = Not Human Being​

A human being in the zygote stage of life is a human being. You are wrong and your assertion is objectively false and stupid.

At any stage of life a human being is a human being.

Human Zygote - Containing Human/Homo Sapien Sapien DNA & Life = Not Human Being​

Objectively false and stupid. What species are they then?

HUMAN BEING/PERSON ​

(A MEMBER OF HUMAN SOCIETY,

Fuck society. You don’t need any one else around to be a “human being.”

HUMAN RIGHTS CREATED AND ENFORCED BY A COMMUNITY OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS)

Meaningless subjectively easily revocable privileges are not “rights.” Objectively wrong and stupid.

​

Only religious people like you

Objectively false, unobservant, and stupid.

You're degrading human beings, especially women.

Equality isn’t “degrading.” Stupid.

You don't really care about life in other people's wombs, you just want to punish women for engaging in what you consider to be illicit sexual activity.

Sex is fine, but if you make kids take care of your kids, don’t be a deadbeat and certainly don’t be a fucking monster.

adequately provide single mothers with the resources they need to feed, house, clothe, educate and care for their children

End the welfare state. Also, ban abortion. Don’t conflate disparate issues, communist.

job protection laws

End all “job protection laws.”

Prove that you're actually concerned for that life in her womb

Absolutely. Punish their homicide as murder, done.

No socialist nonsense needed. Eat shit, gg.