A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Boss]

You want to take us back into the 18th Century.

No... YOU are in the 18th century. The EARLY 18th century, before Constitutional civil rights for humans existed. I'm in the 21st century where we respect the rights of all human beings.

 

[Boss]

Likewise, a zygote is not a human being. Saying "Life begins at conception" is bullshit since both the sperm and egg were already alive.

They were alive but not living human organisms. A zygote is a living human organism and is in the state of being. It is a living human being. It is in the zygote stage of development, just as it will be in the fetal stage, the infant stage, the child stage, the adolescent stage, the adult stage and the geriatric stage. At NO time does it ever change what it is.

 

[Boss]

At some point in growth, a fetus becomes a human being. By law, based on science, that is 24 weeks.

No... By LAW... that is when the fetus becomes "viable" ...not when it becomes a human being.

By SCIENCE it becomes a human being the moment the fused egg cell produces another cell.

If there is "growth" then logic should tell you SOMETHING is alive and growing... if it's not a human organism, tell us what it is?

It does NOT "at some point in growth" begin to be what it already is and what it was from the moment it began growing.

 

[Chuz Life]

If prenatal children are not constitutionally persons, then those opposed to our fetal homicide laws should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those who are presently convicted.

A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

Yes.

It does.

Prove it.

The last time we were so arrogant as to determine whether or not a living, breathing, human being was a "person".... we ended up with the 3/5th compromise.

Are you saying you want us to act like that again?

Fetuses are not breathing human beings. A pregnant woman is....and she deserves more respect than you conservatives are willing to give. I want you to act like a "thinking" person and quit comparing oranges to apples.

A child in the fetal stage of their life "breathes" through cellular respiration in essentially the same way that an adult does. The only difference is the location of where the echanges of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place.

 

[Chuz Life]

You provided a picture of animal and human fetuses, and asked us to identify the human....the implication is that human fetuses are not recognizably human, and therefore undeserving of protection.

So you obviously think humanity is based upon appearance. If a person looks different than what you expect, then it's okay to kill them. Right?

On the contrary, I believe human beings are grown.

If I cut down someone's apple tree for firewood, then offered them seeds as replacement, I'm certain they wouldn't be happy since an apple seed isn't the same as an apple tree.

Likewise, a zygote is not a human being. Saying "Life begins at conception" is bullshit since both the sperm and egg were already alive. Same goes for cheek cells washed down the drain every time someone brushes their teeth. Same goes for every one of those fetuses pictured previously.

At some point in growth, a fetus becomes a human being. By law, based on science, that is 24 weeks.

So a human being in the zygote stage of their life is not human? Or are you saying that they don't actually exist?

If a human being in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being. . . Then what kind of being are they?

Even an amoeba is considered to be a living being and a member of their species, even as all they will ever be is one cell on size.

 

[koshergrl]

You provided a picture of animal and human fetuses, and asked us to identify the human....the implication is that human fetuses are not recognizably human, and therefore undeserving of protection.

So you obviously think humanity is based upon appearance. If a person looks different than what you expect, then it's okay to kill them. Right?

On the contrary, I believe human beings are grown.

If I cut down someone's apple tree for firewood, then offered them seeds as replacement, I'm certain they wouldn't be happy since an apple seed isn't the same as an apple tree.

Likewise, a zygote is not a human being. Saying "Life begins at conception" is bullshit since both the sperm and egg were already alive. Same goes for cheek cells washed down the drain every time someone brushes their teeth. Same goes for every one of those fetuses pictured previously.

At some point in growth, a fetus becomes a human being. By law, based on science, that is 24 weeks.

Typical progressive death cultist bullshit.

A zygote is a new and individual life. We all know there's a difference between a living sperm, a living egg, and a new human. Stop playing that disingenuous game. The only people who takes it seriously are half witted baby killers.

A fetus is a human being, at a particular stage of life. Just as a baby is a human being at a particular stage, just as an elder is a human at a particular stage. There is no *science* that determines when it's ok to kill a baby because it's not really a human. For one thing, science doesn't determine humanity. For another, science doesn't measure humanity. For another, there is no "science" that dictates that a human becomes a *being* at 24 weeks. You are not just disingenuous, therefore...you are a liar.

And in fact, I would argue that if a fetus isn't human, neither are baby killers. If we are just going to arbitrarily decide who and who isn't human, based on whether we like the way they look or whether or not we want to take care of them, I have decided that baby killers are inhuman blobs who should therefore submit to the same treatment as any other trash or diseased tissue.

 

[koshergrl]

But the pretense that when we talk about abortion we're talking solely about zygotes is disingenuous as well. Most abortions are well beyond the zygote stage.

 

[Dana7360]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

I'm sorry but I would love to know where in the constitution it says that a fetus has rights?

That's the thing. If the anti choice people are going to take it to the supreme court they have to have a constitutional leg to stand on.

They don't.

So their problem is that even though they don't know the meaning of words in the English language, judges do.

No judge who is honest and knows our constitution would ever rule that something that's not alive has any rights. Much less more rights than a woman who is alive.

 

[Dana7360]

It doesn't matter what you call it. Women have the constitutional right to do with their own pregnancies as they choose. You still don't get to make that choice for them.

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No she isn't. I want her to pay for the choice she made. She isn't asking for help, she's refusing to pay for a choice she made. It's not a matter of what I want but a matter of what SHE chose to do. My wants don't make the decision. Her choice does.

If she make the CHOICE, she gets the costs. If she can't pay, that leave two options. Do without or get idiots like you that think being told to butt out then willing to be told to pay is a good idea. Either way, her kids are not my responsibility.

So on one hand you demand that she doesn't terminate and gives birth.

Then on the other hand you tell her not to feed or clothe that child.

You whine and moan about life and feeding a child.

So if she has that abortion you don't have to help feed a child. Which is what you want. To not help to feed a child.

You don't pay for the abortion. The hyde amendment prevents federal dollars from paying for an abortion so the abortion is FREE to you.

Her NOT having that abortion will cost you money.

Yet you want to prevent her from having that abortion.

You don't make any sense.

 

[koshergrl]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

I'm sorry but I would love to know where in the constitution it says that a fetus has rights?

That's the thing. If the anti choice people are going to take it to the supreme court they have to have a constitutional leg to stand on.

They don't.

So their problem is that even though they don't know the meaning of words in the English language, judges do.

No judge who is honest and knows our constitution would ever rule that something that's not alive has any rights. Much less more rights than a woman who is alive.

Again.

A fetus is a stage of HUMAN development.

You loons are the ones who change the language. Every time you want to kill a group of people, you change the language so they're no longer considered human. It's what you do. We need to change the language so that you don't have any rights, and we can cull you.

 

[koshergrl]

When they choose to have a child they can't afford, why is their choice forcibly funded by those they told to butt out of the one they made to have it? What it boils down to is people like you want the woman to have the choice but don't expect her to take responsibility for it. It's that simple.

See, this argument confuses those of us who are pro-choice. You do not want a woman getting an abortion; that's a sin, murder, blah, blah, blah. However, if a poor woman decides she she agrees with you, then you get angry that she needs assistance. You only seem interested in protecting the interests of that "innocent life" so long as it is being kept alive by a womb. Why is that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So all poor women choose to have children they can't afford because they think abortion is murder? Prove it.

My problem is that people like you want the rest of us and the government to butt out of her choice yet don't have a second thought about demanding that same government force the rest of us she told to butt out to pay for her choice.

She can have all the children she wants as long as SHE pays for them. Once she makes the choice, it's her responsibility not mine.

If I go out and buy a house I knowingly can't afford, is it your responsibility to make the payment if I can't?

But this woman is doing what you want her to do. She putting " the life of her unborn child" above her own comfort, convenience, or even financial ability! Why are you so angry that she is now asking for your help?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No she isn't. I want her to pay for the choice she made. She isn't asking for help, she's refusing to pay for a choice she made. It's not a matter of what I want but a matter of what SHE chose to do. My wants don't make the decision. Her choice does.

If she make the CHOICE, she gets the costs. If she can't pay, that leave two options. Do without or get idiots like you that think being told to butt out then willing to be told to pay is a good idea. Either way, her kids are not my responsibility.

So on one hand you demand that she doesn't terminate and gives birth.

Then on the other hand you tell her not to feed or clothe that child.

You whine and moan about life and feeding a child.

So if she has that abortion you don't have to help feed a child. Which is what you want. To not help to feed a child.

You don't pay for the abortion. The hyde amendment prevents federal dollars from paying for an abortion so the abortion is FREE to you.

Her NOT having that abortion will cost you money.

Yet you want to prevent her from having that abortion.

You don't make any sense.

Typical nazi reasoning.

We all know there's no need to kill children just because mom and dad are mentally ill and can't provide for them. There are people lining up to adopt..though assholes like you have made it almost impossible for anybody except fags to adopt these days.

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

 

[Dana7360]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

Except that nobody is trying to do away with gun rights. Regulation is what the Constitution demanded and somehow conservatives love to ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own an AR15.....especially one who is on a no-fly list because of suspicion, but regressive gun idolizers think that every suggestion toward gun safety is meant to take their precious guns away, so they would rather continue to see the carnage than to be reasonable.

"A well regulated Militia,

I agree and will add another part of the constitution that gives the government the right to regulate guns.

It's called the Commerce Clause.

One simple sentence in the constitution that gives the government the power and right to regulate commerce.

There are no exceptions to what commerce the government can regulate in that one simple sentence.

If you're doing commerce, the government can regulate it.

 

[Czernobog]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

 

[Conservative65]

The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.

We shouldn't even be discussing this age old issue....it has been settled, and only regressives are fighting to turn back the clock. And apparently you and your ilk have not been able to convince the majority that a fetus is a "person", even though your party doesn't stop at clever ways to try and make a fertilized egg a person, you still fail. And, no, a fertilized egg at any stage of development is not a more valuable entity than a woman....end of story.

Gun rights have been decided for years as well dear. And your right , neither of these is going to change. If Ted Cruz could nominate an entire Court abortion would not be made illegal, and if Clinton could nominate an entire court gun ownership would not be made illegal, thus proving that these two issues are PURE BULLSHIT political fodder used by those who wish to control us as scare tactics to get morons to elect them.

Except that nobody is trying to do away with gun rights. Regulation is what the Constitution demanded and somehow conservatives love to ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own an AR15.....especially one who is on a no-fly list because of suspicion, but regressive gun idolizers think that every suggestion toward gun safety is meant to take their precious guns away, so they would rather continue to see the carnage than to be reasonable.

"A well regulated Militia,

I agree and will add another part of the constitution that gives the government the right to regulate guns.

It's called the Commerce Clause.

One simple sentence in the constitution that gives the government the power and right to regulate commerce.

There are no exceptions to what commerce the government can regulate in that one simple sentence.

If you're doing commerce, the government can regulate it.

I'll agree that you're a moron.

 

[Chuz Life]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

I'm sorry but I would love to know where in the constitution it says that a fetus has rights?

That's the thing. If the anti choice people are going to take it to the supreme court they have to have a constitutional leg to stand on.

They don't.

So their problem is that even though they don't know the meaning of words in the English language, judges do.

No judge who is honest and knows our constitution would ever rule that something that's not alive has any rights. Much less more rights than a woman who is alive.

Yes we do have a leg to stand on to challenge Roe.

When Roe was decided, the SCOTUS said that a State COULD establish that a fetus is a human being and all sides agreed that once a State does that- the proaborts will have a near IMPOSSIBLE case in favor of abortion.

Since Roe was decided, more than 35 States have enacted fetal homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER to criminally kill a child in the womb.

The SCOTUS will be asked to consider how the charge of MURDER in a fetal homicide case legally establishes the personhood of the child that was killed.

Once Personhood is established, the 14th Amendment will apply equally to children in the womb as it does for everyone else.

 

[koshergrl]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

I don't want it both ways. YOu guys can't seem to grasp the concept that there doesn't have to be federal assistance for people who make bad choices. You don't even look at that as a choice. You believe the lie that people will die if the feds butt out of food distribution, and we stop killing babies. It's a straight communist line. Everything you said in that post is false premise, built upon the false premise that abortions protect children from starvation.

Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing abortion reduces hunger among children. It's the stupidest argument that has ever been made, it has never been proven, yet you dolts push it like it's the Word Of The Creator.

What happens when welfare is removed and when abortion isn't available on demand is that people make better choices. They work. They think about sex seriously before they hop into bed with losers. Parents take more interest in what their daughters are doing, because they have to support their daughters themselves, and they don't want to support the illegitimate children of Julio from the Barrio. People learn to care for and protect their families, and to value things that make families strong..like marriage, and work, and education (the real kind. History, math...Not the sort that progressives push.)

So come back when you have something besides nonsense to defend baby killing.

The fact is..when you get rid of lies and false premises, pro abortion loons are exposed for what they are....progressive ding bats who see nothing wrong with killing and exploiting vulnerable populations. They think there are too many people, they are jealous of what other people have and think that they should be able to eliminate groups they don't approve of so that they can distribute whatever resources they have amongst themselves. That's why they always pretend that abortion saves money. That is an important consideration to them!

 

[koshergrl]

That would mean women would lose their rights.....

Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."

Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.

I'm sorry but I would love to know where in the constitution it says that a fetus has rights?

That's the thing. If the anti choice people are going to take it to the supreme court they have to have a constitutional leg to stand on.

They don't.

So their problem is that even though they don't know the meaning of words in the English language, judges do.

No judge who is honest and knows our constitution would ever rule that something that's not alive has any rights. Much less more rights than a woman who is alive.

Incidentally..the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights.

It protects rights that already exist. We have rights that aren't necessarily listed in the constitution.

But the right to life is definitely front and center in the constitution, and is definitely a basic human right.

 

[koshergrl]

Nazis convinced the Poles that abortion was *good* for them, too.

The Chinese said the same thing.

SSDD, same death cultist people pushing the same agenda.

 

[Conservative65]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

 

[Czernobog]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

I don't want it both ways. YOu guys can't seem to grasp the concept that there doesn't have to be federal assistance for people who make bad choices. You don't even look at that as a choice. You believe the lie that people will die if the feds butt out of food distribution, and we stop killing babies. It's a straight communist line. Everything you said in that post is false premise, built upon the false premise that abortions protect children from starvation.

Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing abortion reduces hunger among children. It's the stupidest argument that has ever been made, it has never been proven, yet you dolts push it like it's the Word Of The Creator.

What happens when welfare is removed and when abortion isn't available on demand is that people make better choices. They work. They think about sex seriously before they hop into bed with losers. Parents take more interest in what their daughters are doing, because they have to support their daughters themselves, and they don't want to support the illegitimate children of Julio from the Barrio. People learn to care for and protect their families, and to value things that make families strong..like marriage, and work, and education (the real kind. History, math...Not the sort that progressives push.)

So come back when you have something besides nonsense to defend baby killing.

The fact is..when you get rid of lies and false premises, pro abortion loons are exposed for what they are....progressive ding bats who see nothing wrong with killing and exploiting vulnerable populations. They think there are too many people, they are jealous of what other people have and think that they should be able to eliminate groups they don't approve of so that they can distribute whatever resources they have amongst themselves. That's why they always pretend that abortion saves money. That is an important consideration to them!

Bullshit. statistics actually prove that birth rates have steadily declined since abortions were legalized in 1973. Common sense demands that if the number of infants being born is declining, so is the occurrence of infants born into poverty and hunger. Furthermore it was you who insisted that no child ever goes hungry in this country, because a mother can "trip on down to Welfare". Suddenly, when offered the choice of keeping abortion, or Welfare, you change your tune to "We don't need welfare, and you can't have abortion". Nice back-pedal. "...people who make bad choices...people make better choices..." tells us everything we need to know about your agenda. You don't give a rat's ass about the welfare, or rights of children. You don't give a rat's ass about the "human life" inside a woman's womb. You just want to be able to use the government to dictate that women behave according to the morals you think are appropriate. And you have the audacity to call us nazis!