A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[BlueGin]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

See? Even you call it an "it". When I talk about a person, I talk about "his, or her". When I talk about a thing, I talk about "its". Your own recognition of a fetus as a thing, not a person, betrays your position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The use of "it" denotes an unknown at that time gender. That's why I use the term when referring to a transgender freak.

 

[Conservative65]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.

If the girl didn't have insurance, guess who gets the bill. Those of us told to butt out of her choice to have an abortion. Pro abortion people have no problem giving the choice yet a total problem with holding the one making the choice personally responsible.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Agreed on the legal point.

I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.

hu·man be·ing
noun

1. a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Let's try some deductive reasoning to see how intellectually honest you are about this topic.

1. This from Planned Parenthood:
zygote
The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.

2. This if from the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

3. Consider This from Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.of Princeton University:
"upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

4. Then, you might consider the science about aging:
"Aging is a process that begins at conception and continues for as long as we live. At any given time throughout our lifespan, the body reflects:

• its genetic component and
• its environmental experience."
  
  

5. Lastly, I will leave you with some simple questions. "What is it that makes your biological father YOUR biological father and when or how did he first become YOUR biological parent?

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:

1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?

Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't imply that at all. You incorrectly inferred it that way.

Two more of our nation's founding principle are the inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness. What gives you the authority to proclaim that money I earned isn't mine to do with as I please, a.k.a. liberty, and that in taking it to do things you think someone else has more of a right to use it for than me should lessen my pursuit of happiness?

If someone doesn't have the money to buy their own food and you think that means it's OK to take it from someone else because people don't voluntarily give enough, you and those who think like you are at fault. If someone starves to death because, as you say, people don't voluntarily give enough, you're to blame. If people aren't giving enough and, as a result, others do without help, unless you give more and do what you say there isn't enough of being done, their starvation is your fault.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:

1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?

Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.

It's a scam. It's the have-nots forcing the haves to support them, and pretending that it's about supporting some other population that needs it more. We will take care of women and babies.

You feed your own damn self.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:

1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?

Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.

It's a scam. It's the have-nots forcing the haves to support them, and pretending that it's about supporting some other population that needs it more. We will take care of women and babies.

You feed your own damn self.

I'd say let the woman with the baby she can't afford to support feed herself, too.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Agreed on the legal point.

I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.

Explain how a zygote isn't a human being.

Start with dna.

You're as stupid as the midget that started this thread.

 

[BlueGin]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women…

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Seeing as how just this week we had a 16 year old girl come into the ER with a high grade fever and abdominal pain that turned out to be an " incomplete abortion". Pro abortion people have no problem with the mutilation of females.

If the girl didn't have insurance, guess who gets the bill. Those of us told to butt out of her choice to have an abortion. Pro abortion people have no problem giving the choice yet a total problem with holding the one making the choice personally responsible.

And they lie to teens telling them it's safe and they are not obligated to tell their parents. Yet when the kids are deathly ill... Guess who brings them to the ER??

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

Czernobog claims that reason the government has to take money from one to help another is that people don't voluntarily give enough. Since what I give and to whom I give voluntarily is my choice since it's my money, seems the ones to blame are people like him that want the government to make the rest of us pay more. I've heard plenty like him say that they wouldn't have a problem with the government telling them to pay more in taxes if it meant the money would go to help someone in need. That leads to two questions:

1) If they don't think that people voluntarily give enough and look to the government to make people give more, isn't the problem with what they say is insufficient funds their fault since they believe more should be given? and
2) If they claim to care so much about those in need, why do they have to wait to be told to give more. Wouldn't the fact that they say they care mean they wouldn't need to be forced to do it?

Same concept in #2 applies to Obamacare and healthcare coverage mandates. If Obamacare is as good as the left claims, why does it have to be a mandate. When things are good, people do them because they are good. When they aren't, the government has to force people to do it and tell them that they, the government, are looking out for the people.

It's a scam. It's the have-nots forcing the haves to support them, and pretending that it's about supporting some other population that needs it more. We will take care of women and babies.

You feed your own damn self.

I'd say let the woman with the baby she can't afford to support feed herself, too.

Our churches work hard to feed women and children, and help them in every way imaginable. And those of us who believe in personal responsibility are pretty good about caring for our family members in a pickle.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.

the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.

This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.

Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.

 

[Divine Wind]

Dude, you're playing with semantics. A zygote is not a "being", human or otherwise. it's a fertilized egg, of which about a third self-abort without any assistance.

Self-abort from WHAT???

Miscarriage
According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.

More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages.

-----
What Causes Miscarriage?
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.

Other causes of miscarriage include:

• Infection
• Medical conditions in the mother, such as diabetes or thyroiddisease
• Hormone problems
• Immune system responses
• Physical problems in the mother
• Uterine abnormalities

A woman has a higher risk of miscarriage if she:

• Is over age 35
• Has certain diseases, such as diabetes or thyroid problems
• Has had three or more miscarriages

Cervical Insufficiency

A miscarriage sometimes happens because there is a weakness of thecervix, called an incompetent cervix, which cannot hold the pregnancy. A miscarriage from an incompetent cervix usually occurs in the second trimester.

 

[Faun]

I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.

the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.

This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.

Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.

Organisms have 2nd Amendment rights, don'tcha know.

 

[Boss]

I'd love to see your evidence that a zygote is a human being.

the definition of organism
organism
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:
the governmental organism.
4. any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the fertilized egg and sperm gametes reproduce (on their own accord) another cell, a new unique organism exists. Therefore, there is no biological question that a zygote is indeed some kind of an organism. Considering it is the product of a human egg and sperm gamete, it is a human organism. Considering it exists in the state of being, it is a human being.

This is confirmed by the fact that the organism is growing. Only living organisms can grow. Now, a cancerous tumor or fingernail also grows but neither is an organism because they don't do this independently on their own accord and they are not carrying on the vital processes of life. The host of these growing things is carrying on these processes, it is the organism and they are merely a part of it. A zygote is independent of the host organism in it's carrying on the vital processes of life. It only depends on the host for an environment.

Now you're backpedaling to "organism". Fine.

Well... If it is a living organism and it's from male and female human gametes, it can only be a living human organism. If it exists in the state of being it is a human being. It can't BE anything else. You asked for me to prove it was a human being and I did so... how is that "backpedaling" in any way?

Let's face the facts here... you are a mouth-breathing moron who doesn't comprehend biology. You have accepted some radical left-wing explanation that doesn't comport with biological evidence or science. Why? Because you are stupid in the head. You probably failed your required year of biology in high school and only passed the second go-around because of liberal "outcome based" education policies. What you actually know about science could fit on a matchbook cover with plenty of room to spare.

 

[Faun]

See? Even you call it an "it". When I talk about a person, I talk about "his, or her". When I talk about a thing, I talk about "its". Your own recognition of a fetus as a thing, not a person, betrays your position.

Well a human IS a thing... is it not? A person is a thing as well. Fetuses can be male or female, so I don't refer to them collectively as he or she because they could be either. It's merely semantics and semantics are not biology. You're going to need more than this to prove a fetus is not a human being.

If I say the baby is crying it need's it's pacifier... does that make the baby non-human?
If I say the infant is cold it need's it's blanket.... is it no longer a human being?
If I say the child needs both it's parents... does the child cease being human?

You see... in English... "It's" can be applied to any thing... a human is a thing.

Then it should be no problem for you to find a post of yours where you referred to a born person as "it".....

<crickets>

It's obvious even Boss doesn't think of a fetus as a person.

 

[Boss]

<crickets>

It's obvious even Boss doesn't think of a fetus as a person.

I've already responded to this, idiot.... how about reading the fucking thread for a change instead of acting like a jackass?

The baby is cold... it need's it's blanket.
The infant is hungry... it needs to be fed.
The child needs both of it's parents.

All examples of me clearly talking about persons but using the 'nominative pronoun' commonly known as "IT."

the definition of it's

used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.

Now, shut your pie hole and go study your English lessons some more, assclown.

 

[Faun]

<crickets>

It's obvious even Boss doesn't think of a fetus as a person.

I've already responded to this, idiot.... how about reading the fucking thread for a change instead of acting like a jackass?

The baby is cold... it need's it's blanket.
The infant is hungry... it needs to be fed.
The child needs both of it's parents.

All examples of me clearly talking about persons but using the 'nominative pronoun' commonly known as "IT."

the definition of it's

used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.

Now, shut your pie hole and go study your English lessons some more, assclown.

You spoiled nothing. In an unguarded moment of clarity, you let your true feelings slip out. Then you tried to cover your tracks by idiotically claiming people are things who can be referred to as "it."

So show a post where you've ever done that. Show a post where you referred to a living, breathing person as "it." I'm not looking for examples of how "it" can be applied.... I'm looking for evidence you've ever called a person, "it."

 

[Boss]

You spoiled nothing. In an unguarded moment of clarity, you let your true feelings slip out. Then you tried to cover your tracks by idiotically claiming people are things who can be referred to as "it."

So show a post where you've ever done that. Show a post where you referred to a living, breathing person as "it." I'm not looking for examples of how "it" can be applied.... I'm looking for evidence you've ever called a person, "it."

No... again, you illiterate hick... I used the appropriate 'nominative pronoun' and you attempted to ignorantly question it because you're a moron who doesn't know any better. I don't need to show you anything other than what I already have. If that's not good enough for you, then you can go fuck yourself. I don't really give a shit.

the definition of it's

used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.

 

[Boss]

Faun is butt hurt... it needs it's binky!