'Daily Show' Mocks ‘Crazy-Ass’ Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does NOT say 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

No? Let's test that...

Amendment 2 US Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There ya go...

That the Constitution saying: 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

See how that works?

You 'interpreted' what the Constitution says, just after having told us in your last post that you won't allow interpretation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

Nope... the Constitution is not a instrument which governs nature... The Constitution is written as a means to establish law that sustains the natural principles declared in the American Charter of Principles.

Let me show ya how that works:

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

See how you made an assertion and I refuted your assertion by citing the principles of nature that govern human behavior; principles which define America and represent the foundation of the United States.

LOL! But you're a leftist... so there's no way you could have known that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

Nope... the Constitution is not a instrument which governs nature... The Constitution is written as a means to establish law that sustains the natural principles declared in the American Charter of Principles.

Let me show ya how that works:

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

See how you made an assertion and I refuted your assertion by citing the principles of nature that govern human behavior; principles which define America and represent the foundation of the United States.

LOL! But you're a leftist... so there's no way you could have known that.

What constitutional rights does a 1st trimester fetus currently have?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution does NOT say 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

No? Let's test that...

Amendment 2 US Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There ya go...

That the Constitution saying: 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

See how that works?

You 'interpreted' what the Constitution says, just after having told us in your last post that you won't allow interpretation.

I never claimed that interpretation is not allowed. I said that subjective, unsound interpretation is not allowed.

Which, to dumb it down to its base elements... 'Ya can't just make shit up out of thin air and call it 'interpretation' then declare that those who make shit up are entitled to do so because the constitution gives them the right...'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

Nope... the Constitution is not a instrument which governs nature... The Constitution is written as a means to establish law that sustains the natural principles declared in the American Charter of Principles.

Let me show ya how that works:

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

See how you made an assertion and I refuted your assertion by citing the principles of nature that govern human behavior; principles which define America and represent the foundation of the United States.

LOL! But you're a leftist... so there's no way you could have known that.

What constitutional rights does a 1st trimester fetus currently have?

The same rights as a 115 year old oxygenarian, whose been in a coma since they were 12.

 

[toxicmedia]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

I'm not sure it's a logical extension of murder charges for drunk drving or domestic violence cases resulting in unwanted miscarriages or birth defects.

If you err on my side, it is because the unborn human baby that doesn't have a cerebral cortex, IMO, should have the same rights as a brain dead person. At that point, the concerns of the mothers, relatives, and loved ones must take precidence.

If someone is trying to have a baby, and someone else causes it harm, that is very different than the mother having the choice...thus the concept...pro-choice. The same goes for brain dead folks. It's okay to pull the plug on granny, but not for some random other person unrelated to the family.

See...in my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months, then forcing her to live with the emotional ramifications from her maternal instinct, and forcing an unwanted baby into an uncertain world...is the biggest government intrusion I can imagine possible. Or at least the farthest reaching one righties are talking about today.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm not sure it's a logical extension of murder charges for drunk drving or domestic violence cases resulting in unwanted miscarriages or birth defects.

If you err on my side, it is because the unborn human baby that doesn't have a cerebral cortex, IMO, should have the same rights as a brain dead person. At that point, the concerns of the mothers, relatives, and loved ones must take precidence.

If someone is trying to have a baby, and someone else causes it harm, that is very different than the mother having the choice...thus the concept...pro-choice. The same goes for brain dead folks. It's okay to pull the plug on granny, but not for some random other person unrelated to the family.

See...in my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months, then forcing her to live with the emotional ramifications from her maternal instinct, and forcing an unwanted baby into an uncertain world...is the biggest government intrusion I can imagine possible. Or at least the farthest reaching one righties are talking about today.

I understand you position. But unlike a brain dead human being... the developing human being is in the process of DEVELOPING THEIR BRAIN. Thus where the developed human being is brain dead, its potential is exhausted. There is no further point to its life. As it is literally less than a vegetable, as a vegetable can be consumed to sustain life and a brain dead human, cannot or at least, where human life is at issue, should not.

There is nothing complex about any of this, I honestly cannot see where there's reasonable room for someone to claim to not 'understand' these mind numbingly simple equations.

 

[Dana7360]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

I thought you just declared 'interpretation' to be verboten.

oops.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

Oh, now I get it, you're basing all your constitutional pontifications on the assumption that your views will only be actually put in place after an armed rebellion.

lol, good one.

I don't read that person's posts so when I read what you pasted in your post I was shocked.

That person thinks they are so special that judicial rulings don't apply to them or that they are going to overthrow our government and court system.

The first suggests that person thinks they're some how immune from laws that person doesn't like. That they can do as they please in our society. Wow. I don't think that person can get more narcissistic or conceited . Nor do I think that person can get more out of touch with reality.

The second suggests out and out treason. That person seems to think their little gun is more weaponry than our military can handle. The minute that person raises a weapon against one of our soldiers that person is either incapacitated or dead. I'm sure that person believes their little gun is more powerful than our tanks, bombs, drones and high tech weapons being used by our highly trained soldiers but that just shows the level of delusion that person has.

Both possibilities show that the person doesn't have a grasp of reality. It also shows a complete lack of respect for our government, constitution, laws and judicial system.

The post you replied to is a perfect example of why I scroll right on by that person's posts without reading.

I sure would like to know when that fetus gave the state consent for the state to appoint it a lawyer and when that fetus agreed to take that lawyer.

I've never been a defendant nor have I ever needed a criminal or civil lawyer so I could be wrong about how a public defender is hired and does their work, but it seems to me that the person the lawyer is defending has to consent to it and has to sign papers for that consent. I could be wrong but the fetus would also have to sign court documents at the beginning or end of the case.

Last, this isn't about legal representation at all. As was stated in the video, if the teen wins and is granted an abortion, the lawyer for the fetus can appeal. They can "run out the clock" with appeals so that the window of opportunity for an abortion is closed. That's what this is about. Stopping abortions and forcing children to have babies they don't want nor can provide for or take care of.

It's all very sick in my opinion.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

Nope... the Constitution is not a instrument which governs nature... The Constitution is written as a means to establish law that sustains the natural principles declared in the American Charter of Principles.

Let me show ya how that works:

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

See how you made an assertion and I refuted your assertion by citing the principles of nature that govern human behavior; principles which define America and represent the foundation of the United States.

LOL! But you're a leftist... so there's no way you could have known that.

What constitutional rights does a 1st trimester fetus currently have?

Life.

And no document can give or take away that right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

I thought you just declared 'interpretation' to be verboten.

oops.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

Oh, now I get it, you're basing all your constitutional pontifications on the assumption that your views will only be actually put in place after an armed rebellion.

lol, good one.

I don't read that person's posts so when I read what you pasted in your post I was shocked.

That person thinks they are so special that judicial rulings don't apply to them or that they are going to overthrow our government and court system.

The first suggests that person thinks they're some how immune from laws that person doesn't like. That they can do as they please in our society. Wow. I don't think that person can get more narcissistic or conceited . Nor do I think that person can get more out of touch with reality.

The second suggests out and out treason. That person seems to think their little gun is more weaponry than our military can handle. The minute that person raises a weapon against one of our soldiers that person is either incapacitated or dead. I'm sure that person believes their little gun is more powerful than our tanks, bombs, drones and high tech weapons being used by our highly trained soldiers but that just shows the level of delusion that person has.

Both possibilities show that the person doesn't have a grasp of reality. It also shows a complete lack of respect for our government, constitution, laws and judicial system.

The post you replied to is a perfect example of why I scroll right on by that person's posts without reading.

I sure would like to know when that fetus gave the state consent for the state to appoint it a lawyer and when that fetus agreed to take that lawyer.

I've never been a defendant nor have I ever needed a criminal or civil lawyer so I could be wrong about how a public defender is hired and does their work, but it seems to me that the person the lawyer is defending has to consent to it and has to sign papers for that consent. I could be wrong but the fetus would also have to sign court documents at the beginning or end of the case.

Last, this isn't about legal representation at all. As was stated in the video, if the teen wins and is granted an abortion, the lawyer for the fetus can appeal. They can "run out the clock" with appeals so that the window of opportunity for an abortion is closed. That's what this is about. Stopping abortions and forcing children to have babies they don't want nor can provide for or take care of.

It's all very sick in my opinion.

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U I S I O N PERSONIFIED!

But hey... who doesn't love a good straw-man story? Imagine the depths of delusion wherein the Ideological Left assumes that the US Military is sympathetic THEM... those who denigrate, .
belittle, insult, assault, and who have ceaselessly aided and abetted the very enemy that they were sent to kill.

It is the Ideological Left who is responsible for ISIS presently standing on the ground that they fought, bled and died for... they're the one's who spread photos of the naked terrorist pyramid, called the US Military NAZIS, compared their operations to Soviet Gulags... and they feel that when the war comes, that military will stand with them, those who represent the US Military stands AGAINST.

LOL! That is always hysterical.


The argument speaks to soundly reasoned, logically valid judicial decisions versus absurd decisions with no kinship to sound reason or the US Constitution; with DC -v- Heller being an example of the former and Roe being a classic example of the latter.

No American is obligated to obey law which usurps their rights... PERIOD.

And that principle IS RESTING AT THE FOUNDATION of the United States itself... Wherein the US declared THAT principle as the basis for Americans to be independent of a government prone toward making such laws.

And THAT is an example of what the contributor: Dana, doesn't read my posts, she lacks the means to compete with the reasoning expressed in them... so she pretends that such doesn't exist and when she's forced to recognize she, as a relativist she rationalizes that such represents something which she is more 'comfortable' facing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

I thought you just declared 'interpretation' to be verboten.

oops.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

Oh, now I get it, you're basing all your constitutional pontifications on the assumption that your views will only be actually put in place after an armed rebellion.

lol, good one.

And consequently we see the hypocrisy common to most on the right.

If the Constitution affords citizens the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense – although neither 'individual' nor 'self-defense' can be found in the Second Amendment – then the Constitution also affords citizens the right to privacy prohibiting the states from compelling a woman to have a child against her will.

Therefore, the Constitution in fact exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, where the Constitution recognizes both the right of the individual to bear arms and the right to privacy.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[paperview]

...
HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

We..?

Hmm. Maybe.

You sure do sound like you're from the 18th century.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

I thought you just declared 'interpretation' to be verboten.

oops.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

Oh, now I get it, you're basing all your constitutional pontifications on the assumption that your views will only be actually put in place after an armed rebellion.

lol, good one.

And consequently we see the hypocrisy common to most on the right.

If the Constitution affords citizens the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense – although neither 'individual' nor 'self-defense' can be found in the Second Amendment – then the Constitution also affords citizens the right to privacy prohibiting the states from compelling a woman to have a child against her will.

Therefore, the Constitution in fact exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, where the Constitution recognizes both the right of the individual to bear arms and the right to privacy.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Americans are NOT asking to have 'both ways'. We demand it one way... and that is the way it is going to be.

We REJECT Interpretation by osmosis; interpretation by fabrication... .

There are laws which govern human reasoning; which determine if that reasoning is sound and valid...

Roe is intellectually unsound and logically invalid. Wherein it states that there could be a right, where there is no correlating responsibility... it first assumes that there is a right to privacy, which effects public policy. There's no means for an issue that is private... to effect public policy. There is no means that a decision which effect private behavior can require public funds, public facilities, public employees... yet Roe determines that public and private are interchangeable concepts... nothing logically valid about that.

In terms of the Bill of Rights... that entire bill speaks to protections of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The Left would have us believe that in the midst of a bill designed to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, the framers of the bill, beset a defense of PUBLIC POWER.

Thus, with regard to the Contributors point:

neither 'individual' nor 'self-defense' can be found in the Second Amendment

It is clear that the ENTIRE BILL SPEAKS TO "INDIVIDUAL" and the means of the individual to defend themselves, and by extension, the sum of individuals that comprise their culture, through the ownership and effective use of firearms.

Ya see friends, God provides rights to the individual. Governments do not have rights. Government has POWER and that power is given to government by Individuals, so that the Government can PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.

Therefore, the Bill of Rights amended the US Constitution, as a means to LIMIT government POWER, by precluding it from ASSUMING POWER which will be used to PREVENT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS.

Objective, sound reason, expressed through a valid logical construct... it is designed to interpret one's environment, truthfully... so that one can trust that their behavior is morally sound, thus serving the best interests of themselves, their family and neighbors... and by extension... their entire nation.

Subjective, unsound, illogical reasoning; such as that which deems abnormality as normal, immorality and amorality as moral, and the fabrication as interpretation... screws everyone.

And that is about all there is to it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...
HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to **** off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

We..?

Hmm. Maybe.

You sure do sound like you're from the 18th century.

I was speaking of "Americans"...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Good point.

Which, given that a fetus is a distinct human life and human life is endowed by its creator with unalienable rights, that is all one needs to know, to know that the decision that is "Roe": is LUDICROUS, thus irrelevant in terms of law.

The video in the article, demonstrates that beautifully... but it's nice that you took the time to offer another perspective.

Read the actual case law:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [n55]

Roe v. Wade LII Legal Information Institute

Blah blah baby killers blah blah blah

 

[Clementine]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

Some babies are wanted and the mothers consider them people as soon as they know they exist. That is why they buy baby furniture and clothes for them months before they are born. Others deem them a mere object that can be disposed of if they don't want it.

How about mothers decide whether it's murder? If they wanted the baby, it's murder. If they don't want a baby, it's okay to kill them by any means.

The left does place importance on the lives of other unborn species. I'm sure there is a huge fine or maybe jail time if someone destroys eagle eggs. I guess they figure that there are too many humans and it's acceptable to weed them out by any means necessary. Of course, the one thing that hasn't changed since the beginning of Planned Parenthood is that they target blacks. Don't expect the left to actually care about black fetuses because they don't want more of them.

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm not sure it's a logical extension of murder charges for drunk drving or domestic violence cases resulting in unwanted miscarriages or birth defects.

If you err on my side, it is because the unborn human baby that doesn't have a cerebral cortex, IMO, should have the same rights as a brain dead person. At that point, the concerns of the mothers, relatives, and loved ones must take precidence.

If someone is trying to have a baby, and someone else causes it harm, that is very different than the mother having the choice...thus the concept...pro-choice. The same goes for brain dead folks. It's okay to pull the plug on granny, but not for some random other person unrelated to the family.

See...in my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months, then forcing her to live with the emotional ramifications from her maternal instinct, and forcing an unwanted baby into an uncertain world...is the biggest government intrusion I can imagine possible. Or at least the farthest reaching one righties are talking about today.

I understand you position. But unlike a brain dead human being... the developing human being is in the process of DEVELOPING THEIR BRAIN. Thus where the developed human being is brain dead, its potential is exhausted. There is no further point to its life. As it is literally less than a vegetable, as a vegetable can be consumed to sustain life and a brain dead human, cannot or at least, where human life is at issue, should not.

There is nothing complex about any of this, I honestly cannot see where there's reasonable room for someone to claim to not 'understand' these mind numbingly simple equations.

You seem to find anyone who doesn't accept your simplification to be in an inferior state. I have an equally difficult time getting you to accept the two examples are not equal.

Our positions don't contain mathematical expressions that can be proven equal. It's a matter of the difference between your position on the rights of a mother, and first/second trimester fetuses, and my position.

I can see that through simplification you've forwarded the argument that once an egg is fertilized, it's deserving of the same protections a 3rd trimester fetus, and post birth humans enjoy.

I simply don't agree, and believe that without a cerebral cortex, a human baby is no more deserving of personhood, than an unfertilized egg, a sperm cell, or a brain dead human.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm not sure it's a logical extension of murder charges for drunk drving or domestic violence cases resulting in unwanted miscarriages or birth defects.

If you err on my side, it is because the unborn human baby that doesn't have a cerebral cortex, IMO, should have the same rights as a brain dead person. At that point, the concerns of the mothers, relatives, and loved ones must take precidence.

If someone is trying to have a baby, and someone else causes it harm, that is very different than the mother having the choice...thus the concept...pro-choice. The same goes for brain dead folks. It's okay to pull the plug on granny, but not for some random other person unrelated to the family.

See...in my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months, then forcing her to live with the emotional ramifications from her maternal instinct, and forcing an unwanted baby into an uncertain world...is the biggest government intrusion I can imagine possible. Or at least the farthest reaching one righties are talking about today.

I understand you position. But unlike a brain dead human being... the developing human being is in the process of DEVELOPING THEIR BRAIN. Thus where the developed human being is brain dead, its potential is exhausted. There is no further point to its life. As it is literally less than a vegetable, as a vegetable can be consumed to sustain life and a brain dead human, cannot or at least, where human life is at issue, should not.

There is nothing complex about any of this, I honestly cannot see where there's reasonable room for someone to claim to not 'understand' these mind numbingly simple equations.

You seem to find anyone who doesn't accept your simplification to be in an inferior state.

Well it's quite simple... that's because their reasoning is inferior.

I have an equally difficult time getting you to accept the two examples are not equal.

What two examples? The brain dead fully developed human being and the defenseless pre-born human baby?

I am the one telling YOU that they're not equal... The former is effectively DEAD...its potential exhausted. the latter is ALIVE, a distinct living being in the process of DEVELOPING A BRAIN, its potential fully engaged.

Our positions don't contain mathematical expressions that can be proven equal.

Nonsense... its a simple equation; 0+1=1

You're argument is intellectually unsound and whats more is that it is expressed in logically invalid construct which renders it disqualified for consideration by reasonable people, thus it equals -0-.

It's a matter of the difference between your position on the rights of a mother, and first/second trimester fetuses, and my position.

There is no right to take the life of another human being because that life is an inconvenience.

The Mother HAD a PERFECT RIGHT to refuse coitus, where she felt that conception would be inconvenient... SHE PASSED ON EXERCISING THAT RIGHT and she conceived a child, for whom, as a consequence SHE is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. By seeking an abortion, she then PASSES ON HER RESPONSIBILITIES...

Those are THE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS. And there's nothing complex about ANY of that.

Game over scamp.

It's not overly simplified... IT IS WHOLLY SIMPLE... which is to say NOT COMPLEX.

You simply want to interject subjective need which will always lend the appearance of complexity, but that is what as known as superfluous IRRELEVANCE.

Again... you're reasoning is a perversion of human reasoning. It is the same species of reasoning which recognizes sexual deviancy is perfectly normal sexuality... it is a diseased species of reasoning which considers irrelevance, relevant.

And please, try to understand I am not trying to convince you. I am writing to the objective third party, who may be developing their own means to reason, so that they can compare your 'feelings' to reasoning which is intellectually sound and logically valid.

So they can see the manifestation of evil as represented in the perversion you represent, against that form of reasoning with which God gifted them and all of us, but which you have intentionally turned from... so that they can see the tangible difference between good and what it represents and evil and what you and your twisted rationalization represents.

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm not sure it's a logical extension of murder charges for drunk drving or domestic violence cases resulting in unwanted miscarriages or birth defects.

If you err on my side, it is because the unborn human baby that doesn't have a cerebral cortex, IMO, should have the same rights as a brain dead person. At that point, the concerns of the mothers, relatives, and loved ones must take precidence.

If someone is trying to have a baby, and someone else causes it harm, that is very different than the mother having the choice...thus the concept...pro-choice. The same goes for brain dead folks. It's okay to pull the plug on granny, but not for some random other person unrelated to the family.

See...in my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months, then forcing her to live with the emotional ramifications from her maternal instinct, and forcing an unwanted baby into an uncertain world...is the biggest government intrusion I can imagine possible. Or at least the farthest reaching one righties are talking about today.

I understand you position. But unlike a brain dead human being... the developing human being is in the process of DEVELOPING THEIR BRAIN. Thus where the developed human being is brain dead, its potential is exhausted. There is no further point to its life. As it is literally less than a vegetable, as a vegetable can be consumed to sustain life and a brain dead human, cannot or at least, where human life is at issue, should not.

There is nothing complex about any of this, I honestly cannot see where there's reasonable room for someone to claim to not 'understand' these mind numbingly simple equations.

You seem to find anyone who doesn't accept your simplification to be in an inferior state.

Well it's quite simple... that's because their reasoning is inferior.

I have an equally difficult time getting you to accept the two examples are not equal.

defenseless pre-born human baby. I am the one telling YOU. consideration by reasonable people. refuse coitus, Game over scamp......a perversion of human reasoning. sexual deviancy...diseased species of reasoning ..manifestation of evil as represented in the perversion you represent.....God gifted them and all of us...difference between good and what it represents and evil and what you and your twisted rationalization represents.

I've seperated your irrational statements, and here are your words out in the open...and you claim to put forth a logical argument.

defenseless pre-born human baby. I am the one telling YOU. consideration by reasonable people. refuse coitus, Game over scamp......a perversion of human reasoning. sexual deviancy...diseased species of reasoning ..manifestation of evil as represented in the perversion you represent.....God gifted them and all of us...difference between good and what it represents and evil and what you and your twisted rationalization represents.

And did you actually say "refuse coitus?....that's adorable,. if it weren't so prudish. You definitly need to relax, let your hair down, and give the bible a rest for the day. Thank God nobody at my church talks like you

Hmmm, you should hear yourself....you're positivelly hysterical, and not in a funny way