I am an atheist.

[BreezeWood]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

.
really, over 55 million women since RvW chose the means available to them to have a say over the matter the same as you have implied and made their own decision. it is you that want to make their decision for them, one you have already made against their will. as stated, you are motivated by a sociopathic desire to circumvent a person from making a decision you do not approve of.

 

[ding]

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

.
really, over 55 million women since RvW chose the means available to them to have a say over the matter the same as you have implied and made their own decision. it is you that want to make their decision for them, one you have already made against their will. as stated, you are motivated by a sociopathic desire to circumvent a person from making a decision you do not approve of.

It's not their right to decide. It's the right of the new genetically distinct human being that SHE helped to create.

It's not property. It's a human being.

 

[BreezeWood]

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

.
really, over 55 million women since RvW chose the means available to them to have a say over the matter the same as you have implied and made their own decision. it is you that want to make their decision for them, one you have already made against their will. as stated, you are motivated by a sociopathic desire to circumvent a person from making a decision you do not approve of.

It's not their right to decide. It's the right of the new genetically distinct human being that SHE helped to create.

It's not property. It's a human being.

.

It's not their right to decide.

you are delusional, in that awful way throughout history ... you are what you claim against.

 

[ding]

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

.
really, over 55 million women since RvW chose the means available to them to have a say over the matter the same as you have implied and made their own decision. it is you that want to make their decision for them, one you have already made against their will. as stated, you are motivated by a sociopathic desire to circumvent a person from making a decision you do not approve of.

It's not their right to decide. It's the right of the new genetically distinct human being that SHE helped to create.

It's not property. It's a human being.

.

It's not their right to decide.

you are delusional, in that awful way throughout history ... you are what you claim against.

At conception a new human life is created. One that is genetically distinct from every other person that has or will ever exist. This is his only shot. He will have no other. He is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

 

[Czernobog]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

You're bound and determined to not say what we both know - that your insistence is that the fetus can not survive outside the womb - that it is 100% dependent on the host for survival. Which means it is not an individual, and the only person whose rights matter is that of the pregnant woman. Now that i have said it for you, we're done. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

And we only recognise human rights for actual living persons, and individuals.

 

[Czernobog]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

Cancer is genetically distinct human life. We certainly don't recognise the "right" for cancer to exist.

 

[Czernobog]

.
making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

.
really, over 55 million women since RvW chose the means available to them to have a say over the matter the same as you have implied and made their own decision. it is you that want to make their decision for them, one you have already made against their will. as stated, you are motivated by a sociopathic desire to circumvent a person from making a decision you do not approve of.

It's not their right to decide. It's the right of the new genetically distinct human being that SHE helped to create.

It's not property. It's a human being.

.

It's not their right to decide.

you are delusional, in that awful way throughout history ... you are what you claim against.

At conception a new human life is created. One that is genetically distinct from every other person that has or will ever exist. This is his only shot. He will have no other. He is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Then remove him from the womb, and allow him the same right to survive as every other distinctly human life. That is the only away to recognise that "individual" without inflicting forced pregnancy on a woman.

 

[hobelim]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

 

[Czernobog]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

 

[Czernobog]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

lol.... your pretentious tripe has also been duly noted professor.

Its going on your permanent record.

 

[hobelim]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

lol.... your pretentious tripe has also been duly noted professor.

Its going on your permanent record.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

lol.... your pretentious tripe has also been duly noted professor.

Its going on your permanent record.

Sorry big guy....the guy who says anyone who does not agree with his authoritative declarations on magical bullshit just "doesn't have a functioning brain" doesnt get to call anyone pretentious.

 

[hobelim]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

lol.... your pretentious tripe has also been duly noted professor.

Its going on your permanent record.

Sorry big guy....the guy who says anyone who does not agree with his authoritative declarations on magical bullshit just "doesn't have a functioning brain" doesnt get to call anyone pretentious.

Ahem. well excuuse me.

the only one I was referring to without a functioning brain is the dufus who made the authoritative claim that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret a finite number of words in scripture without any way of knowing what the the stories are actually about, no way to distinguish between what is true and what is false. How can you even profess to know that its all magical bullshit if there is no way to discover what the truth is? Damn.

Don't get all pissy with me sweetness.

You are what you is.

Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can you even profess to know that its all magical bullshit if there is no way to discover what the truth is? Damn.

Uh....hey genius....that's exactly why it's utter nonsense! Duh, man. All of you magical thinkers suffer from the same, basic mental block .

You all also suffer the very childish affliction of taking criticism of your magical bullshit personally. Thus occurs because "Because I say so!" is all you will ever have to support your magical bullshit. Therefore, you take any criticism of these ideas as an insult of your own credibility and intellect.

And....you're right! It absolutely is. That's YOUR choice for hitching your mind to these ideas. Your credibility and intellect is rightfully ridiculed.

 

[Czernobog]

If you are hungry, I will offer you food.
If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do this things in hope of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished. I do these things, because I know them to be right. I set my own standards, and I, alone, enforce them...

...I am an atheist.

lol... I could use a sandwich, a stiff drink, a knitted sweater, and some lawyers guns and money Mr nice guy,.

Sure you could. And, since I'm an idiot, I send money to complete strangers over the internet all the time. There's a difference between being kind, and being stupid. Your tolling is noted.

lol.... your pretentious tripe has also been duly noted professor.

Its going on your permanent record.

Sorry big guy....the guy who says anyone who does not agree with his authoritative declarations on magical bullshit just "doesn't have a functioning brain" doesnt get to call anyone pretentious.

Ahem. well excuuse me.

the only one I was referring to without a functioning brain is the dufus who made the authoritative claim that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret a finite number of words in scripture without any way of knowing what the the stories are actually about, no way to distinguish between what is true and what is false. How can you even profess to know that its all magical bullshit if there is no way to discover what the truth is? Damn.

Don't get all pissy with me sweetness.

You are what you is.

Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever said that, but okay. further, since my OP doesn't so much as mention the Bible in any way shape or form, I don't see what you inaccurate observation has to do with the topic at hand. But, by all means, do feel free to continue down your rabbit hole.

 

[hobelim]

How can you even profess to know that its all magical bullshit if there is no way to discover what the truth is? Damn.

Uh....hey genius....that's exactly why it's utter nonsense! Duh, man. All of you magical thinkers suffer from the same, basic mental block .

You all also suffer the very childish affliction of taking criticism of your magical bullshit personally. Thus occurs because "Because I say so!" is all you will ever have to support your magical bullshit. Therefore, you take any criticism of these ideas as an insult of your own credibility and intellect.

And....you're right! It absolutely is. That's YOUR choice for hitching your mind to these ideas. Your credibility and intellect is rightfully ridiculed.

What you don't seem to understand is that the story of Pinocchio is about a marionette that became a real boy, but at the same time it is not about a marionette that became a real boy. If someone believed that it was about a puppet coming to life it would be a belief in magical bullshit but thats not what the story is about. What the story is actually about was never written down and is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

simple.

What you see in scripture, all that you see, magical bullshit, is not what I am talking about or suggesting. Thats not what scripture is about anymore than the story of Pinocchio is about magical bullshit. What scripture is actually about was never written down and is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

simple.


That you can't grasp that irrefutable truth demonstrates a lack of intelligence. Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Your belief that what amount to fairy tales could have infinite interpretations which are impossible to distinguish between what is true or false or right or wrong while posturing as an intellectual superior is just funny. Stupid but funny.

You should have paid attention in the first grade.

If you spend too much time on Pleasure Island those donkey ears are there to stay. (Piniocchio 3:14)

Capisce? Can I get a hee haw?

 

[ding]

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

Cancer is genetically distinct human life. We certainly don't recognise the "right" for cancer to exist.

No. Cancer is a disease. But I can see how you could believe that.

 

[Czernobog]

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

Cancer is genetically distinct human life. We certainly don't recognise the "right" for cancer to exist.

No. Cancer is a disease. But I can see how you could believe that.

A disease that fits your "genetically human, and distinct" criteria. That is the point. Your criteria for individual personhood is insufficient. No organism that requires a host to survive is "individual"; it is, at worst, parasitic; at best, symbiotic. Either way, it is not an individual, and the only person whose rights, and choices matter is the woman's.

In my opinion. Now, please understand, I do not require you to agree with my opinion, nor to act as if you do. However, I do require that you do not try to force anyone else to behave as if they agree with your opinion. That's all. You believe that a fetus is a completely individual life, and is ,at least, as important, as the pregnant woman, if not more important. Okay. Then, by all means, never have an abortion. And if anyone ever tries to pass a law to force you to, you can count on my support to fight that law right along side you.

However, not everyone shares your opinion. So, please do us the courtesy of not trying to force everyone to behave as if they do, by force of law. That's all we ask. We're not asking you to agree with us. Just stop trying to pass laws to try and force us to behave as if we agree with you.

 

[ding]

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

Cancer is genetically distinct human life. We certainly don't recognise the "right" for cancer to exist.

No. Cancer is a disease. But I can see how you could believe that.

A disease that fits your "genetically human, and distinct" criteria. That is the point. Your criteria for individual personhood is insufficient. No organism that requires a host to survive is "individual"; it is, at worst, parasitic; at best, symbiotic. Either way, it is not an individual, and the only person whose rights, and choices matter is the woman's.

In my opinion. Now, please understand, I do not require you to agree with my opinion, nor to act as if you do. However, I do require that you do not try to force anyone else to behave as if they agree with your opinion. That's all. You believe that a fetus is a completely individual life, and is ,at least, as important, as the pregnant woman, if not more important. Okay. Then, by all means, never have an abortion. And if anyone ever tries to pass a law to force you to, you can count on my support to fight that law right along side you.

However, not everyone shares your opinion. So, please do us the courtesy of not trying to force everyone to behave as if they do, by force of law. That's all we ask. We're not asking you to agree with us. Just stop trying to pass laws to try and force us to behave as if we agree with you.

No. My criteria is a human being. Feel free to abort your cancer with extreme prejudice by all means.

 

[ding]

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.

Cancer is genetically distinct human life. We certainly don't recognise the "right" for cancer to exist.

No. Cancer is a disease. But I can see how you could believe that.

A disease that fits your "genetically human, and distinct" criteria. That is the point. Your criteria for individual personhood is insufficient. No organism that requires a host to survive is "individual"; it is, at worst, parasitic; at best, symbiotic. Either way, it is not an individual, and the only person whose rights, and choices matter is the woman's.

In my opinion. Now, please understand, I do not require you to agree with my opinion, nor to act as if you do. However, I do require that you do not try to force anyone else to behave as if they agree with your opinion. That's all. You believe that a fetus is a completely individual life, and is ,at least, as important, as the pregnant woman, if not more important. Okay. Then, by all means, never have an abortion. And if anyone ever tries to pass a law to force you to, you can count on my support to fight that law right along side you.

However, not everyone shares your opinion. So, please do us the courtesy of not trying to force everyone to behave as if they do, by force of law. That's all we ask. We're not asking you to agree with us. Just stop trying to pass laws to try and force us to behave as if we agree with you.

Science says that human life begins at conception. Science says that personhood begins at conception.