Komen restores Planned Parenthood funding

[Luddly Neddite]

making the world safer for breasts and abortions.

You're wrong but you already know that. Hopefully, the world will grow up and the damned rw Peeping Tom's will get their noses out of other people's bedrooms, other people's lives and the world will indeed become safe for women AND their bodies.

 

[Liability]

making the world safer for breasts and abortions.

You're wrong but you already know that. Hopefully, the world will grow up and the damned rw Peeping Tom's will get their noses out of other people's bedrooms, other people's lives and the world will indeed become safe for women AND their bodies.

I'm right and you already know that. And peeping tom has nothing to do with anything, muddly.

 

[Liability]

cry about it. Still worth more than you. regardless of how worthless you are. Its none of your business anyways. So stay out fucktard

When people kill babies, it's my business.

Scum.

BTW, are you the one who tagged the other thread with "it is acceptable to kill koshergirl"? Cuz it appears to me you might be that person...

no? i dont know how to "tag" on here, sorry.

Anyways no its not your business. It will never be your business, and if you get in my business you won't like it. Like face caved in.

"Face caved in."

Eww.

Macho macho man.



I am no fan of plasma, and that ^ macho cyber-bully shit is valueless. But still, I don't think he's the kind to talk about killing another Board member.

 

[Lakhota]

EXCLUSIVE: Ari Fleischer Secretly Involved In Komen Strategy On Planned Parenthood | ThinkProgress

 

[Liability]

I have my own and an extra, dumbass. Why don't y ou adopt a child, and show you actually are interested in helping, rather than killing, children?

I don't believe a word you say. I am pro choice, I am certainly not interested in helping you anti choice weirdos.

I prefer anti-freedom myself, because thats exactly what they are, Anti-Freedom.

Maybe anti-Liberty.

It plays against their moronic sense that they have a higher moral highground and are more patriotic.

No. It's not "exactly" what "they" are. It's not what they are atall, in fact.

They are PRO human rights. The right to living is itself at the apex of that, since an abortion deprives the pre-born child of that right and every other right. So YOU pro-abortionists are the anti-human rights crew.

In any event, the higher moral ground can never be claimed by folks like you who endorse wholesale slaughter of the entirely innocent -- most commonly in the name of mere convenience.

The matter is not susceptible (in reality) to the kind of games playing you revel in. It has always been a wrenching issue with very high stakes involved for the mothers AND for the pre-born babies. On the moral plane, it involves tragic conflicts.

But don't pretend that YOU guys have any valid claim to the higher moral ground. You clearly do not.

 

[Lakhota]

National Review Sees "Gangsterism" Behind Komen's Planned Parenthood Shift | Media Matters for America

Planned Parenthood's Effort To Fight All Types Of Cancer Still Under Attack | Media Matters for America

 

[Liability]

I prefer anti-freedom myself, because thats exactly what they are, Anti-Freedom.

Maybe anti-Liberty.

It plays against their moronic sense that they have a higher moral highground and are more patriotic.

No. It's not "exactly" what "they" are. It's not what they are atall, in fact.

They are PRO human rights. The right to living is itself at the apex of that, since an abortion deprives the pre-born child of that right and every other right. So YOU pro-abortionists are the anti-human rights crew.

In any event, the higher moral ground can never be claimed by folks like you who endorse wholesale slaughter of the entirely innocent -- most commonly in the name of mere convenience.

The matter is not susceptible (in reality) to the kind of games playing you revel in. It has always been a wrenching issue with very high stakes involved for the mothers AND for the pre-born babies. On the moral plane, it involves tragic conflicts.

But don't pretend that YOU guys have any valid claim to the higher moral ground. You clearly do not.

No i am actually Pro-death and Pro-choice. Your body, your choice. You get to decide when you die, what goes in, what comes out. Thats sexual partner, food, drugs, etc.

You are not my problem, your choices are not my problem. You want to drug yourself out feel free.

Pro-human rights? seriously who you kidding? No they are not that at all, otherwise we should be invading numerous countries because of their abuses in "human rights". China being one of them. No thats a scapegoat for the real reason. Control.

Your body, your choice. The child's body and the child's life? Not so much. The physical connection doesn't change that.

This is where the conflict enters.

Never as simplistic as you guys like to claim.

As for the "invading numerous countries" blather, you are conflating entirely different matters. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

 

[Liability]

making the world safer for breasts and abortions.

i love me some breasts..

I congratulate you on your heterosexuality.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. It's not "exactly" what "they" are. It's not what they are atall, in fact.

They are PRO human rights. The right to living is itself at the apex of that, since an abortion deprives the pre-born child of that right and every other right. So YOU pro-abortionists are the anti-human rights crew.

In any event, the higher moral ground can never be claimed by folks like you who endorse wholesale slaughter of the entirely innocent -- most commonly in the name of mere convenience.

The matter is not susceptible (in reality) to the kind of games playing you revel in. It has always been a wrenching issue with very high stakes involved for the mothers AND for the pre-born babies. On the moral plane, it involves tragic conflicts.

But don't pretend that YOU guys have any valid claim to the higher moral ground. You clearly do not.

There you go again.

There is no scientific definition of a zygote as a "human being". A zygote is not a human being.

Therefore there are no "Human Rights" being violated.

Zygote - (noun), plural: zygotes
A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum).

Potential to possibly become a human being does not, in any way, confer the status of personhood upon a zygote.

You are simply wrong.

Your religion may tell you differently, but fortunately in the United States, religion doesn't dictate law. This is not Iran.

 

[Vast LWC]

Your body, your choice. The child's body and the child's life? Not so much. The physical connection doesn't change that.

This is where the conflict enters.

Never as simplistic as you guys like to claim.

As for the "invading numerous countries" blather, you are conflating entirely different matters. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

And that is why there are laws that protect children.

Which have nothing to do with first trimester abortion.

 

[Vast LWC]

making the world safer for breasts and abortions.

i love me some breasts..

Save the titties!

 

[Liability]

Your body, your choice. The child's body and the child's life? Not so much. The physical connection doesn't change that.

This is where the conflict enters.

Never as simplistic as you guys like to claim.

As for the "invading numerous countries" blather, you are conflating entirely different matters. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

And that is why there are laws that protect children.

Which have nothing to do with first trimester abortion.

Yeah. Sure. Some SCOTUS judges introduced the trimester concept into the law -- as though it had been handed down by Moses, and guys like you imagine that it is a meaningful line of demarcation....

 

[Lakhota]

6 Things You Need To Know About the Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood Controversy (Updated: Komen Reverses Decision) | | AlterNet

 

[Liability]

i love me some breasts..

I congratulate you on your heterosexuality.

So does my wife

I would imagine that it would be a matter of some interest to her.

So, congrats to your beloved, too!

 

[Liability]

No. It's not "exactly" what "they" are. It's not what they are atall, in fact.

They are PRO human rights. The right to living is itself at the apex of that, since an abortion deprives the pre-born child of that right and every other right. So YOU pro-abortionists are the anti-human rights crew.

In any event, the higher moral ground can never be claimed by folks like you who endorse wholesale slaughter of the entirely innocent -- most commonly in the name of mere convenience.

The matter is not susceptible (in reality) to the kind of games playing you revel in. It has always been a wrenching issue with very high stakes involved for the mothers AND for the pre-born babies. On the moral plane, it involves tragic conflicts.

But don't pretend that YOU guys have any valid claim to the higher moral ground. You clearly do not.

There you go again.

There is no scientific definition of a zygote as a "human being". A zygote is not a human being.

Therefore there are no "Human Rights" being violated.

Zygote - (noun), plural: zygotes
A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum).

Potential to possibly become a human being does not, in any way, confer the status of personhood upon a zygote.

You are simply wrong.

Your religion may tell you differently, but fortunately in the United States, religion doesn't dictate law. This is not Iran.

A human ovum fertilized by a human spermatozoa will never be anything other than human if it is permitted and able to proceed to term.

It is -- indeed -- a pre-born human being.

Nothing you SAY can possibly alter than.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah. Sure. Some SCOTUS judges introduced the trimester concept into the law -- as though it had been handed down by Moses, and guys like you imagine that it is a meaningful line of demarcation....

Don't care much about what the Judges have to say.

I go by when a fetus becomes self-aware, which any biologist can tell you, happens between 18-24 weeks.

I say the first trimester is a good cutoff, because it leaves some time to spare for any cases of early development.

That's not some kind of arbitrary deadline, it's just fact.

If new data is discovered that disproves that fact, then I will stand up and listen, and change my opinion.

But, since that has not happened, my opinion remains firm. I base my opinion on fact, not faith.

 

[Vast LWC]

A human ovum fertilized by a human spermatozoa will never be anything other than human if it is permitted and able to proceed to term.

It is -- indeed -- a pre-born human being.

Nothing you SAY can possibly alter than.

There's no such thing as a "pre-born human being".

There is a human being, and then there is not a human being.

Just because something has the potential to become something else at some point, doesn't make it that something else.

A seed is not a tree, and a stone is not a cathedral.

 

[Liability]

Yeah. Sure. Some SCOTUS judges introduced the trimester concept into the law -- as though it had been handed down by Moses, and guys like you imagine that it is a meaningful line of demarcation....

Don't care much about what the Judges have to say.

I go by when a fetus becomes self-aware, which any biologist can tell you, happens between 18-24 weeks.

I say the first trimester is a good cutoff, because it leaves some time to spare for any cases of early development.

That's not some kind of arbitrary deadline, it's just fact.

If new data is discovered that disproves that fact, then I will stand up and listen, and change my opinion.

But, since that has not happened, my opinion remains firm. I base my opinion on fact, not faith.

No. You don't. Since you have zero idea of when a baby in development first gains sentience. And, besides. If left alone, it WILL acquire sentience, so your pre-emptive strike doesn't alter the nature of the wrong you commit.

 

[Sunni Man]

I go by when a fetus becomes self-aware, which any biologist can tell you, happens between 18-24 weeks.

Please provide link or evidence for your statement.

Thank You in advance.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. You don't. Since you have zero idea of when a baby in development first gains sentience. And, besides. If left alone, it WILL acquire sentience, so your pre-emptive strike doesn't alter the nature of the wrong you commit.

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?, Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Informa Healthcare

For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional...

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed.

Yep, I have "zero idea" alright. No idea at all.