Liberals On Abortion

[PK1]

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY to all those WONDERFUL mothers ...
who gave BIRTH to 1-3 healthy children and spent a great deal of her time & resources in raising them responsibly ...
AND preserving PRIVACY for those women who need to ABORT their unwanted pregnancies!

You make Mother Nature “proud”.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There is nothing moral about killing an unborn baby in the womb. Nothing and if you support it you're just as guilty of doing it

 

[Chuz Life]

And we've already shown how these laws were challenged when you tried to railroad Purvi Patel with one of them.

I know, you don't like to talk about poor Ms. Patel.

Hehehehe.

I'm the one in the black fur coat.

Get it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Really bad analogy.
Comparing a one cell zygote to a fully developed adult or child slave is pure foolishness.
Try again.

This comment of yours gets to the very root of the difference in the mindset / mentality between those who are pro-aborts (like yourself) and those who are anti-abortion, like myself.

You clearly / obviously define a new human being / person by a combination of the basic human (biological) traits that the new organism has and you (illogically) factor in, the traits that the new human organism temporarily lacks.

Thus, a child is NOT a child (to you) until it lives too long and develops past some arbitrarily decided point. . . where after, you can not stomach or justify your own denials anymore.

We who oppose abortion define / recognize a new human organism by the basic human (biological) traits that they HAVE. Regardless of the traits or characteristics that they may temporarily lack.

Period.

A child is a child (the YOUNG of the parents who created it) . . . From the earliest moment their physical / biological existence can be established and or detected.

It is very telling how you abort-tardz dodge questions about your "biological" father and what it is that makes your biological fathers YOUR biological fathers.

If YOU were not HIS biological child from the moment of YOUR conception, then (according to YOUR logic (sic)) the only thing he is a parent of is the Zygote that he and your mom created.

Human beings do not sexually reproduce like frogs and butterflies do (via metamorphosis) and that is why your ignorance and denials about when and how a child's life actually does begin are so fucking ridiculous and offensive to the rest of us.

Aww, you must feel really depressed about those MANY human zygotes that don’t survive ... naturally. Thank God for that!

You are diverting again, fucktard. Our feelings of depression, sadness or even feelings of elation have nothing at all to do with the biological FACTS of this issue.

Your Red Herring attempt to divert only shows me how weak you actually are on the facts of the issue.

To each their own zygotes, embryos, or fetuses, i say.
Feel free to nurture YOUR own, and good luck.

Thanks for being such a great foil.

Coward.

Were you looking in your “coward” mirror?
Why are you afraid to confront biological reality, starting with a ONE-cell ZYGOTE?
LOL

Afraid?

Fucktard, the facts are the facts and I adjust my opinions to the facts, not the other way around like you clearly do.

Science proves that an organism is created at and by conception.

Science proves that organism is the YOUNG of the parents who biologically created it.

Science proves that conception is when an organism begins to age.

Science proves that human beings are "placental" mammals that carry their YOUNG in the womb, for a time before parturition takes place.

I don't necessarily claim that it requires an act of bravery to acknowledge or to accept these biological facts. . . but you are indeed a fucking coward if you CAN'T or WON'T accept those facts.

Absolutely.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Flatulence Of A Clown Too Much Of A Coward To Face Reality "

* Science Proves When A Fetus Is Neither Sentient Nor Sapient Nor Viable *

Afraid?
Fucktard, the facts are the facts and I adjust my opinions to the facts, not the other way around like you clearly do.
Science proves that an organism is created at and by conception.
Science proves that organism is the YOUNG of the parents who biologically created it.
Science proves that conception is when an organism begins to age.
Science proves that human beings are "placental" mammals that carry their YOUNG in the womb, for a time before parturition takes place.
I don't necessarily claim that it requires an act of bravery to acknowledge or to accept these biological facts. . . but you are indeed a fucking coward if you CAN'T or WON'T accept those facts.
Absolutely.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm the one in the black fur coat.

Get it?

Um, no, guy. You'd be the one running in fear of the mouse, kind of like that Bull Ring Zone where I mopped the floor with you and you ran off to deal with a "Legal Issue".

 

[ding]

You got to love people who worship science until it doesn’t suit them. Then they shit all over it.

Your statement would be effective if you really understood science.
.

I do understand science. That's how I know that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has been created. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Why don't you know that?

 

[ding]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Yes, the human being with unique DNA gets individual rights when becoming a true individual, completely separate from its mother & breathing independently ... after birth.
That’s when they can get their own SSN!

So what?
.

I guess you missed the part where they have never existed before or will never exist again. It’s a one shot deal.

They? Non-sentient “beings”?
Do you care about all the sentient beings on earth that are abused or neglected?
I smell a hypocrite here.
.

They have exactly the attributes they are supposed to have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. At any point along that continuum they are fully human despite your rationalizations to see them as less than human.

“They” are fully “human” ONLY due to human DNA they have, but bio development EVENTUALLY makes them “human beings” ... if all goes well.
It’s estimated that HALF of human pregnancies are aborted NATURALLY (due to mutations, etc), many without the woman knowing she was pregnant!
.

They are fully human throughout every stage of their life.

“Fully human” ONLY in terms of the zygote possessing a full set of DNA from the Homo sapien sapien species.
Human beings are fully human in the practical sense when they are FULLY DEVELOPED at normal BIRTH.
.

A human being is a human being is a human being.

It is your attempt to dehumanize a human being which demonstrates you believe it is wrong to abort a human being.

Are you getting even more irrational with your illogical desoeration?
You don’t know the difference between a “being” consisting of only ONE cell (Zygote) and a normal baby at birth consisting of BILLIONS of cells?
LOL
.

Every point along the continuum is human. A very specific and distinct human. Learn some science.

If by “human” you mean “having DNA representative of the Homo Sapien species”, you are absolutely correct!
So what?
Don’t you know about phylogenetic and ontogenetic development?
I’m sure you are deficient in your science ... and philosophy of science too.
.

Yes. That's exactly correct. The DNA of the living human proves it is human.

You are starting to get it.

Apparently, you are not getting it. The DNA in ONE cell does not equate to BILLIONS of DNA/chromosomes in millions of patterns across billions of cells.
Do you have more than ONE brain cell? You don’t seem to add your thiughts beyond ONE.

So tell me, why do you care about one human zygote that’s not wanted by a family you don’t even know exists?

I am getting it. You aren't getting it. Ending a human life is wrong. What part of that don't you understand? Can your conscience not bear reality?

You don’t comprehend reality when it smacks you in the face.
I can see your recent ranting as evidence that you lost rational perspective & are comparing a tiny apple to trillions of oranges.

NO, absolutely not.
My conscience is very clear about losing a human zygote or embryo that I have no reason to care about. NO BIG DEAL.
Why is it a big deal for you? You never explain yourself logically or ethically.

You’re definitely not practical when there are millions of kids dying from starvation and neglect all over the world, and what do you do? Wasting your time in this forum when you can use your resources & time to “save human DNA” ... whereever it may be. LOL
.

There's really no difference in your position and slave owners position.

Please come down to reason, Ding!
I hate ALL slavery; i’m an ethical libertarian (live & let live, once born).
Abortion has nothing to do with slavery.
If you disagree, please EXPLAIN RATIONALLY. You never do; you’re likely afraid to ... reveal more religious irrationality.
.

Slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

No different than what you propose for those clumps of cells as you so dehumanizingly put it.

That’s not much of an explanation, if any.
You remind me of a parent telling his young curious child, when asked many reasonable questions ... “Because I told you so!”

How more clearly do you need for me to spell it out for you? You believe that a human life in the womb is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

That is no different than a slave owner believing his slave is his property to be disposed of at his will.

Really bad analogy.
Comparing a one cell zygote to a fully developed adult or child slave is pure foolishness.
Try again.
.

92% of abortions occur by week 13. Not one cell zygotes. Does this look like a one cell zygote to you?

Does this deflection of yours demonstrate that you finally agree a 1-cell Zygote is less “human” than a 13-week-old fetus and not as important to maintain for further prenatal development?

Welcome to the rational club that respects pregnant women & their basic right to privacy.
.

No. It doesn't. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. That is a fact that every single embryology textbook states.

I am pointing out the flaw in your argument. You assume zygotes are being aborted. Did that photo look like a zygote to you?

Welcome to the rationalization of murdering a human life for selfish reasons club.

 

[ding]

" Attention Span Too Short And Missed The Boat "

* Pathetic Propagandist *

Sounds arbitrary.
And why would it matter? Or do you want to rationalize killing people in their sleep too? I mean they wouldn’t be aware they were dying, right?

It is a wonder why we keep having to rehash answers to questions that have been covered .

The onset of sapience requires sentience and a valid basis for empathy is suffering that requires sentience .

The onset of sentience does not occur until the formation of thalamocortical to bridge the autonomic nervous system of the thalamus with the higher order thinking of the cerebral cortex .

The onset of thalamocortical radiations do not begin to onset any earlier than the 23rd week which is proven by histology , with the onset of sentience occurring most likely in the 29th week that has been proven by electroencehpalogram .

The time line for the onset of sentience nearly parallels but follows that for viability which is standardized as the 26th week as the minimum lower bound .

It is obvious as to why you lack any validity on the issue of potential versus actual as you continue to forward blatantly stupid thought patterns , with the first being whether an individual has a capacity for sentience and the second being that individuals which have been born are entitled to protected wrights , that includes due process to determine that they are no longer physically capable of sentience .

Dude, why are you making an arbitrary designation for human life. Go read an embryology textbook. Every single embryology textbook clearly states that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. There is nothing arbitrary about that point.

Your point in defining a human being is entirely arbitrary and you select it to assuage your guilt.

 

[ding]

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY to all those WONDERFUL mothers ...
who gave BIRTH to 1-3 healthy children and spent a great deal of her time & resources in raising them responsibly ...
AND preserving PRIVACY for those women who need to ABORT their unwanted pregnancies!

You make Mother Nature “proud”.

Congratulations in dehumanizing human life. I'm sure that won't come back to haunt you.

 

[ding]

" Flatulence Of A Clown Too Much Of A Coward To Face Reality "

* Science Proves When A Fetus Is Neither Sentient Nor Sapient Nor Viable *

Afraid?
Fucktard, the facts are the facts and I adjust my opinions to the facts, not the other way around like you clearly do.
Science proves that an organism is created at and by conception.
Science proves that organism is the YOUNG of the parents who biologically created it.
Science proves that conception is when an organism begins to age.
Science proves that human beings are "placental" mammals that carry their YOUNG in the womb, for a time before parturition takes place.
I don't necessarily claim that it requires an act of bravery to acknowledge or to accept these biological facts. . . but you are indeed a fucking coward if you CAN'T or WON'T accept those facts.
Absolutely.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."

Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

 

[ding]

" Flatulence Of A Clown Too Much Of A Coward To Face Reality "

* Science Proves When A Fetus Is Neither Sentient Nor Sapient Nor Viable *

Afraid?
Fucktard, the facts are the facts and I adjust my opinions to the facts, not the other way around like you clearly do.
Science proves that an organism is created at and by conception.
Science proves that organism is the YOUNG of the parents who biologically created it.
Science proves that conception is when an organism begins to age.
Science proves that human beings are "placental" mammals that carry their YOUNG in the womb, for a time before parturition takes place.
I don't necessarily claim that it requires an act of bravery to acknowledge or to accept these biological facts. . . but you are indeed a fucking coward if you CAN'T or WON'T accept those facts.
Absolutely.

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Developmental Cutoff Not Met "

* Ethical Legitimacy Of US Constitution *

Dude, why are you making an arbitrary designation for human life. Go read an embryology textbook. Every single embryology textbook clearly states that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. There is nothing arbitrary about that point.
Your point in defining a human being is entirely arbitrary and you select it to assuage your guilt.

Pretending that all hue mammon lives should be declared sacrosanct is not going to happen ; and , such a belief has so many conditionals , it takes a particularly foolish hypocrite or level of ignorance to expect it .

* Brilliant *

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Developmental Cutoff Not Met "

* Ethical Legitimacy Of US Constitution *

Dude, why are you making an arbitrary designation for human life. Go read an embryology textbook. Every single embryology textbook clearly states that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. There is nothing arbitrary about that point.
Your point in defining a human being is entirely arbitrary and you select it to assuage your guilt.

Pretending that all hue mammon lives should be declared sacrosanct is not going to happen ; and , such a belief has so many conditionals , it takes a particularly foolish hypocrite or level of ignorance to expect it .

* Brilliant *

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.

Roe vs Wade.....one of the most poorly decided Supreme Court cases, and one of the best examples of judicial activism: In no way is this decision based on the Constitution.


Now you're shown as little knowledge of the judiciary as you have of biology.


No shock.

Just be happy that you don’t still have that job that required you to wear that white paper hat.

 

[DGS49]

The fundamental point remains that, for Leftists, there can be no debate on the issue. The "viability" test of RvW is no longer relevant; the discretion of the mother is absolute, and extends under some circumstances to after the child has taken its first breath.

And not only can there be no debate, if you disagree with the Leftist position, YOU ARE EVIL. (Talk about turning reality upside down).

And look at the extremes they are willing to go to in order to enforce this dogma. Look at what they did to Justice K...and that whole cluster fuck was about nothing but abortion. All of the slanders, accusations, lies...all of it. Totally about abortion. There was literally NOT A SINGLE COGENT ARGUMENT THEY COULD MAKE AGAINST HIS NOMINATION...and they tacitly admitted that by not even questioning his professional qualifications. The best they could do was slander him to hell and gone, then when he politely told them to go fuck themselves, they shrieked that he lacked judicial temperament!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fundamental point remains that, for Leftists, there can be no debate on the issue. The "viability" test of RvW is no longer relevant; the discretion of the mother is absolute, and extends under some circumstances to after the child has taken its first breath.

And not only can there be no debate, if you disagree with the Leftist position, YOU ARE EVIL. (Talk about turning reality upside down).

And look at the extremes they are willing to go to in order to enforce this dogma. Look at what they did to Justice K...and that whole cluster fuck was about nothing but abortion. All of the slanders, accusations, lies...all of it. Totally about abortion. There was literally NOT A SINGLE COGENT ARGUMENT THEY COULD MAKE AGAINST HIS NOMINATION...and they tacitly admitted that by not even questioning his professional qualifications. The best they could do was slander him to hell and gone, then when he politely told them to go fuck themselves, they shrieked that he lacked judicial temperament!

Seems to be quite a bit of anger in that post.....

.....I like it.

 

[ding]

" Developmental Cutoff Not Met "

* Ethical Legitimacy Of US Constitution *

Dude, why are you making an arbitrary designation for human life. Go read an embryology textbook. Every single embryology textbook clearly states that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. There is nothing arbitrary about that point.
Your point in defining a human being is entirely arbitrary and you select it to assuage your guilt.

Pretending that all hue mammon lives should be declared sacrosanct is not going to happen ; and , such a belief has so many conditionals , it takes a particularly foolish hypocrite or level of ignorance to expect it .

* Brilliant *

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.

Except of course it meets the definition of a specific living human being

So you lose the science and legal argument.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" As Wrong About A White Paper Hat As Everything Else "

* Multiple Degrees With Zoology Included *

Roe vs Wade.....one of the most poorly decided Supreme Court cases, and one of the best examples of judicial activism: In no way is this decision based on the Constitution.
Now you're shown as little knowledge of the judiciary as you have of biology. No shock.
Just be happy that you don’t still have that job that required you to wear that white paper hat.

The roe v wade decision is 100% consistent with us constitution and is 100% ethical .

The per son argument went out the window and now the gang of nothing to do but spread disinformation and vacuous arguments wages onward .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Trying To Cast Worry With Shadow Puppets "

* Clown Shoes *

Except of course it meets the definition of a specific living human being you lose the science and legal argument.

The legal argument was over about 20 posts ago and your team lost .

You simply believe that arrogance about your damned dirty ape wins the day .

 

[ding]

" Trying To Cast Worry With Shadow Puppets "

* Clown Shoes *

Except of course it meets the definition of a specific living human being you lose the science and legal argument.

The legal argument was over about 20 posts ago and your team lost .

You simply believe that arrogance about your damned dirty ape wins the day .

No, I believe that your dehumanization won my day.

You are in stunning company.