Abortion intended to wipe out black. Hilarious

[JohnOfSheffield]

You asserted that the only difference between a fetus and an adult was degree. I presented a fact which contradicted your claim. Eat it.




A woman gets to decide for herself whether her pregnancy is invited or not, not you.

To that i can only say, aye.

2x the second point made.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I already did.

It must've been in invisible type, then.

THAT is the point.

What is the point?

Look, i don't know what the fuck your problem is but i DID explain every fucking thing in this thread so go read through it, if you don't understand it i'll recoup very slowly just for your dumb arse.

By all means, do elaborate.

Are we clear?

As mud.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There are no babies involved in the early termination of a pregnancy.


Abortions are about a person's right to live free from unwanted intrusions into his or her own body. Just because you invite a stranger into your house does not give him the right to steal things from your fridge, and you maintain the right to evict him from your premises at any time. The same principles would even apply to pregnancy, if the fetus was a person. It so happens that it isn't, so it matters not in any case.

That's actually a pretty fucking good methaphor, it even works the other way, that the father doesn't have a say about the mothers house.

I'm going to steal that one if you don't mind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It must've been in invisible type, then.


What is the point?


By all means, do elaborate.


As mud.

I give up here, you can read, can't you? I already gave the answer.

+1 for making me smile with "as mud" though.

 

[Atreus21]

What laws of nature are violated?

Whatever law of nature which is violated when someone kills their own child, I suppose.

Yes, and... ? As I've explained copiously, consent to sex is not consent to become and remain pregnant.

Consent to sex is consenting to the possible consequence of sex. Everyone knows sex is a risky act. To embark upon such an act is to accept the consequences.

I don't see how anyone can possibly argue with that.

 

[Atreus21]

Having sex != Becoming pregnant.




Oh please, do explain that difference.


So what? Every single second of every single day you are gambling with your life. By stepping outside you are risking being struck by lightning. By getting in an elevator your are risking getting stuck and starving to death. By sitting at your desk in an office building you are risking the building collapsing down around you with you in it. You do not consent to these unintended consequences, even though they are very real possibilities. Yet, according to your reasoning, every person is always at fault for everything that happens to them. Oh? You got raped? Well you shouldn't have consented to jogging in the park, since getting raped in the park is a possible consequence of jogging there. Can't prosecute the rapist, you consented to it!

Great reasoning there, boy wonder.

Once again, getting struck by lightening is an accident you cannot foresee. An elevator accident is an accident you cannot foresee. The building collapsing is an accident you cannot foresee.

There is one very specific act which causes pregnancy, which in fact is designed to bring about pregnancy. It is no accident that pregnancy occurs.

 

[Atreus21]

You asserted that the only difference between a fetus and an adult was degree. I presented a fact which contradicted your claim. Eat it.

You presented the assertion that humanity is contingent on complete self-sufficiency. I defy you to point to any hint of that assertion in reality.

By that definition, infants aren't humans, and neither are some senior citizens.

A woman gets to decide for herself whether her pregnancy is invited or not, not you.

Really. So if you invite someone into your house, and then shoot him, you are going to claim that you killed him in self defense? And you think that's perfectly fine?

 

[Atreus21]

Abortions are about a person's right to live free from unwanted intrusions into his or her own body. Just because you invite a stranger into your house does not give him the right to steal things from your fridge, and you maintain the right to evict him from your premises at any time. The same principles would even apply to pregnancy, if the fetus was a person. It so happens that it isn't, so it matters not in any case.

Good analogy. Just because you invite a stranger into your house doesn't give you the right to shoot him. This isn't an eviction. It's killing him.

Also, you didn't just invite him in. You invited him in for an extended stay, in full knowledge of the weight of the commitment.

 

[Tristicus]

I love how this John guy is raging over and over at himself.

 

[highland145]

Good analogy. Just because you invite a stranger into your house doesn't give you the right to shoot him. This isn't an eviction. It's killing him.

Also, you didn't just invite him in. You invited him in for an extended stay, in full knowledge of the weight of the commitment.

Atreus, John's opinion is 25 weeks for "personhood". If others time line is "pre birth=o.k. to abort" then here's the question again:

Hypothetical question because the idea of experiencing this is unbearable.

If an abortionist believes that a unborn baby is just tissue and can be tossed, tested, frozen...then is it logical for them to grieve is they, parish the thought, should loose a child?

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus, John's opinion is 25 weeks for "personhood". If others time line is "pre birth=o.k. to abort" then here's the question again:

Well for the moment I'm intent on making it known that pregnancy, surprise surprise, arrives from having sex.

 

[highland145]

Well for the moment I'm intent on making it known that pregnancy, surprise surprise, arrives from having sex.

Took my folks 3 kids to figure it out. I just squeaked in.

 

[Robsasman]

Why cant all you anti-abortionists just accept the fact that you cant ram your believes down other peoples throats.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Atreus, John's opinion is 25 weeks for "personhood". If others time line is "pre birth=o.k. to abort" then here's the question again:

It's not about "opinion", it's about how things are in reality.

We can all make up sheit and say that it's real but the point i'm making is in use in reality every single day, doctors do use the measurement of life every single fucking day.

I still haven't gotten an answer why you are alive if you are unborn but if you were born with that same level of cerebral cortex you'd be dead.

Something tells me that you guys really don't give a shit about definitions or logic, you just want what your pastor told you to be truth to everyone.

That shit might fly in Iran or Saudi Arabia but in the western world we don't allow what some religious nuts claim to be truth to stand in the way of reality when making laws.

 

[highland145]

It's not about "opinion", it's about how things are in reality.

We can all make up sheit and say that it's real but the point i'm making is in use in reality every single day, doctors do use the measurement of life every single fucking day.

I still haven't gotten an answer why you are alive if you are unborn but if you were born with that same level of cerebral cortex you'd be dead.

Something tells me that you guys really don't give a shit about definitions or logic, you just want what your pastor told you to be truth to everyone.

That shit might fly in Iran or Saudi Arabia but in the western world we don't allow what some religious nuts claim to be truth to stand in the way of reality when making laws.

Stop being shitty. I did post a site that stated the number of weeks for personhood near what you say. But I believe it was 22 weeks, in their opinion.

I'm not asking questions to stir the pot. I'm curious. I have never heard of using the cerebral cortex as a marker for life. Usually it's one's opinion based on what they want even if it's just prior to birth.

 

[Atreus21]

Why cant all you anti-abortionists just accept the fact that you cant ram your believes down other peoples throats.

Don't be naive.

You guys are doing the same thing.

It's not ramming beliefs down people's throats to condemn their actions. Otherwise we can't objectively judge any act.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Stop being shitty. I did post a site that stated the number of weeks for personhood near what you say. But I believe it was 22 weeks, in their opinion.

I'm not asking questions to stir the pot. I'm curious. I have never heard of using the cerebral cortex as a marker for life. Usually it's one's opinion based on what they want even if it's just prior to birth.

I'm being shitty? You can't bloody comprehend that i'm not going by opinion here but with a fucking fact and i'm being shitty?

The cerebral cortex is what makes you you, without it you're clinically dead, there is no question whether this is so, it is and doctors make this call every single day.

This discussion will not ever get any further until those who are opposed to abortion tell us what their reason REALLY is, why they are going against every ounce of logic there is.

What possible reason could there be to go against all that is actually known? As usual it's all about faith, the biggest problem humankind has ever faced and the only thing that can actually convince people that reality isn't really real.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Don't be naive.

You guys are doing the same thing.

It's not ramming beliefs down people's throats to condemn their actions. Otherwise we can't objectively judge any act.

Ah, so the definition of how life begins and ends is a "belief"? Well to someone like yourself i'm sure it is but in reality, where i live, life and death are clinical definitions.

Condemning actions based on nothing but arbitrary religious beliefs is retarded, it really is.

You're clinging to "god breath" and that is fine, FOR YOU! Religious beliefs are great as long as they are personal beliefs, when you start pushing them into legislation you end up like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

[highland145]

I'm being shitty? You can't bloody comprehend that i'm not going by opinion here but with a fucking fact and i'm being shitty?

The cerebral cortex is what makes you you, without it you're clinically dead, there is no question whether this is so, it is and doctors make this call every single day.

This discussion will not ever get any further until those who are opposed to abortion tell us what their reason REALLY is, why they are going against every ounce of logic there is.

What possible reason could there be to go against all that is actually known? As usual it's all about faith, the biggest problem humankind has ever faced and the only thing that can actually convince people that reality isn't really real.

We can all make up sheit...

...really don't give a shit ...

That shit might fly...

I like that one.

Once again, I'm not asking questions to stir the pot. I'm curious. I have never heard of using the cerebral cortex as a marker for life. Usually it's based on one's opinion based on what they want, even if it's just prior to birth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Whatever law of nature which is violated when someone kills their own child, I suppose.

There are no laws of nature violated when a person murders an infant. The point which you are too dense to infer from my intimating is that you are abusing the word "natural," essentially committing a reverse naturalistic fallacy -- attempting to derive an "is" from an "ought." You believe that abortions ought not be natural, so you attempt to claim that abortion is not natural. As usual, your reasoning is pathetically transparent and erroneous.

Consent to sex is consenting to the possible consequence of sex.

This is simply an error of fact which flies in the face of virtually every legal principle with regard to culpability.

Everyone knows sex is a risky act.

Everyone knows driving a car is a risky act. Everyone knows flying in a plane is a risky act. Literally everything is a risky act, because with literally every action there is some risk of unfortunate consequences. Do you know why they make you sign a waiver before bungee jumping or skydiving? Precisely because it is not true that simply engaging in a risky activity is tantamount to consenting to the unintended consequences. In order to waive your rights to protect your body from harm, you must sign an explicit waiver.

To embark upon such an act is to accept the consequences.

Simply preposterous.

I don't see how anyone can possibly argue with that.

Of course you don't. You're an idiot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You presented the assertion that humanity is contingent on complete self-sufficiency.

I have never made such an assertion.

Really. So if you invite someone into your house, and then shoot him, you are going to claim that you killed him in self defense? And you think that's perfectly fine?

Jesus H. Christ, you are a moron. My analogy is an apt one, but it is only an analogy. If that person attempted to inject me with a foreign substance against my will, and I could demonstrate the only means necessary to defend my body against it was to cause his death, then yes, I would have legal justification.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I like that one.

Once again, I'm not asking questions to stir the pot. I'm curious. I have never heard of using the cerebral cortex as a marker for life. Usually it's based on one's opinion based on what they want, even if it's just prior to birth.

The question was answered a long time ago.

Yes, without cerebral cortex activity you are clinically dead, it's not reversable and if you have a donors card your organs will be harvested as soon as it's called.

I'm good with the rules in the UK which are based on that but with a copule of weeks of caution, kinda just in case.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Once again, getting struck by lightening is an accident you cannot foresee. An elevator accident is an accident you cannot foresee. The building collapsing is an accident you cannot foresee.

These claims are simply false. One can certainly foresee these events, they simply have lower probabilities than others. Nevertheless they are real potential consequences of consensual choices, so according to your reasoning, they must be consensual consequences.

There is one very specific act which causes pregnancy...

No, there are in fact a multitude of acts which can cause pregnancy, you stupid Republican.

...which in fact is designed to bring about pregnancy.

ROFL!!! And Christians wonder why people think they're so stupid.

It is no accident that pregnancy occurs.

By any reasonable definition of "accident," your claim is as unfounded and ignorant as any others you've made.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Good analogy. Just because you invite a stranger into your house doesn't give you the right to shoot him. This isn't an eviction. It's killing him.

It is obvious that you do not understand what an analogy is.

Where the "house" is the person's body, then lethal force is justified to "evict" the tenant if it is the only means necessary to do so.

Also, you didn't just invite him in. You invited him in for an extended stay, in full knowledge of the weight of the commitment.

It's my house. I can decide how long he stays, and I can change my mind if I want.

It interestingly hypocritical that a presumably "small-government" conservative like yourself is eager to the point of absurdity to tell others what they can or can't do with their own private property.

 

[Atreus21]

There are no laws of nature violated when a person murders an infant.

Remind me to put that in my sig sometime.

This is simply an error of fact which flies in the face of virtually every legal principle with regard to culpability.

I defy you to expound on what you know of legal principle. If you knew so much about it, you might realize that the right to life is a legal principle predicated on the fact that it's recognized as a law of nature.

Everyone knows driving a car is a risky act. Everyone knows flying in a plane is a risky act. Literally everything is a risky act, because with literally every action there is some risk of unfortunate consequences. Do you know why they make you sign a waiver before bungee jumping or skydiving? Precisely because it is not true that simply engaging in a risky activity is tantamount to consenting to the unintended consequences. In order to waive your rights to protect your body from harm, you must sign an explicit waiver.

How did the baby get in the womb?

Simply preposterous.

Of course you don't. You're an idiot.

Very well thought out response.