Abortion intended to wipe out black. Hilarious

[highland145]

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.

Give me the pillow if I'm brain dead.

So 25 weeks for the cortex to develop and make you you. Opinion on late term abortions?

Same statement as before applies. Just curious.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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.

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.

I don't think Atreus21 is a conservative and i don't think that any of this has anything to do with political views.

In short, he wants a theocratic society where his pastor (who he believes knows what is best for everyone) rules with an iron fist.

This isn't uncommon and people like him actually believe that there is "another side" which does base their secular rules on some kind of "dogma" that is anti-religious.

He is wrong though, secularism allows for personal choice and that includes his personal beliefs, it is the opposite of the opression that comes from theocratic rules.

Sad part is, Atreus21 knows this full well, he just rejects it because of an archaic system he feels he needs to follow, the same system that killed scientists because reality didn't adhere to the religious scriptures.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Give me the pillow if I'm brain dead.

So 25 weeks for the cortex to develop and make you you. Opinion on late term abortions?

Same statement as before applies. Just curious.

I'm going to stick by the UK law on this one, 12 weeks it's in and out, 12-16 there is counseling, from 16-22 there is counseling for both parents both before and after, after 22 it's not a choice anymore unless something goes wrong.

I hope that answers it for you.

BTW, a pillow won't be required, you're already dead in that case, just make sure you filled out your donors card, it's important.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

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.

Okay, so let's make this analogy more accurate. You invite the man into your house. (Impregnation). Then you make it so that he can't leave (the baby, by no fault of its own, is confined to the uterus). SOMEHOW, you make it so that he is dependent on you for survival (the baby cannot survive outside the uterus.) Then you kill him, and claim that he intruded, took up residence, and sapped your resources.

To me there's no difference between telling someone they can't commit murder, and telling them they can't kill their own child for convenience.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't think Atreus21 is a conservative and i don't think that any of this has anything to do with political views.

In short, he wants a theocratic society where his pastor (who he believes knows what is best for everyone) rules with an iron fist.

This isn't uncommon and people like him actually believe that there is "another side" which does base their secular rules on some kind of "dogma" that is anti-religious.

He is wrong though, secularism allows for personal choice and that includes his personal beliefs, it is the opposite of the opression that comes from theocratic rules.

Sad part is, Atreus21 knows this full well, he just rejects it because of an archaic system he feels he needs to follow, the same system that killed scientists because reality didn't adhere to the religious scriptures.

John you've argued enough with me to know that I'm not motivated by the desire for a theocracy. My arguments so far have been strictly secular.

I argue against abortion for the same reason I argue against murder.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Remind me to put that in my sig sometime.

If you think it is false, you are invited to indicate which laws of nature are violated.

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.

Our rights we grant to eachother, and nobody has the right to live at the unconsensual expense of another person's body.

How did the baby get in the womb?

There is no baby in the womb. If one were there, it would suffocate. Blastocysts implant themselves into a woman's uterus, subverting her natural immune defenses to do so. How that amounts to "her fault" is only accessible to the very confused minds of ignorant theocrats.

Very well thought out response.

The facts are what they are.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

John you've argued enough with me to know that I'm not motivated by the desire for a theocracy. My arguments so far have been strictly secular.

I argue against abortion for the same reason I argue against murder.

Because you believe in "god breath"? That doesn't even make sense.

Your arguments are based on religious belief, you're just ashamed of admitting where you got them from, you don't have to be, we all know.

Reality is as it is regardless of your religious dogma and without it you'd have to agree with reality which IS that a pre week 25 fetus isn't any more alive than Hitler.

That is the way reality is and the only argument against it is religious, where faith and reality collides, just choose reality, in the end it's always the only proper choice, just ask the Catholics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Okay, so let's make this analogy more accurate. You invite the man into your house. (Impregnation).

Wrong. The invitation is analogous to sexual intercourse.

Then you make it so that he can't leave (the baby, by no fault of its own, is confined to the uterus).

Wrong. There is no baby. The blastocyst implants itself, subverting the woman's natural immune defenses in the process. Learn some biology you ignorant hick.

SOMEHOW, you make it so that he is dependent on you for survival (the baby cannot survive outside the uterus.)

Again, the zygote actually forces these changes upon the mother by injecting her with hormones. Educate yourself, fucktard.

Then you kill him, and claim that he intruded, took up residence, and sapped your resources.

The fetus is removed, because it's removal is necessary to end the violation of the woman's rights. It's death is an unfortunately consequence of that removal. Were the technology sufficient to preserve it's life, I would have no objection to the use of such methods.

To me there's no difference between telling someone they can't commit murder, and telling them they can't kill their own child for convenience.

You think that because you are stupid. Period.

 

[Atreus21]

Nevermind.

 

[Atreus21]

Wrong. The invitation is analogous to sexual intercourse.



Wrong. There is no baby. The blastocyst implants itself, subverting the woman's natural immune defenses in the process. Learn some biology you ignorant hick.

Again, the zygote actually forces these changes upon the mother by injecting her with hormones. Educate yourself, fucktard.

The fetus is removed, because it's removal is necessary to end the violation of the woman's rights. It's death is an unfortunately consequence of that removal. Were the technology sufficient to preserve it's life, I would have no objection to the use of such methods.

You think that because you are stupid. Period.

hahaha.

Okay dude, I'm done taking you seriously.

Here's what I've got so far. Sex doesn't cause pregnancy, the fertilized egg does. In other news, guns don't kill people, bullets blasting through brains do. I didn't lift this pen, my hand did.

You are hereby classified a GRADE A LOON.

 

[Atreus21]

Because you believe in "god breath"? That doesn't even make sense.

Your arguments are based on religious belief, you're just ashamed of admitting where you got them from, you don't have to be, we all know.

Reality is as it is regardless of your religious dogma and without it you'd have to agree with reality which IS that a pre week 25 fetus isn't any more alive than Hitler.

Frankly, this quote...

That is the way reality is and the only argument against it is religious, where faith and reality collides, just choose reality, in the end it's always the only proper choice, just ask the Catholics.

...sounds more dogmatic than anything I've said so far.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Frankly, this quote...



...sounds more dogmatic than anything I've said so far.

True, because you are beating around the bush, you have not given any qualifications for your stance what so ever, you don't say where you derive your stance from.

If i'm wrong, just come out and say that, tell me why you have the opinion you have.

 

[highland145]

Think I'll keep posting this because I'm curious:

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?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

hahaha.

Okay dude, I'm done taking you seriously.

Here's what I've got so far. Sex doesn't cause pregnancy, the fertilized egg does. In other news, guns don't kill people, bullets blasting through brains do. I didn't lift this pen, my hand did.

You are hereby classified a GRADE A LOON.

Well he is correct, sex in and of itself does not cause pregnancies more than driving causes automobile accidents. We know it does but i can honestly say that i've fucked hundreds of women without the intent of impregnating even one of them.

Fertilisation of the egg IS what causes pregnancy, sexual intercourse CAN cause the womans egg to be fertilised even if that was not the intention.

Collisions cause injuries, driving CAN cause collisions even if that was not the intention.

Is that any clearer?

BTW, sex is awesome, when you grow up you'll experience it too so don't knock it until you tried it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Think I'll keep posting this because I'm curious:

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?

Because a fucking braindead lump of tissue is not a fucking child?

I thought you were sane, for a few posts you even acted sane, did your meds wear off or something? Pop another pill of whatever you need to take, you obviously need it to function right.

 

[highland145]

I thought you were sane, for a few posts you even acted sane, did your meds wear off or something?

You confused me with someone else.

I wasn't directing this at you. You're sticking with U.K. law of the 22 weeks. You're answer is logical. Some posters "sound" as if a later term abortion (maybe partial birth) would be just fine if they chose. If that's the case...hence my question.

 

[Atreus21]

Well he is correct, sex in and of itself does not cause pregnancies more than driving causes automobile accidents. We know it does but i can honestly say that i've fucked hundreds of women without the intent of impregnating even one of them.

Fertilisation of the egg IS what causes pregnancy, sexual intercourse CAN cause the womans egg to be fertilised even if that was not the intention.

Collisions cause injuries, driving CAN cause collisions even if that was not the intention.

Is that any clearer?

BTW, sex is awesome, when you grow up you'll experience it too so don't knock it until you tried it.

Incidentally, my wife is due in two months.

Equivocating an accidental pregnancy to an automobile accident is only accurate if you went out and tried to get into an automobile accident.

 

[highland145]

Incidentally, my wife is due in two months.

Equivocating an accidental pregnancy to an automobile accident is only accurate if you went out and tried to get into an automobile accident.

1st?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You confused me with someone else.

I wasn't directing this at you. You're sticking with U.K. law of the 22 weeks. You're answer is logical. Some posters "sound" as if a later term abortion (maybe partial birth) would be just fine if they chose. If that's the case...hence my question.

Then qualify your question correctly.

"If a near born fetus should be allowed to be treated as nothing more than a tissue sample then why shouldn't a just born infant be allowed to be treated the same way"

That is the question you want answered, isn't it? From my perspective, as you know, both instances should be treated the same way, life is precious (says the soldier) and should be protected.

 

[highland145]

Then qualify your question correctly.

"If a near born fetus should be allowed to be treated as nothing more than a tissue sample then why shouldn't a just born infant be allowed to be treated the same way"

That is the question you want answered, isn't it? From my perspective, as you know, both instances should be treated the same way, life is precious (says the soldier) and should be protected.

Nope. I want to know how there can be a lack of feeling/emotion for the yet/soon to be born and an unbearable tragedy if something happens to a child. Keeping the same constant- parents that are pro abort.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Nope. I want to know how there can be a lack of feeling/emotion for the yet/soon to be born and an unbearable tragedy if something happens to a child. Keeping the same constant- parents that are pro abort.

Well, that question isn't for me to answer because as i see it, and have seen it, such a loss is real wether your child was born or still in the womb.

You should stop using phrases like pro abort and abortionists though, they don't help and they are wrong, even more wrong than the moniker anti-choice because that is at least factually correct, i wouldn't use it though because it's inflammatory.

 

[highland145]

Well, that question isn't for me to answer because as i see it, and have seen it, such a loss is real wether your child was born or still in the womb.

You should stop using phrases like pro abort and abortionists though, they don't help and they are wrong, even more wrong than the moniker anti-choice because that is at least factually correct, i wouldn't use it though because it's inflammatory.

Sorry for your loss. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.

It's an inflammatory subject. I could be more P.C. and say "a person who chose..." but it's still the same question. And I will admit that a lot of peeps aren't logical so my hypothetical "logical" question may be just pissing in the wind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Sorry for your loss. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.

It's an inflammatory subject. I could be more P.C. and say "a person who chose..." but it's still the same question. And I will admit that a lot of peeps aren't logical so my hypothetical "logical" question may be just pissing in the wind.

Thank you.

It doesn't have to be an inflammatory subject at all if we stick to what we know.

Pre week 25, no life, at this point an abortion is no different than a failed implantation, nothing has really happened from fertilisation up to this point except the growth of tissue, after that, when the cerebral cortex is activated the fetus starts to develop a personality, it happens extremely fast, this is when the foundation of who this fetus will become once he or she is born is established. It's not really so strange that different kids have very different personalities, they had since post week 25 to develop one and they sure do.

In this small place in your head you have everything that is you, if there is such a thing as a soul this is where the soul would be.

I honestly don't understand why we can't discuss this based on knowledge and science? Well, i do, which is why i despise religion so much.

 

[highland145]

I honestly don't understand why we can't discuss this based on knowledge and science? Well, i do, which is why i despise religion so much.

We are, aren't we. In the U.S., I have never heard the cerebral cortex idea. At the same time, I choose to believe life begins at conception. That is not life that you (and I agree) describe as a human or "personhood" brought on by the formation of the cortex. But life where living, alive, cells are dividing and multiplying with a purpose to create a human.

So we disagree. Makes life interesting.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

hahaha.

Okay dude, I'm done taking you seriously.

Nothing I have said is false, and you cannot show that anything I have said is false. If you cannot or refuse to take the facts seriously, that is your problem, but the facts remain, and my opinions of you are vindicated.

Here's what I've got so far. Sex doesn't cause pregnancy, the fertilized egg does.

How many times have you had sex? How many pregnancies have you caused?

Do you want to guess how many times I've had sex? I can tell you how many pregnancies I've caused -- zero. How can that be?

Now, do you know how many automobile collisions I've experienced as a consequence of driving on public motorways? Three. Obviously, then, driving on public motorways causes traffic collisions.

In other news, guns don't kill people, bullets blasting through brains do. I didn't lift this pen, my hand did.

Newsflash, Poindexter: Bullets and guns are not living organisms.

You are hereby classified a GRADE A LOON.

Coming from someone who is more wrong with every word that he writes, this claim is quite impotent.