Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

[Puppies04]

This happened locally a few days ago, someone on a local car forum captioned it...

Driver was ejected, which probably saved his life.

Ooops ☻

 

[CZroe]

They are different because they're different. If you can't get the difference between a non-viable embryo and an actual child, then you are a fucking idiot.

I didn't make a bring a poorly thought out P&N point in here. Shorty did.

I'm saying that the difference does not mean what you think it means. Shorty brought a bad joke. You didn't. I'm pretty sure you were one of the ones telling me not to respond to the bad Louis CK "joke" that was based on wrong assumptions.

You must think that your point was inarguable and, thus, you weren't bringing the debate here, but ending it. That is laughable because it shows that you don't even understand the basic argument that the difference is not what distinguishes one from the other. People argue that BOTH are protected human lives and your point does nothing to address that. All it says is that you disagree while adding no additional reason.

You do realize that a newborn is "non-viable" on it's own too, right? Because that's going to be the next point someone you think you have backed into a corner will make. You can even go back and forth over "viable" embryos: The one you show looks perfectly "viable" in the usual sense of the word (could be implanted and taken to full term). If you want to debate that too, take it to P&N.

I'm not making these points. You just don't seem to have a clue what the other side of the argument even is. Of course you think the difference means something when it comes to justifying abortion. The other side doesn't, which is where the argument STARTS. IOW, the understood difference is the STARTING POINT of the argument, so thanks for taking us all the way back with your failed point.

 

[Jodell88]

 

[ch33zw1z]

@ CZroe...that picture....just rough....

 

[BudAshes]

 

[Angry Irishman]

Apparently, you're too stupid to differentiate between this:

and this:

Why don't you just make the second picture a teenager....

 

[Angry Irishman]

Read closer. That's exactly what I said.

Also, ask yourself: what is my stance? I said his particular argument was bad for that reason but that is far from the only argument for abortion.

Please abort yourself....with a coat hanger.

 

[Ruptga]

If I were a mod I would abort every single one of your accounts for at least two weeks. Shut the fuck up about serious business.

 

[preslove]

I never said I was clever. Just posted a pic.

Again, you are assuming much and questioning little.

Do you act like that all the time? I hope not.

The "pic" is a right wing political cartoon

I'm saying that the difference does not mean what you think it means. Shorty brought a bad joke. You didn't. I'm pretty sure you were one of the ones telling me not to respond to the bad Louis CK "joke" that was based on wrong assumptions.

You must think that your point was inarguable and, thus, you weren't bringing the debate here, but ending it. That is laughable because it shows that you don't even understand the basic argument that the difference is not what distinguishes one from the other. People argue that BOTH are protected human lives and your point does nothing to address that. All it says is that you disagree while adding no additional reason.

You do realize that a newborn is "non-viable" on it's own too, right? Because that's going to be the next point someone you think you have backed into a corner will make. You can even go back and forth over "viable" embryos: The one you show looks perfectly "viable" in the usual sense of the word (could be implanted and taken to full term). If you want to debate that too, take it to P&N.

I'm not making these points. You just don't seem to have a clue what the other side of the argument even is. Of course you think the difference means something when it comes to justifying abortion. The other side doesn't, which is where the argument STARTS. IOW, the understood difference is the STARTING POINT of the argument, so thanks for taking us all the way back with your failed point.

You think you're way smarter than you are.

An embryo is not a child. This is plain, indisputable fact. The fact that you have some idiotic, convoluted theology that tells you different is irrelevant. They simply are not the same thing.

And "viability" has a precise definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

A newborn is "viable" because it only needs air to breath, milk/food/water. "Non-Viable" means a fetus (embryos ARE NEVER VIABLE) does not have their organs developed to the point of being able to survive outside the womb.

What the fuck do you do in this thread besides post ignorant wingnut P&N bullshit?

 

[AMDZen]

Thread derailed

 

[corwin]

The "pic" is a right wing political cartoon

Let it go...there's left wing bullshit in here too, just move on and pull those panties out of your ass

 

[shortylickens]

 

[KeithTalent]

^^Gorilla Munch! :awe:

KT

 

[PottedMeat]

here's a non political pic

 

[corwin]

here's a non political pic

Wrong, it mentions Jesus Christ and must be discussed ad nauseum

 

[Howard]

here's a non political pic

hahahahahahahahahha

 

[Jodell88]

 

[Charlie98]

Even she's got bigger boobs than...

 

[Hugh Jass]

Thanks Captain Obvious.

 

[Charlie98]

Thanks Captain Obvious.

Hey, it beats the shit out of the past 3 pages of abortion talk.

 

[eits]

here's a non political pic

HAHA awesome

 

[eits]

i don't get it.

 

[BladeVenom]

I thought it was funny.

 

[Jeff7]

here's a non political pic

</img>

You just know that 95% of all primitive cave paintings were like this, but we only see the 5% that are "clean."

 

[Gibsons]