• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charlie Kirk permanently owned on abortion

Scrabaholic said:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rare disease: An infant with caudal appendage

There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare ‘true human tail’. It is a rare event with fewer than 40 cases reported in the literature. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'll accept your apology now.
Click to expand...
A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail."

Good grief - maybe you really are that gullible.
 
beefheart said:
Look up the definition of "Caudal"
Click to expand...
I did. Did you?

caudal​

[ kawd-l ]

adjective
Anatomy, Zoology. of, at, or near the tail or the posterior end of the body.
Zoology. taillike: caudal appendages.

Maybe you need to look up what "taillike" means, or perhaps the meaning of proximity. Or heck, just look up the word "tail."

noun
the hindmost part of an animal, especially that forming a distinct, flexible appendage to the back end of its body.

weaver2 said:
This is appalling ignorance.
Click to expand...
Goodness, talk about the pot calling the kettle....

Let's back up a tad, according to the OP's video, this comedian (and obvious moron), Ben Glieb, asserts that humans don't have tails - ergo, fetuses (or embryos)* with tails aren't human.
That's his argument - fetuses (or embryos) can't be human because they [supposedly] have tails.

This is also how how he traps and embarrasses Kirk - by showing him a dolphin fetus (or embryo) - which trap, btw, consists of his assertion that the fetus with the tail IS A DOLPHIN (but of course, fetuses (or embryos) with "tails" aren't human until such a time as they apparently lose their tail, at which time they are now human... or some such nonsense as that)

So you tell me, how does that which isn't human because it has a tail - how does a tailed, non-human become human?

...and btw - how do you not find this argument of Glieb's utterly appalling? How? Merely because he happens to believe in abortion like you do?
FWIW- THAT would be genuinely appalling.

*Glieb's logic sort of equates the two, as does yours so I'm going to play along and say the difference is one without substantive distinction.
 
Last edited:
EdwinWillers said:
A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail."

Good grief - maybe you really are that gullible.
Click to expand...
Evidently, you did not read it:

"Human embryos normally have a prenatal tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. At between 4 and 5 weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10–12 developing tail vertebrae. By the 8th week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth tail vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress."

The source is the NIH. (link in my original post on this)
 
Last edited:
EdwinWillers said:
........... how do you not find this argument of Glieb's utterly appalling? How? Merely because he happens to believe in abortion like you do?
FWIW- THAT would be genuinely appalling.
Click to expand...
What's appalling is your lack of knowledge about embryology. Even after being shown the comparative embryological drawings of Ernst Haeckel you stated:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""

This is usually taught in Jr. Hi. biology class.
 
weaver2 said:
What's appalling is your lack of knowledge about embryology. Even after being shown the comparative embryological drawings of Ernst Haeckel you stated:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""

This is usually taught in Jr. Hi. biology class.
Click to expand...
No, what's appalling is your apparent inability to do what's usually taught much earlier than jr. high - which is TO READ. Because READ my post you definitely did not.

What's even more appalling is the utter dishonesty in this asinine line of pro-abortion argumentation in the first place.

An HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't care about embryology, or the fetus, or what "stage of development" either is at - an HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't believe any of that is relevant, that irrespective of any of that it's perfectly moral to abort it, to cease the progression of growth, to stop the development of a so-called embryo with a "tail" (which you know perfectly well means "tail-like" but are too dishonest to even concede that fact for the sake of appearing - "not ignorant") from becoming "not a tail" - to progress from somehow being "not human" (according to your comedian/prophet Mr. Glieb) to being "human" - since according to your comedian/prophet - humans don't have tails.

And oh my gosh - talk about being "OWNED!"

The only reason this utterly asinine line of reasoning from pro-abortionists and moronic comedian/prophets like their Mr. Glieb came to pass in the first place was in a sorry attempt to refute the pro-life notion of "life at conception." And this is the best you could come up with? Embryos have tails, but humans don't - ergo embryos aren't human - until of course such a time as they lose their tails, but then they only make it to the next stage which is just "fetus" - which isn't human either (for some unknown reason)...

If you are truly honest with yourself, THIS is what should appall you, that you fell for this inanity in the first place.
 
EdwinWillers said:
No, what's appalling is your apparent inability to do what's usually taught much earlier than jr. high - which is TO READ. Because READ my post you definitely did not.

What's even more appalling is the utter dishonesty in this asinine line of pro-abortion argumentation in the first place.

An HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't care about embryology, or the fetus, or what "stage of development" either is at - an HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't believe any of that is relevant, that irrespective of any of that it's perfectly moral to abort it, to cease the progression of growth, to stop the development of a so-called embryo with a "tail" (which you know perfectly well means "tail-like" but are too dishonest to even concede that fact for the sake of appearing - "not ignorant") from becoming "not a tail" - to progress from somehow being "not human" (according to your comedian/prophet Mr. Glieb) to being "human" - since according to your comedian/prophet - humans don't have tails.

And oh my gosh - talk about being "OWNED!"

The only reason this utterly asinine line of reasoning from pro-abortionists and moronic comedian/prophets like their Mr. Glieb came to pass in the first place was in a sorry attempt to refute the pro-life notion of "life at conception." And this is the best you could come up with? Embryos have tails, but humans don't - ergo embryos aren't human - until of course such a time as they lose their tails, but then they only make it to the next stage which is just "fetus" - which isn't human either (for some unknown reason)...

If you are truly honest with yourself, THIS is what should appall you, that you fell for this inanity in the first place.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap, but a good ignorant rant nonetheless...
 
Scrabaholic said:
Evidently, you did not read it:

"Human embryos normally have a prenatal tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. At between 4 and 5 weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10–12 developing tail vertebrae. By the 8th week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth tail vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress."

The source is the NIH. (link in my original post on this)
Click to expand...
See my response to @weaver2 - applies to you as well.
 
Charley Kirk got owned? Shocking.

charlie kirk1.jpg
 
EdwinWillers said:
Absolutely appalling - what phenomenally twisted logic - that actually proves nothing in the end!

This moron tricks Kirk with a photo of a dolphin fetus (with a tail), then produces a photo of a human fetus and gets Kirk to embarrass himself by [wrongly] asserting the dolphin fetus is a human fetus. So, Kirk was silly to assert ("without a doubt") that photo was of a human fetus. He definitely embarrassed himself, "without a doubt."

The moron then proceeds to make fun of Kirk for confusing the two, accusing Kirk of not knowing the difference between a dolphin fetus and a human fetus IRL. < clap > < clap >

The moron's premise however seems to be based on the [false] premise that "fetuses have tails" (of course, fetuses do not have tails), whereupon he proceeds to assert via his absurd logic that "humans don't have tails" - ergo, fetuses with tails aren't human. So far, so "good."

But this is when he refers back to the dolphin fetus - proving what? Dolphins aren't human?

Honestly, what's sadder here? Kirk's making a minor fool of himself for asserting what he did, or the moron's twisted logic that proved absolutely nothing? Or those who think the moron somehow "owned" Kirk with this nonsense?

It's no wonder attempting to reason with some people can be so difficult.
Click to expand...
What is sad, is that lefties are more likely to protect and try to keep alive a dolphin fetus than a human one, just like they will protect a tree before a human fetus.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
What is sad, is that lefties are more likely to protect and try to keep alive a dolphin fetus than a human one, just like they will protect a tree before a human fetus.
Click to expand...
"Lefties" protect all sorts of things, dolphins, trees, rivers, land and people. Right now they are fighting for unleaded safe drinking water for the real live born peoplein Flint Michigan. They are fighting for the right of families to decide when to it is possible to add another child to the family. They are fighting for the right of immigrants to be treated fairly, health insurance for everybody, child care for the already born children, decent wages for low wage workers, work place safety. The list of things Lefties fight for is long. They don't fight to save every fetus because the fetus does not belong to "lefties". It belongs to the mother and her family. They get to decide what happens, not lefties, not conservatives, not religious busybodies, not church elders, not those that are against abortion.
 
EdwinWillers said:
No, what's appalling is your apparent inability to do what's usually taught much earlier than jr. high - which is TO READ. Because READ my post you definitely did not.

What's even more appalling is the utter dishonesty in this asinine line of pro-abortion argumentation in the first place.

An HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't care about embryology, or the fetus, or what "stage of development" either is at - an HONEST pro-abortion advocate would admit they don't believe any of that is relevant, that irrespective of any of that it's perfectly moral to abort it, to cease the progression of growth, to stop the development of a so-called embryo with a "tail" (which you know perfectly well means "tail-like" but are too dishonest to even concede that fact for the sake of appearing - "not ignorant") from becoming "not a tail" - to progress from somehow being "not human" (according to your comedian/prophet Mr. Glieb) to being "human" - since according to your comedian/prophet - humans don't have tails.

And oh my gosh - talk about being "OWNED!"

The only reason this utterly asinine line of reasoning from pro-abortionists and moronic comedian/prophets like their Mr. Glieb came to pass in the first place was in a sorry attempt to refute the pro-life notion of "life at conception." And this is the best you could come up with? Embryos have tails, but humans don't - ergo embryos aren't human - until of course such a time as they lose their tails, but then they only make it to the next stage which is just "fetus" - which isn't human either (for some unknown reason)...

If you are truly honest with yourself, THIS is what should appall you, that you fell for this inanity in the first place.
Click to expand...
You can play semantic deflection, but it doesn't alter the fact that you posted:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""
 
LadyMoonlight said:
What is sad, is that lefties are more likely to protect and try to keep alive a dolphin fetus than a human one, just like they will protect a tree before a human fetus.
Click to expand...

Show me a dolphin calf who mentally, physically, and socially ruined its mother's life from conception to adulthood.
 
weaver2 said:
You can play semantic deflection, but it doesn't alter the fact that you posted:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.
Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""
Click to expand...
"Semantic deflection??" The only one deflecting here is you - and quite dishonestly I might add.

Yes, I said that. You want me to repeat it?

An HONEST pro-abortion advocate wouldn't allow themselves to get utterly owned by the asinine "tail" argument - period.
An HONEST pro-abortion advocate wouldn't allow themselves to get in the position of having to argue "semantic deflection" either in a feeble attempt to salvage their face.

P.S. this is a tail. It deflects flies. It also raises to get out of the way of horse dropping logic like "humans don't have tails" to support their stance on abortion.

iu
 
Patriotic Voter said:
Show me a dolphin calf who mentally, physically, and socially ruined its mother's life from conception to adulthood.
Click to expand...
Are you telling us you are pro-abortion because a baby would mentally, physically, and socially ruin your life?

Is THAT your argument for abortion?
 
EdwinWillers said:
An HONEST pro-abortion advocate wouldn't allow themselves to get utterly owned by the asinine "tail" argument - period.
Click to expand...
So, you think pro-choice advocates should just keep quite when someone says:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail. Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""
EdwinWillers said:
An HONEST pro-abortion advocate wouldn't allow themselves to get in the position of having to argue "semantic deflection" either in a feeble attempt to salvage their face.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone have to salvage face because they pointed out the profound ignorance of:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""
 
weaver2 said:
So, you think pro-choice advocates should just keep quite when someone says:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail. Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""

Why would anyone have to salvage face because they pointed out the profound ignorance of:
"Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???"
"Of course it is.(a leg) Do you think it's a tail? Are you truly that gullible that you think it's a TAIL??"
"A caudal appendage is not a tail.Nor are embryonic "tail vertebrae" in fact an actual "tail.""
Click to expand...
Is that your schtick then, repeating words I've said, thinking to shame me?
Is it your schtick to ignore the argument altogether, and the irrefutable logic presented to you, never mind the fact that I not only (and unabashedly) own those words you're repeating but have repeated them for you myself several times already?
Is that your schtick?

Methinks perhaps your shuttle is irretrievably stuck - that, or you're simply weaving without one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom