• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hypocrites!

Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "seriously, you asking what makes a human being a human being is the most insane comment I've ever heard on this sight, that's like asking what makes a dog a dog or what makes an apple an apple, some things just are."

EXCEPT I HAVE NOT ASKED "What makes a human being a human being?" I have basically asked, "What makes an extraterrestrial intelligence equivalent to a human PERSON?" and I have asked the equivalent of, "How can any possible intelligent person in the Universe be correctly identified, no matter how many or what sort of animals might be surrounding that person? Your feeble, selfish, xenophobic, prejudicial, and egotistical attempt to confuse "persons" with mere human animal bodies has failed.


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Really, I'm not going to debate the definition of the word human being with you, it's a non-issue"

Agreed. You should be debating the definition of "person".


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "...which distracts from the real issue which is that if life begins at conception, then that life is infact human,

I have NEVER argued against those two points.


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "...and is thus a citizen and is thus subject to the protection of the 5th and 14th amendments."

FALSE!!! ONLY PERSONS BORN are granted rights according to the 14th Amendment. The 5th Amendment doesn't specify what it means by "person", but if the 14th is taken as an example, then the 5th, to be consistent, can only grant rights to "persons born" also.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Furthermore; you know who else thought killing a large segment of the populace"


DOESN'T MATTER, since I have never suggested killing a large segment of the populace. If you insist I have, you MUST provide references!
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
All scientists agree that life starts at conception
Click to expand...
Be careful about your claims. All scientists do NOT agree with that claim. Nearly ALL Scientists agree that life began about 4 bill +/- years ago.
how exactly am I supposed to prove a negative, you are the one who is claiming that a fetus is not a person the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a legal construct and in Roe vs Wade, Section IX, it is very clearly specified that the unborn is not a person. case closed.
And if the constitution does not say what makes a person
Click to expand...
The US Constitution specifies it enough that the SU Supreme Court was able to clarify it for us.
then is it not up to the people to put it to a vote rather than for activist judges legislating from the bench to make that decision for us?
Click to expand...
"activist judges"? You mean those you don't agree with? How is it activist to fullfill one's role as a US Supreme Court justice?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Furthermore; you know who else thought killing a large segment of the populace would solve unemployment? I'll give you a hint he had a funny little mustashe and liked to refer to himself as furor.
Click to expand...
Ah, that's the same guy who decided that women weren't allowed to make their own decision about whether to abort or not. yes, he very much had the same fascist sentiment of state control of a woman's body as we see in the prolifers of today.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Furthermore; you know who else thought killing a large segment of the populace"


DOESN'T MATTER, since I have never suggested killing a large segment of the populace. If you insist I have, you MUST provide references!
Click to expand...

The hell you haven't do you know the number of the populace who is unjustly put to death sans trial every year? Well just check out the abortion numbers.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "seriously, you asking what makes a human being a human being is the most insane comment I've ever heard on this sight, that's like asking what makes a dog a dog or what makes an apple an apple, some things just are."

EXCEPT I HAVE NOT ASKED "What makes a human being a human being?" I have basically asked, "What makes an extraterrestrial intelligence equivalent to a human PERSON?" and I have asked the equivalent of, "How can any possible intelligent person in the Universe be correctly identified, no matter how many or what sort of animals might be surrounding that person? Your feeble, selfish, xenophobic, prejudicial, and egotistical attempt to confuse "persons" with mere human animal bodies has failed.


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Really, I'm not going to debate the definition of the word human being with you, it's a non-issue"

Agreed. You should be debating the definition of "person".


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "...which distracts from the real issue which is that if life begins at conception, then that life is infact human,

I have NEVER argued against those two points.


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "...and is thus a citizen and is thus subject to the protection of the 5th and 14th amendments."

FALSE!!! ONLY PERSONS BORN are granted rights according to the 14th Amendment. The 5th Amendment doesn't specify what it means by "person", but if the 14th is taken as an example, then the 5th, to be consistent, can only grant rights to "persons born" also.
Click to expand...

Really so this has an effect on the bill of rights how?


The entire constitution does not decipher what is considered a human being due to the fact that if you're actually human (you are not) then you don't need a definition to know what makes for mankind. You are using the same arguments of anti-abolisionists you should feel proud, I'm agnostic but lord forgive him for he knows not what he does.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Furthermore; you know who else thought killing a large segment of the populace"

FutureIncoming replied: "DOESN'T MATTER, since I have never suggested killing a large segment of the populace. If you insist I have, you MUST provide references!"

Trajan Octavian Titus responded: "The hell you haven't do you know the number of the populace who is unjustly put to death sans trial every year? Well just check out the abortion numbers."

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. If the populace of the USA is 250million, and there are 1million abortions in a year, then the ratio is 0.004, or 0.4% --which is NOT "a large segment of the populace". Also, of course, you are ASSUMING that the unborn are part of the populace, and as mentioned in Message #560, THEY ARE NOT.
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "Furthermore; you know who else thought killing a large segment of the populace"

FutureIncoming replied: "DOESN'T MATTER, since I have never suggested killing a large segment of the populace. If you insist I have, you MUST provide references!"

Trajan Octavian Titus responded: "The hell you haven't do you know the number of the populace who is unjustly put to death sans trial every year? Well just check out the abortion numbers."

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. If the populace of the USA is 250million, and there are 1million abortions in a year, then the ratio is 0.004, or 0.4% --which is NOT "a large segment of the populace". Also, of course, you are ASSUMING that the unborn are part of the populace, and as mentioned in Message #560, THEY ARE NOT.
Click to expand...

by your own number of 1million this country is guilty of genocide. Percentages mean nothing cold hard numbers are what are at issue.

As was mentioned in #560 that is your opinion as opposed to fact and due to your assumption you have allowed your conscience to accept genocide. Like I said you and Stalin would get along well.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "I have basically asked, "What makes an extraterrestrial intelligence equivalent to a human PERSON?" and "FALSE!!! ONLY PERSONS BORN are granted rights according to the 14th Amendment. The 5th Amendment doesn't specify what it means by "person", but if the 14th is taken as an example, then the 5th, to be consistent, can only grant rights to "persons born" also."

--and wrote:"Really so this has an effect on the bill of rights how? The entire constitution does not decipher what is considered a human being due to the fact that if you're actually human (you are not) then you don't need a definition to know what makes for mankind."

As mentioned in Message #561, the entire Constitution does not even USE the word "human" anywhere in it. It ONLY uses "person" -- AND THAT WORD NEEDS TO BE DEFINED SO ALL HUMAN-EQUIVALENT INTELLIGENCES QUALIFY AS PERSONS, BUT NO MERE ANIMAL CAN QUALIFY. Which is why unborn humans will never qualify as persons -- they ARE DEMONSTRABLY IN SCIENTIFIC FACT mere animals, and are not and never have been even COUNTED for determining States' Representation in the House. This precedent FAR precedes Roe vs. Wade! --it was set in 1790 by the first Census.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. If the populace of the USA is 250million, and there are 1million abortions in a year, then the ratio is 0.004, or 0.4% --which is NOT "a large segment of the populace". Also, of course, you are ASSUMING that the unborn are part of the populace, and as mentioned in Message #560, THEY ARE NOT."

--and wrote: "by your own number of 1million this country is guilty of genocide. Percentages mean nothing cold hard numbers are what are at issue.

WHEN YOU SAY "A LARGE SEGMENT", **YOU** ARE SPECIFYING A PORTION SUCH AS A PERCENTAGE. If you want to focus on numbers only, then DON'T say something other than what you are talking about. Next, using that word "genocide" is FALSE. Genocide particularly focuses upon a single ethnic group; abortions are done among ALL groups in this country, none preferred over others. (Well, maybe those who pay cash up-front are preferred... :)


Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "As was mentioned in #560 that is your opinion as opposed to fact and due to your assumption you have allowed your conscience to accept genocide."

THE OBSERVATION THAT NO CENSUS COUNTS THE UNBORN, FOR STATES' REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES, IS FACT NOT OPINION. THAT OBSERVATION COUNTS AS PRECEDENT, AND THE COURTS MERELY NEED TO BE INFORMED, TO SOLIDIFY ROE VS. WADE BEYOND THE HOPES OF THOSE WHO WANT TO COUNT ANIMALS AS PERSONS. --OH, AND THE OBSERVATION THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE ANIMALS IS SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRABLE FACT, NOT OPINION.

The ONLY argument you have is YOUR opinion that ALL human animals, regardless of amount of functioning brain, should be called persons. Let me see your refutation of this:
+++
1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans.
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. If the populace of the USA is 250million, and there are 1million abortions in a year, then the ratio is 0.004, or 0.4% --which is NOT "a large segment of the populace". Also, of course, you are ASSUMING that the unborn are part of the populace, and as mentioned in Message #560, THEY ARE NOT."

--and wrote: "by your own number of 1million this country is guilty of genocide. Percentages mean nothing cold hard numbers are what are at issue.

WHEN YOU SAY "A LARGE SEGMENT", **YOU** ARE SPECIFYING A PORTION SUCH AS A PERCENTAGE. If you want to focus on numbers only, then DON'T say something other than what you are talking about. Next, using that word "genocide" is FALSE. Genocide particularly focuses upon a single ethnic group; abortions are done among ALL groups in this country, none preferred over others. (Well, maybe those who pay cash up-front are preferred... :)


Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "As was mentioned in #560 that is your opinion as opposed to fact and due to your assumption you have allowed your conscience to accept genocide."

THE OBSERVATION THAT NO CENSUS COUNTS THE UNBORN, FOR STATES' REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES, IS FACT NOT OPINION. THAT OBSERVATION COUNTS AS PRECEDENT, AND THE COURTS MERELY NEED TO BE INFORMED, TO SOLIDIFY ROE VS. WADE BEYOND THE HOPES OF THOSE WHO WANT TO COUNT ANIMALS AS PERSONS. --OH, AND THE OBSERVATION THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE ANIMALS IS SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRABLE FACT, NOT OPINION.

The ONLY argument you have is YOUR opinion that ALL human animals, regardless of amount of functioning brain, should be called persons. Let me see your refutation of this:
+++
1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans.
Click to expand...

A) Lists are good altenatives to acual debate (just watch)
B) Through your improper formatting of my quotes you have clogged the debate almost past the point of redemption.
C) All your points are mute in that they have not been put to a vote by the citizenry, why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court? You know we still live in a Republic right?
D) X amendment nuff said
 
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "The ONLY argument you have is YOUR opinion that ALL human animals, regardless of amount of functioning brain, should be called persons. Let me see your refutation of this:
+++
1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans."


--and wrote: A) Lists are good altenatives to acual debate (just watch)

The thing you quoted is a sequence of logical statements, numbered for easy internal referencing. NOT an ordinary list. If you cannot even RECOGNIZE a logical argument, how can you possibly refute it?



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "B) Through your improper formatting of my quotes you have clogged the debate almost past the point of redemption.

Are you claiming to lack the brainpower to be able to copy/paste text? NO WONDER you want to talk about things OTHER than the debate!



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "C) All your points are mute in that they have not been put to a vote by the citizenry,

AH, BUT THEY HAVE, INFORMALLY. Ask anyone whether or not a fictitious nonhuman character such as Chewbacca or Mr. Spock's father or one of the fighting Ewoks or Mr. Worf can be called a person --and if the person you ask knows about the character, the answer will usually be YES. (I admit there are xenophobic bigots out there who will stoop so low as to say "No, God does not qualify as a person, because God is not a human.") Ask anyone whether or not a cat or a dog or some other animal like a taun-taun can be called a person -- and the answer will be NO. Then ask anyone whether or not an unborn human is smarter than a dog, and they might have to look the answer up in the scientific literature -- which is NO. THEN ask anyone why a human with less brainpower than a dog should be called a person, while a dog cannot be called a person, and you will separate the stupid hypocrites from the knowledgable/rational!



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "... why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court?

BECAUSE THIS IS STUPID. It is well known that the scientific evidence fully supports the claim that an individual organism's life starts with its formation (be it fission of a bacterium, of fusion of sperm and egg). What the People have a right to Decide is whether or not a life MATTERS. All the Supreme Court did is declare that that Deciding can be done on an individual basis, by the individuals involved, instead of on a whole-nation basis. Not to mention, the scientific evidence is that human life doesn't matter in the least, as far as the Universe is concerned!



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "You know we still live in a Republic right?"

OF COURSE. SO WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ENSLAVE WOMEN, IN VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT 13, TO MINDLESS BIOLOGY?



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "D) X amendment nuff said"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE PEOPLE?
 
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "The ONLY argument you have is YOUR opinion that ALL human animals, regardless of amount of functioning brain, should be called persons. Let me see your refutation of this:
+++
1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans."

ya Hitler thought that too. :roll:

--and wrote: A) Lists are good altenatives to acual debate (just watch)

The thing you quoted is a sequence of logical statements, numbered for easy internal referencing. NOT an ordinary list. If you cannot even RECOGNIZE a logical argument, how can you possibly refute it?

Your argument is illogical in that it is based on an illogical pretext ie all people are not created equal.


Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "B) Through your improper formatting of my quotes you have clogged the debate almost past the point of redemption.

Are you claiming to lack the brainpower to be able to copy/paste text? NO WONDER you want to talk about things OTHER than the debate!

well it's hard to shift through your bullshit.


Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "C) All your points are mute in that they have not been put to a vote by the citizenry,

AH, BUT THEY HAVE, INFORMALLY. Ask anyone whether or not a fictitious nonhuman character such as Chewbacca or Mr. Spock's father or one of the fighting Ewoks or Mr. Worf can be called a person --and if the person you ask knows about the character, the answer will usually be YES. (I admit there are xenophobic bigots out there who will stoop so low as to say "No, God does not qualify as a person, because God is not a human.") Ask anyone whether or not a cat or a dog or some other animal like a taun-taun can be called a person -- and the answer will be NO. Then ask anyone whether or not an unborn human is smarter than a dog, and they might have to look the answer up in the scientific literature -- which is NO. THEN ask anyone why a human with less brainpower than a dog should be called a person, while a dog cannot be called a person, and you will separate the stupid hypocrites from the knowledgable/rational!

bwahahahahaha an informal vote are you serious? Polls mean absolutely jack if you've ever taken an empirical analysis course you would know that numbers can be twisted to prove anything. The only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box buddy

Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "... why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court?

BECAUSE THIS IS STUPID. It is well known that the scientific evidence fully supports the claim that an individual organism's life starts with its formation (be it fission of a bacterium, of fusion of sperm and egg). What the People have a right to Decide is whether or not a life MATTERS. All the Supreme Court did is declare that that Deciding can be done on an individual basis, by the individuals involved, instead of on a whole-nation basis. Not to mention, the scientific evidence is that human life doesn't matter in the least, as far as the Universe is concerned!

and there's the crest of your argument you think the constitution is stupid.


Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "You know we still live in a Republic right?"

OF COURSE. SO WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ENSLAVE WOMEN, IN VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT 13, TO MINDLESS BIOLOGY?

Why do you ignore the 5th 14th and 10th amendment?



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "D) X amendment nuff said"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE PEOPLE?
Click to expand...

Umm can unborn humans vote? Legalization of abortion is not up to the supreme court it is up to the individual states ie you and me. You don't even understand that the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights. The stuff you posted is really quite ridiculous in that it has no basis in science or law but rather it is based in the twisting of the English language it's really quite laughable.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans."

--and wrote: "ya Hitler thought that too."

NOT the same. Hitler used nonscientific methods to arbitrarily declare certain humans, as fully mentally endowed as others, to be nonpersons. I am starting with ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which indicates some humans have no more brainpower than ordinary animals. If you want to grant personhood to THOSE humans, why don't you want to grant personhood to ordinary animals? Shall I proclaim, "Trajan Octavian Titus wants to give cows the right to a fair trial before being slaughtered for dinner, because cows are smarter than unborn humans!"


Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "If you cannot even RECOGNIZE a logical argument, how can you possibly refute it?"

--and wrote: :Your argument is illogical in that it is based on an illogical pretext ie all people are not created equal."

WRONG. Your refutation assumes all humans are persons BEFORE proclaiming a violation of the axiom that all persons are equal. THE FACT IS, ALL HUMANS ARE DIFFERENT. Just use your eyeballs. ALL PERSONS MAY BE EQUAL, but you have yet to show how all humans and other sufficiently intelligent organisms can qualify as persons, WHILE EXCLUDING MERE ANIMALS. Probably because you can't.

Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "AH, BUT THEY HAVE, INFORMALLY."

--and wrote: "bwahahahahaha an informal vote are you serious? Polls mean absolutely jack if you've ever taken an empirical analysis course you would know that numbers can be twisted to prove anything. The only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box buddy."

THAT MAY BE. BUT SO FAR NEITHER IS THERE ANY BALLOT INDICATING UNBORN HUMANS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PERSONS. You have only specified opinion polls yourself! SUPPOSE WE CREATED A SUITABLE BALLOT?

A suggested series of Yes/No questions:
1. If Mr. Worf, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
2. If Chewbacca, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
4. If Sarek, Mr. Spock's father, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe existed for real, should he be considered a person?
3. If Number Five, a robot in the fictional "Short Circuit" movie, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
4. If C3PO, a robot in the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
5. If Draco, a fictional dragon in the movie "DragonHeart", existed for real, should he be considered a person?
6. If the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman, characters in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should they be considered persons?
7. If the Cowardly Lion, a character in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
8. Should ORDINARY lions be considered persons?
9. If Mr. Ed, a fictional talking horse in an old TV show, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
10. Should ORDINARY horses be considered persons?
11. If Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit, fictional cartoon characters appearing in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", existed for real, should they be considered persons?
12. Should ORDINARY bunnies and rabbits be considered persons?
13. If Mickey Mouse, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
14. Should an ORDINARY mouse be considered a person?
15. If Porky Pig, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
16. Should ORDINARY pigs be considered persons?
17. If Snoopy the Dog, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
18. Should ORDINARY dogs be considered persons?
19. If Felix the Cat, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
20. Should ORDINARY cats be considered persons?
21. Should persons be distinguished from animals by whether or not they are human?
22. God is described as a purely nonphysical entity, nonhuman therefore, and is believed to exist by many humans. If that is true, should God be considered a person?
23. Should persons be distinguished from animals by the mental capabilities they exhibit?
24. Since it is a scientific fact that ordinary animals like horses, pigs, cats and dogs exhibit more mental capabilities than an unborn human (for most of a pregnancy, even an ordinary mouse has more mental capabilities), should an unborn human be considered a person?

ALL ARE INVITED TO FREELY SPREAD THIS POLL FAR AND WIDE, FOR ACTUAL BALLOTING IF POSSIBLE.

=====================================
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "... why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court?

FutureIncoming replied: "BECAUSE THIS IS STUPID. It is well known that the scientific evidence fully supports the claim that an individual organism's life starts with its formation (be it fission of a bacterium, of fusion of sperm and egg)."

Trajan Octavian Titus responded: "and there's the crest of your argument you think the constitution is stupid."

WRONG. The Constitution is NOT stupid in allowing the people to decide stuff. BUT IT IS STUPID TO THINK THAT EITHER VOTING OR THE SUPREME COURT CAN CHANGE SCIENTIFIC FACT. Are you one of those idiots who think that if the mathematical constant "pi" was, By Human-Voted Law (and stamped with Court Approval), set to equal exactly 3, the physical world would comply?



Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ENSLAVE WOMEN, IN VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT 13, TO MINDLESS BIOLOGY?"

--and wrote: "Why do you ignore the 5th 14th and 10th amendment?"

Because those Amendments give rights to persons, not animals, and unborn humans are IN FACT, DEMONSTRABLY, ONLY animals. Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise? Remember, the word "human" DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.



Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE PEOPLE?"

--and wrote: "Umm can unborn humans vote?

NO.

--and wrote: "Legalization of abortion is not up to the supreme court it is up to the individual states ie you and me."

THEN WHY DID THE COURTS ACCEPT, WHEN ASKED TO JUDGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ABORTION LAWS? Let me present to you more clearly a Constitutional Precedent, that preceded Roe vs. Wade by close to two centuries:
+++
The Roe vs. Wade decision referenced the 14th Amendment as
being able to invalidate the decision IF the word "person" was
defined to include unborn humans. It is interesting that
throughout the Constitution, the word "person" is used often,
but the word "human" is not used at all. (No wonder those
beings in that TV show, "Alien Nation", found the US
accommodating!)

Anyway, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, gives rights to
"all persons born", and says nothing about the unborn. But
Section 2 is what I want you to think about here. This
Section specifies counting persons, so that the States'
Representation in the House can be figured (it modifies
earlier wording of the Constitution). You may be aware
that the purpose of the once-per-decade Census is to do
that counting. UNBORN HUMANS HAVE NEVER BEEN
COUNTED. If they were considered "persons", then they
should have been getting counted since 1790.

Thus the precedent, per ACTUAL IMPLEMENATION of the
Constitution, long long before Roe vs. Wade, is that
THE UNBORN DON'T COUNT; they have NEVER been
considered to be persons worth counting. (A rather high
rate of natural miscarriages may be one reason why; it
would be like counting chickens before they hatched.)

But that's OK! Per scientific measurements, unborn humans
are not mentally more capable than ordinary animals. Even
just-born humans are not mentally more capable than an
adult cat or small dog. If we want "persons" to be generic
enough for "Alien Nation", but restrictive enough to always
exclude the demonstrably animal, like cats and dogs, then
NO WAY can unborn humans EVER qualify as persons.
+++




--and wrote: "You don't even understand that the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights."

I fully understand that they are rights of PERSONS, NOT ANIMALS.


--and wrote: "The stuff you posted is really quite ridiculous in that it has no basis in science"

YOU ARE SO WRONG, IT IS LAUGHABLE.

--and wrote: "or law"

WRONG AGAIN, per implementation of the Census, and the FACT that unborn humans were never counted as persons.


--and wrote: "but rather it is based in the twisting of the English language"

**I** did not twist the English language at all. I merely described the FACTUAL evolution of the word "person" from when it USED TO refer to humans only, to today, when it also can refer to nonhumans, and never refers to animals.


--and wrote: "it's really quite laughable."

You are welcome to laugh at your own stupidity all you like. I don't mind a bit.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
C) All your points are mute in that they have not been put to a vote by the citizenry, why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court? You know we still live in a Republic right?
Click to expand...
Great idea! I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment test on abortion! Let's do it immediately! The anti-abortion people will then have 7 years to convince the country of their point of view.

However, the anti-choicers, for the most part are AGAINST a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion because they already know that it will never get ratified.

But hey, let's get it to the people and then each state can decide one by one which way they vote and all you need is 34 states to ratify and voila, no more abortion.

Care to give it a shot?
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
Click to expand...
Human babies have immeasurably more value than mere animals.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Great idea! I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment test on abortion! Let's do it immediately! The anti-abortion people will then have 7 years to convince the country of their point of view.

However, the anti-choicers, for the most part are AGAINST a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion because they already know that it will never get ratified.

But hey, let's get it to the people and then each state can decide one by one which way they vote and all you need is 34 states to ratify and voila, no more abortion.

Care to give it a shot?
Click to expand...

ahh finally some one who understands the constitution and doesn't brink up hypothetical situations in which cartoon characters come to life :roll:

alright here's the deal even if there was a vote put forth by the individual states and abortion was passed then it would still be an unconstitutional amendment in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments rights of the not having your life, liberty, or property taken without due process.

Now first their would have to be a vote to decide where life actually begins and then if it was decided that it began after birth you could put abortion to a vote.

In actuality I'm pro-choice I'm just more pro-constitution and legality.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans."

--and wrote: "ya Hitler thought that too."

NOT the same. Hitler used nonscientific methods to arbitrarily declare certain humans, as fully mentally endowed as others, to be nonpersons. I am starting with ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which indicates some humans have no more brainpower than ordinary animals. If you want to grant personhood to THOSE humans, why don't you want to grant personhood to ordinary animals? Shall I proclaim, "Trajan Octavian Titus wants to give cows the right to a fair trial before being slaughtered for dinner, because cows are smarter than unborn humans!"


Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "If you cannot even RECOGNIZE a logical argument, how can you possibly refute it?"

--and wrote: :Your argument is illogical in that it is based on an illogical pretext ie all people are not created equal."

WRONG. Your refutation assumes all humans are persons BEFORE proclaiming a violation of the axiom that all persons are equal. THE FACT IS, ALL HUMANS ARE DIFFERENT. Just use your eyeballs. ALL PERSONS MAY BE EQUAL, but you have yet to show how all humans and other sufficiently intelligent organisms can qualify as persons, WHILE EXCLUDING MERE ANIMALS. Probably because you can't.

Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "AH, BUT THEY HAVE, INFORMALLY."

--and wrote: "bwahahahahaha an informal vote are you serious? Polls mean absolutely jack if you've ever taken an empirical analysis course you would know that numbers can be twisted to prove anything. The only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box buddy."

THAT MAY BE. BUT SO FAR NEITHER IS THERE ANY BALLOT INDICATING UNBORN HUMANS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PERSONS. You have only specified opinion polls yourself! SUPPOSE WE CREATED A SUITABLE BALLOT?

A suggested series of Yes/No questions:
1. If Mr. Worf, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
2. If Chewbacca, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
4. If Sarek, Mr. Spock's father, a nonhuman of the fictional "Star Trek" universe existed for real, should he be considered a person?
3. If Number Five, a robot in the fictional "Short Circuit" movie, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
4. If C3PO, a robot in the fictional "Star Wars" universe, existed for real, should it be considered a person?
5. If Draco, a fictional dragon in the movie "DragonHeart", existed for real, should he be considered a person?
6. If the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman, characters in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should they be considered persons?
7. If the Cowardly Lion, a character in the fictional Land of Oz, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
8. Should ORDINARY lions be considered persons?
9. If Mr. Ed, a fictional talking horse in an old TV show, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
10. Should ORDINARY horses be considered persons?
11. If Bugs Bunny and Roger Rabbit, fictional cartoon characters appearing in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", existed for real, should they be considered persons?
12. Should ORDINARY bunnies and rabbits be considered persons?
13. If Mickey Mouse, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
14. Should an ORDINARY mouse be considered a person?
15. If Porky Pig, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
16. Should ORDINARY pigs be considered persons?
17. If Snoopy the Dog, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
18. Should ORDINARY dogs be considered persons?
19. If Felix the Cat, a fictional cartoon character, existed for real, should he be considered a person?
20. Should ORDINARY cats be considered persons?
21. Should persons be distinguished from animals by whether or not they are human?
22. God is described as a purely nonphysical entity, nonhuman therefore, and is believed to exist by many humans. If that is true, should God be considered a person?
23. Should persons be distinguished from animals by the mental capabilities they exhibit?
24. Since it is a scientific fact that ordinary animals like horses, pigs, cats and dogs exhibit more mental capabilities than an unborn human (for most of a pregnancy, even an ordinary mouse has more mental capabilities), should an unborn human be considered a person?

ALL ARE INVITED TO FREELY SPREAD THIS POLL FAR AND WIDE, FOR ACTUAL BALLOTING IF POSSIBLE.

=====================================
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "... why don't you allow the people to decide where life starts rather than the Supreme Court?

FutureIncoming replied: "BECAUSE THIS IS STUPID. It is well known that the scientific evidence fully supports the claim that an individual organism's life starts with its formation (be it fission of a bacterium, of fusion of sperm and egg)."

Trajan Octavian Titus responded: "and there's the crest of your argument you think the constitution is stupid."

WRONG. The Constitution is NOT stupid in allowing the people to decide stuff. BUT IT IS STUPID TO THINK THAT EITHER VOTING OR THE SUPREME COURT CAN CHANGE SCIENTIFIC FACT. Are you one of those idiots who think that if the mathematical constant "pi" was, By Human-Voted Law (and stamped with Court Approval), set to equal exactly 3, the physical world would comply?



Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ENSLAVE WOMEN, IN VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT 13, TO MINDLESS BIOLOGY?"

--and wrote: "Why do you ignore the 5th 14th and 10th amendment?"

Because those Amendments give rights to persons, not animals, and unborn humans are IN FACT, DEMONSTRABLY, ONLY animals. Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise? Remember, the word "human" DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.



Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT UNBORN HUMANS ARE PEOPLE?"

--and wrote: "Umm can unborn humans vote?

NO.

--and wrote: "Legalization of abortion is not up to the supreme court it is up to the individual states ie you and me."

THEN WHY DID THE COURTS ACCEPT, WHEN ASKED TO JUDGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ABORTION LAWS? Let me present to you more clearly a Constitutional Precedent, that preceded Roe vs. Wade by close to two centuries:
+++
The Roe vs. Wade decision referenced the 14th Amendment as
being able to invalidate the decision IF the word "person" was
defined to include unborn humans. It is interesting that
throughout the Constitution, the word "person" is used often,
but the word "human" is not used at all. (No wonder those
beings in that TV show, "Alien Nation", found the US
accommodating!)

Anyway, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, gives rights to
"all persons born", and says nothing about the unborn. But
Section 2 is what I want you to think about here. This
Section specifies counting persons, so that the States'
Representation in the House can be figured (it modifies
earlier wording of the Constitution). You may be aware
that the purpose of the once-per-decade Census is to do
that counting. UNBORN HUMANS HAVE NEVER BEEN
COUNTED. If they were considered "persons", then they
should have been getting counted since 1790.

Thus the precedent, per ACTUAL IMPLEMENATION of the
Constitution, long long before Roe vs. Wade, is that
THE UNBORN DON'T COUNT; they have NEVER been
considered to be persons worth counting. (A rather high
rate of natural miscarriages may be one reason why; it
would be like counting chickens before they hatched.)

But that's OK! Per scientific measurements, unborn humans
are not mentally more capable than ordinary animals. Even
just-born humans are not mentally more capable than an
adult cat or small dog. If we want "persons" to be generic
enough for "Alien Nation", but restrictive enough to always
exclude the demonstrably animal, like cats and dogs, then
NO WAY can unborn humans EVER qualify as persons.
+++




--and wrote: "You don't even understand that the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights."

I fully understand that they are rights of PERSONS, NOT ANIMALS.


--and wrote: "The stuff you posted is really quite ridiculous in that it has no basis in science"

YOU ARE SO WRONG, IT IS LAUGHABLE.

--and wrote: "or law"

WRONG AGAIN, per implementation of the Census, and the FACT that unborn humans were never counted as persons.


--and wrote: "but rather it is based in the twisting of the English language"

**I** did not twist the English language at all. I merely described the FACTUAL evolution of the word "person" from when it USED TO refer to humans only, to today, when it also can refer to nonhumans, and never refers to animals.


--and wrote: "it's really quite laughable."

You are welcome to laugh at your own stupidity all you like. I don't mind a bit.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one comparing human infants to animals that's got to be one of the most idiotic comments I've ever heard.

As for Roe VS Wade, it is not up to the Supreme Court to make the law it is up for them to interpret it and its constitutional merrit. Their decision in itself is unconstitutional in that it takes away the right for the people to choose.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "I'm not the one comparing human infants to animals that's got to be one of the most idiotic comments I've ever heard."

Are you implying that you have some sort of Factual Biological Data proving that human infants are more than mere animals? Aren't you aware that many newborn animals are superior to human infants?!!! Those animals can get up and walk within hours of being born; humans can't even crawl for a month or two.


Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "As for Roe VS Wade, it is not up to the Supreme Court to make the law it is up for them to interpret it and its constitutional merrit."

YOU WOULD DENY THE SUPREME COURT ITS JOB? You need to read the Constituion again, about just what the Court is supposed to do to laws that violate the Constitution! Just because YOU think that the law the Court overturned shouldn't have been overturned, that does not mean you are correct!!


--and wrote: "Their decision in itself is unconstitutional in that it takes away the right for the people to choose.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The decision GAVE people the right to choose. AND PEOPLE STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE AN AMENDMENT. You really DON'T know what you are talking about, do you?
 
God-Is-Holy said:
Human babies have immeasurably more value than mere animals.
Click to expand...
But then, we weren't talking about babies anyway.

That aside, I am wondering exactly how you assess the values? How do you know the value? Certainly, we let kids die from illnesses preventable by 15 cent worth of saline water, so a real live born 2-year-old obviously is only worth 15 cent. How do we assess values around that to fit your designation?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
As for Roe VS Wade, it is not up to the Supreme Court to make the law it is up for them to interpret it and its constitutional merrit. Their decision in itself is unconstitutional in that it takes away the right for the people to choose.
Click to expand...
Ah, another dude who slept through civics. Or perhaps was high? certainly, the claim is nonsense and shows serious ignorance of the role of the US Supreme Court.
 
steen said:
But then, we weren't talking about babies anyway.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should.

That aside, I am wondering exactly how you assess the values? How do you know the value?
Click to expand...
The bible of course. That's a given.

Certainly, we let kids die from illnesses preventable by 15 cent worth of saline water, so a real live born 2-year-old obviously is only worth 15 cent. How do we assess values around that to fit your designation?
Click to expand...
That's not a godly basis for the valuation of children. See where we go without the bible?
 
God-Is-Holy quoted steen: "But then, we weren't talking about babies anyway."

--and wrote: "Maybe you should."

Technically, humans that have recently been born are called "babies", while unborn humans are not, at least in a science-oriented discussion. For unborn humans, the proper descriptor is that same two-word phrase (unborn human), or "zygote", or "embryo", or "fetus", depending on its degree of development.



God-is-Holy quoted steen: "That aside, I am wondering exactly how you assess the values? How do you know the value?"

--and wrote: "The bible of course. That's a given."

BUT DOES THAT MAKE THOSE VALUES TRUE? NO!!!
The fundamental problem with the Bible is that it was written by humans.
God did NOT sit down and write it.
Humans CLAIMED to have been inspired by God, to write it.
Humans are often liars, however. Why should those claims be believed?
Sure, you can point to descriptions of miracles in the Bible, but humans who might be lying wrote those down, too!
EVERY objective analysis of the Bible notes that the early books, supposedly written by Moses, define the creation of a "theocracy", government of the people by the preachers for the preachers -- and Moses was the chief preacher, of course. This is actually admitted and spelled out in Deuteronomy 17:12 (KJV), "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel."

From the preceding, it is easy to conclude that the preachers who wrote the Bible put in as many self-serving things as they wanted. Even the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325AD, which had the task of assembling the modern Bible from the many Books that had been written in prior centuries, was a bunch of preachers who VOTED on what to include and what to exclude.

And so a number of things are easily explained as consequences:
Kill the unbelievers/heretics: They do not tithe to the preachers, of course.
Be fruitful and multiply: Make lots of babies who will grow up to tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit abortion: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit homosexualtiy: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit mast_rbation: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit contraception: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.

(As a result, for centuries the wealthiest organization in the world was the Roman Catholic Church.)

What God, if exists, ACTUALLY thinks about such rules may be an entirely different thing, altogether. But how to find out?

OK? NO MATTER WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BIBLE, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, unless other evidence comes along to back it up. Only God can tell us to what extent the Bible is full of lies. Some lies we know about from archeological reasearch; not so long ago, for example, a National Geographic article reported on what had been discovered about the Philistines; MORE artistic than the Israelites, they were. Not brutes. Remember that Truth is always the first casualty in war, and that the first truth to be denied is that the Enemies are people, too -- and that the histories (such as the Bible) are always written by the victors.

By the way, have you ever looked up the word "holy" in the dictionary? It basically means, "pertaining to God". So, your handle here is redundantly saying "God-Is-Pertaining-To-God". Whoop-te-do.
=================


God-Is-Holy quoted steen: "Certainly, we let kids die from illnesses preventable by 15 cent worth of saline water, so a real live born 2-year-old obviously is only worth 15 cent. How do we assess values around that to fit your designation?

--and wrote: "That's not a godly basis for the valuation of children. See where we go without the bible?"


TO STEEN: Actually, I'd rephrase that a bit; if someone lets a kid die instead of spending 15 cents, then that someone is claiming that the life of the kid is worth LESS than 15 cents (the 15 cents is considered more valuable than the life). If the life was thought worth 15 cents, like you wrote, the money would have been spent!

To God-Is-Holy: Please keep in mind that this overall Abortion Debate is about unborn humans, and not about the already-born children. steen merely started discussing the already-born because you used the word "babies", which by-default refers to the already-born, and does not automatically reference the unborn.

As for going places without the Bible, this was done reasonably well in various places long before the Bible was written. See the Code of Hammurabi, for example. AND, even WITH the Bible, that doesn't mean every last value it espouses will be accepted. See the Nazis --who were Christians-- for evidence of that! (Even worse; study the Thirty Years War that engulfed most of Europe in the early 1600's; Christians battled Christians for religious reasons!)
 
alex said:
A woman gives her consent to abort a fetus in her own body. Killing or hurting an animal does not involve consent of that animal.
Click to expand...
Can anyone say ridicules?
 
ILikeDubyah said:
In regards to the puppies, HT Coleman, Denver & a few other cities have made it illegal to own pitt bulls, the ones that are surrendered to the authorities by the owners are put to sleep. California and a few oher states have similar legislation in the works. (SR 869 I think, introduced by democrats, of course.). Anyhow, they're basically trying to do away with the breed, due to attacks & illegal dog fights. (Personally, don't think it's right, considering that statistics show that labs & spaniels are the most dangerous dogs when it comes to attacks.) so, they're knocking them off left & right, people have put their pitt bulls on "underground railroads", of sorts, to get them out of these cities. Also....Your hand is not alive, it depends on your body to survive, so why don't you cut that off too. Perhaps if people made better life decisions, there wouldn't even be an abortion debate. Quit sleeping with every guy you meet, quit dressing provocatively, quit making sex th focal point of society, and perhaps there'll finally be a decline in "unwanted" babies.
Click to expand...
Every Baby is wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom