- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
NOT AWARE, BUT DELUDED. You think "human" and "person" are the same thing, though nothing could be farther from the truth. You think that "human life" has value just because it is human, yet you are proved wrong by manicurists every day. Plus more delusions than need to be specified in this paragraph.Most of us are fully aware
A STANDARD STUPID LIE OF DELUDED ABORTION OPPONENTS. It is just as impossible to murder an unborn human as it is impossible to murder a fly --neither is a person, and only persons can be murdered (by definition, murder is the killing of a person). Other entities are merely "killed". And that's why the actual Biblical Commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder" instead of the misquoted "Thou shalt not kill".that it would stop the state sanctioning of murder in the womb...
MORE DELUSION. Those who think they need abortions will find ways to get them, and so that rate will generally stay the same. It is likely that banning abortion will increase its rate, just because some folks are ornery and refuse to submit to government regulation --which would lead to extra abortions getting done.and a corresponding drastic reduction of these mass killings over time.
REPEATING YOUR STUPID LIE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS STUPID, NOR ANY LESS OF A LIE. Killing millions of provable non-persons in wombs is in no sense as problematic as the killing of even one actual person.To draw you a picture, thats like 52 Las Vegas style concert mass murder shooting events. Just here in America. Per day
NOT AWARE, BUT DELUDED. You think "human" and "person" are the same thing, though nothing could be farther from the truth. You think that "human life" has value just because it is human, yet you are proved wrong by manicurists every day. Plus more delusions than need to be specified in this paragraph.
A STANDARD STUPID LIE OF DELUDED ABORTION OPPONENTS. It is just as impossible to murder an unborn human as it is impossible to murder a fly --neither is a person, and only persons can be murdered (by definition, murder is the killing of a person). Other entities are merely "killed". And that's why the actual Biblical Commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder" instead of the misquoted "Thou shalt not kill".
MORE DELUSION. Those who think they need abortions will find ways to get them, and so that rate will generally stay the same. It is likely that banning abortion will increase its rate, just because some folks are ornery and refuse to submit to government regulation --which would lead to extra abortions getting done.
REPEATING YOUR STUPID LIE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS STUPID, NOR ANY LESS OF A LIE. Killing millions of provable non-persons in wombs is in no sense as problematic as the killing of even one actual person.
YOUR SARCASM PROVES YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. That is, you only think you know what "human life" is, but you actually don't. Perhaps you should read it again and again, and then maybe study some biology, plus study recent scientific research relating to cloning and stem cells, and then tell us exactly why a human cuticle cell cannot possibly have the potential to be much more successful than a human zygote, which in turn can only potentially produce a whole human body (2/3 of zygotes Naturally fail to do that, remember).Your manicurist argument convinced me.
YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT ONE OF THEM. Simply because you oppose abortion, despite the Provable Fact that there are no valid arguments against abortion in this day-and-age. Not a single one.I try to limit my debate to serious and reasonable posters, which seem in very short supply.
NOW OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT ABORTION OPPONENTS, YOU ARE. Simply because of the next thing I'm quoting that you wrote:Thanks for drawing for us a picture of what goes on in the thinking, or lack thereof,
YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT DESTROYING LIVES. One of the biggest lies of all abortion opponents is to call themselves "pro life", when actually they don't care in the least how the human overpopulation they are encouraging is causing the total extinctions of all the living members of hundreds of entire species every single year. Abortion opponents are only "pro human life" --and all other life can die as far as they are concerned-- yet they lack the integrity to admit their Blatant and Stupid Prejudice. If they had such integrity, they would at least change the label they give themselves!of those who post in favor of destroying lives ( impossible to deny)
AND THERE IS SOME STANDARD IGNORANT BLATHERING BY AN ABORTION OPPONENT. Because a human hydatidiform mole originates in an ovum-fertilization event, which then develops just like any other zygote until in implants into the womb, after which it forms a hydatiditform mole instead of a normal embryo. It is 100% human and 100% alive, but not even the most vehement of abortion opponents will insist that it must survive, or that it has a right to survive, or even that it is not entirely OK to kill it in the womb. Like I said at the start here, you only think you know what "human life" is!in the wombs of mothers
ANOTHER STANDARD STUPID LIE OF AN ABORTION OPPONENT. Simply because merely killing a living human entity is not-at-all the same thing as "murder". For example, If someone kidnapped you, and extracted your brain from you body, and installed it into a robot body (that last thing was originally thought-of back in the 1930s), and then cremated the rest of your living human body, would you claim to have been murdered? Murder is the killing of a person, not the killing of a human body! And it is totally and provably impossible, in terms of Verifiable Objective Data, for an unborn human to qualify as a person.( murder ).
YOUR MERE AND UNSUPPORTED OPINION IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Why are you failing to provide any evidence supporting your blather? Perhaps, because, you can't actually produce even an iota of it?Your extra abortions reasoning is another, comical ( if it werent so deadly serious ) concept.
AND SO YOU PROVE YOU DON'T HAVE A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT. Just like you didn't have a valid ordinary argument in the first place. Tsk, tsk!Bad luck with all that.
Nah, thanks but no thanks.YOUR SARCASM PROVES YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. That is, you only think you know what "human life" is, but you actually don't. Perhaps you should read it again and again, and then maybe study some biology, plus study recent scientific research relating to cloning and stem cells, and then tell us exactly why a human cuticle cell cannot possibly have the potential to be much more successful than a human zygote, which in turn can only potentially produce a whole human body (2/3 of zygotes Naturally fail to do that, remember).
Nah, thanks but no thanks.
First of all cloning isnt natural to humans... but I will sum it up by you researching just how many cuticles and fingernails naturally fail to "produce a whole human body" . If you find even .001% that dont, hell I will make even easier, .00000000000000001% that dont fail, then we can re-engage.
Otherwise, good day to you.
Good god. Seems you pro infaniticide folk DO really enjoy the horror, eh? Another nail in that coffin.Gee. Cloning is becoming more and more popular especially for polo horses.
In 2016 there were six cloned horses that helped a rider win prestigious polo match.
Six cloned horses help rider win prestigious polo match | Science | AAAS
I saw a documentary the other night that now there are hundreds of cloned polo horses.
Another interesting article about cloned horses.
Genetically engineered ‘super-horses’ to be born in 2019 and could soon compete in Olympics
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...ed-super-horses-born-2019-could-soon-compete/
Seems like cloning is becoming quite popular.
Soon we be able to have our pets cloned...Pet Cemetary ....anyone? Anyone ?
Good god. Seems you pro infaniticide folk DO really enjoy the horror, eh? Another nail in that coffin.
What do cloned horses have to do infantcide? By the way infantcide is the killing of infant.
No one that I know of in real life or who posts on this board wants infants killed.
It just takes one cell ( could be a blood cell from a blood sample of a horse or other animal ) to create a clone.
That's a nonsensical analogy. There is NO reason, though, that the state shouldn't require abortion if the fetus is known to be badly damaged or malformed. The alternative is cruel.
Jesus, what a moronic interpretation of what I wrote. I'm not against sex, I'm against your argument that men should be able to do the very thing they know causes pregnancy, ejaculating vital semen, unprotected, into a woman. and then pretending they are victims of her pregnancy. Like I said, I got a vasectomy because I didn't want to impregnate anyone accidentally. It works great. That being said, life isn't fair, women get months to choose not to bear a child and men only get thirty seconds. Wearing a rubber is not an imposition, it's healthcare and lifecare for men.
If grown men don't understand their responsibility any more than you appear to, we're ****ed.
BIG DEAL. Because the operative word most often used by abortion opponents is "potential". A zygote is not-at-all the same thing as a human person, or even a multicelled human body, yet abortion opponents insist a zygote must be valued because it has "potential" --and they make the claim while completely ignoring the fact that sometimes the zygote will yield a hydatidiform mole that must be destroyed, or that about 2/3 of the time it will naturally die instead of generate a whole human body. And because of "potential" --that's why I talked about cuticle cells!First of all cloning isnt natural to humans...
NOW YOU ARE ABOUT TO SAY THE EQUIVALENT OF, A COMPUTER RUNNING ONE PROGRAM IS SOMEHOW INHERENTLY SUPERIOR TO A VERY-SIMILAR COMPUTER RUNNING A DIFFERENT PROGRAM. After all, cells are biological computers that process DNA, with the DNA telling the cells what to do. So, part of the overall DNA in a human cell tells it how to behave like a zygote, and part of the overall DNA in a human cell tells it how to behave like a cuticle cell. Both cells have mostly the same total DNA! So, if both cells are biological computers processing DNA, why is one valued and the other routinely killed? Stupid Prejudice, that's why!but I will sum it up by you researching just how many cuticles and fingernails naturally fail to "produce a whole human body".
YOU ARE IGNORING RELEVANT FACT (typical for any abortion opponent). This discussion is not about what cells are actually doing, it is about what they have the potential to do, simply because "potential" is the excuse that abortion opponents routinely give to insist that zygotes must be valued!If you find even .001% that dont, hell I will make even easier, .00000000000000001% that dont fail, then we can re-engage.
So now answer my question: Under your premise of contractual sex, why shouldn't men be able to legally force mothers to carry children to term? After all, sex is a voluntary contract giving up autonomy, right?
I feel as though I have to state the obvious. Not only should we never take away a woman's right to choose, we should teach her how to keep from having to make that choice. I understand that she might want to keep the baby -- I did -- but I KNEW that man was not good husband and father material so I left him behind. It was hard but that child is now a Philosophy professor at Cal-State LA. As long as we keep pampering women and making them think they need that man -- they'll keep needing that man. I did find one that was husband material a few years later, in that case, I made the right decision, he's outside working on my courtyard as I type this. But, what I needed as a kid in college was to understand that I didn't need any man to complete me.
Women have more power than you think.
While that is correct with the caveat that it is each individual woman that has to make that informed decision for herself, you forgot that the child does need that man. Of course there are exceptions and success stories without men, but overall, children are better off with two parents as long as there is overall harmony in the family.As long as we keep pampering women and making them think they need that man -- they'll keep needing that man.
Because pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's body. It can cause a myriad of side effects, affect her health for the rest of her life, or even kill her.
If men want to opt out, that would be okay with me - unless and until the woman applies and qualifies for public support. The taxpayer should not have to pay unless in extreme cases.
It's doesn't seem like we really disagree here, other than the part about taxpayers. I don't think we should conflate public support and individual legal responsibilities. Public support should be available to all who need it without curbing the rights of others.
My post was to make a rhetorical point -- if we establish that consensual sex is consent to parenthood, then we undermine a woman's right to choose. After all, under that standard she already made her choice, regardless of the consequences.
It's never that for women...because we have legal abortion.
And it doesnt affect any of a man's rights unless he chooses to take a risk that he is well aware of. If we rob a store, it's acceptable to infringe on rights because jail (loss of liberty) is a known consequence if you get caught and convicted. Again: men have complete control over their reproductive rights...if they choose to risk them, then the must accept that risk.
(As has been written here many times, consensual sex is consent to risking a pregnancy. And men and women share that risk equally.)
And since men dont get pregnant, it is biology, not law, that determines women's consequences (abortion, death, miscarriage, etc). Would men like to share those equally?
Holy crap, I just realized you're female. Up until now, I thought you were a guy. Have you always had your gender listed?
Do you want to have more than half your wages forcefully taken from you for the benefit of someone else's child? You're essentially excusing the unequal treatment of men because women are the ones who bear children.
Abortion may not end in our lifetime, but it can and likely will be more restricted. How confident are you that abortion will not end in our lifetime as long as Pence is in a position of power?
Really?
There aren't other, more important issues facing Americans than going back 3 generations for ideology?
By then the life expectancy of a child will be halved if you don't do something about mass killings, the limitless proliferation of drugs and crime. Yeah, that would be Republican America....Nixon would weep in joy
I really don't understand what you're missing here. A woman can put a child up for adoption without a man's permission. A man cannot put a child up for adoption unless he has permission from the mother. I am asking for equality, and I am not the same as a pregnant woman.If a woman puts a child up for adoption then the man does not get to pay either. You do understand that? And if a woman does decide to raise the child then she does pay in the fact that her time is consumed by doing that. It is not as if she puts a kid in a box and forgt it for the next 18 years.
There is no equality here. It is a woman's choice and not a mans. You are not asking for equality, you are asking for special pleading by demanding you are the same as a pregnant woman, when in fact, you are not.
Which is it: Her choice, or my actions? I cannot be held responsible for her choice, because it's neither my action, nor my choice what a woman does with her body. He should be able to walk away from what she did. Just like she can walk away from what he did.No, it is called being responsible for your actions. The male got the woman pregnant and according to you he should be allowed to walk away from what he did and allow the public to foot the bill over his lack of responsibility.
Not if the male responsible for getting her pregnant had to pay for his actions by being taxed for child support.
Other than that the child and parent(s) of any family would receive the same funding to help support the raising of a child.
It's never that for women...because we have legal abortion.
And it doesnt affect any of a man's rights unless he chooses to take a risk that he is well aware of. If we rob a store, it's acceptable to infringe on rights because jail (loss of liberty) is a known consequence if you get caught and convicted. Again: men have complete control over their reproductive rights...if they choose to risk them, then the must accept that risk.
(As has been written here many times, consensual sex is consent to risking a pregnancy. And men and women share that risk equally.)
And since men dont get pregnant, it is biology, not law, that determines women's consequences (abortion, death, miscarriage, etc). Would men like to share those equally?
men have complete control over their reproductive rights...if they choose to risk them, then the must accept that risk.
And since men dont get pregnant, it is biology, not law, that determines women's consequences (abortion, death, miscarriage, etc). Would men like to share those equally?
IF women don't have the financial means to take care of more humans let them end it through abortion. Life is already hard and brutal as it is and yet we got more people welling to make it more difficult like people like yourself.
Today, reproductive rights are limited to pregnancy. Reproductive rights do not exist outside of pregnancy per woman who is pregnant. If you think some such right .. please point out any law which regulates, protects, recognizes, or mentions such a right. .
Who says? Because that is wrong.
A man is involved in reproduction...correct? And if he chooses to control his reproduction, can he? Of course he can...by not having sex.
And why is any law needed to recognize this?
What reproductive rights of a woman are recognized by law?
So there is no contradiction.
First of all, there is a contradiction. Second, you are discriminating against men. Let me illustrate this with the following satire of your ignorant comment:
"A woman is involved in reproduction...correct? And if she chooses to control her reproduction, can she? Of course she can...by not having sex.
And why is any law needed to recognize this?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?