FALSE. Mis-using the language is never an accurate way to describe a situation. Unborn humans do not qualify as "children". Nor as "babies", either. Because babies and children don't need umbilical cords in order to survive, or hadn't you noticed that? There Is Absolutely No Argument That Abortion Opponents Can Make That Changes The Difference Birth Makes, between the unborn and the born. Prior to birth, survival depends on parasitism. After birth, survival depends on receiving gifts.
So long as you argue by mis-using the language, you can believe whatever nonsense you want. But since unborn humans do not qualify as "children" --they are only parasitic animals-- there is no crime, nor violation of ethics, in killing them when unwanted, just like there is no crime nor violation of ethics in killing other unwanted parasitic animals. Only the worthless prejudice of Abortion Opponents keeps them accepting the facts. (After birth, even though they are still only animals in Scientific Fact, they are at least no longer parasitic, and so the Law grants person status to them. It might actually be called "partial person status", since they don't have certain rights that adults do, such as the right to vote. Then note that a criminal --a parasite on society-- can be stripped of the right to vote, thereby losing a bit of person status....)
FALSE. Denial of facts is always stupid, and in this case the facts you are denying are (1) that "human" and "person" are two different concepts, and (2) that "being", in the phrase "human being", is used as a synonym for "person". The funny thing is, you actually do know that "human" and "being"/"person" are two different concepts, which why it is not Redundant English to specify the phrase "human being". The language fully allows for the fact that some humans, in Scientific Fact, do not qualify as persons. Yet you continue to deny facts, just like all other lying bigots.
OH? Where did you acquire such nonsense as that? Do you plan on giving America back to the Native Americans? Do they plan on giving it back to the species they killed off when they invaded the continent from Asia? Since when has greed ever been formalized like that? I suppose you oppose taxes, too, while not opposing some of the things those taxes pay for, such as military preparedness. Tsk, tsk, more Hypocrisy on your part!
TOO BAD THERE ACTUALLY IS NO SUCH RIGHT --ask any volcano, flood, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or giant meteor impact. The "right to life" is only a convenient fiction, useful for helping humans get along with each other better. Meanwhile, unborn humans do not "get along" with the women whose bodies they occupy; their activities are parasitic, biologically purely selfish/greedy. They do not deserve a "right to life", and, per the Law, they don't actually have it.
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! "Human life" is "human life", regardless of whether one talks about the unborn or the born. If you think that born humans deserve to die, based on their actions, then you are indeed exhibiting stupid Hypocrisy in any claim that unborn humans might not be equally deserving to die, based on their actions.
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The "mission statement" that you are so fond of quoting only specifies "men". Not women, children, or the unborn. And, because of that "mission statement", women had to fight for decades to acquire the right to vote, and they are still fighting to achieve equal pay for equal work. Take your worthless nonsense --and your Hypocrisy-- elsewhere!
Then why do you keep doing it??? I keep pointing out facts, and yet you continue, stupidly, to deny those facts!
I AM NOT LYING; the evidence, per multiple posts written by you, clearly indicates that you think every unborn human organism is a person. Which is wrong, a denial of fact! And, therefore, every time you indicate that "human" does indeed equal "person", it is you who are lying. Period.
ANOTHER STUPID LIE, talking about other stupid lies you have told. Worthless! So far as I recall, you have NOT ONCE tried to answer the Question in my "signature" space, which has been attached to every message I've written for years at this web site. And, most likely, the reason you haven't tried to do it is because there is no way to answer that Question, and still have a valid rationale for opposing abortion!
MORE LIES WILL GET YOU NOWHERE. Which is why I am not offended. You are only telling stupid lies, after all.
UTTERLY FALSE; THE SAME OLD STUPID LIE. Because I know something about the difference between "mere animal" and "person", while you obviously don't. That's why you continue to spout the same stupid lie, in denial of the factual differences between "mere animal" and "person". Because if you actually accepted those factual differences, you would stop stupidly lying!
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! I do not at all deny the basic scientific fact that unborn humans, from zygote to birth, are perfectly alive, perfectly human, and perfectly animal. You, however, claim they are more than that, and have not yet presented one single whit of evidence in support of your stupid lie. You simply make the worthless claim, over and over and over, ad nauseum, again.
YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE. Tests such as this one (among others) would not exist if Science had no interest in the concept!
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! AT LAST YOU REVEAL THE SOURCE OF YOUR LYING. To you, maybe, an unborn human, subjectively, is a person. But not to millions of other people, and not to US Law. Well, all you have to do is accept the actual facts, and then you, too, might decide to stop telling stupid lies about the subject.
That's fine; I agree that there are better places for such a discussion.
YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE! Where, exactly, did I write something supporting socialism? I will agree I support a few things that Formal Socialists also support, but I also support things they don't. I am an Independent. That's why I wrote (msg #25):
Your average socialist will want that ecological niche to include support for extra mouths being born! But since I know it can't work in the long long run, I oppose that aspect of social support.FutureIncoming said:
YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Otherwise, you would stop telling stupid lies.
Whatever it was, it didn't stop you from continuing to spout stupid lies, so, obviously, more work on the task needs to be done.
Parasitic actions are parasitic, regardless if performed by a true parasite, or by any other type of organism. And since those actions are generally unacceptable, they can be specifically unacceptable whenever one chooses. So, in the cases of women seeking abortions, they can, perfectly ethically, choose to refuse to accept the parasitic actions of the unborn they carry.
Therefore you care nothing about the consequences, of causing extra/unnecessary emotional suffering whenever a Perfectly Natural Miscarriage occurs. All because you choose to tell a Partial Lie, instead of the whole truth. I repeat: "Shame on you!"
FALSE. The ethical rules of society are designed to promote the long-term peaceful survival of that society. It cannot do it if it is overrun with mouths that can't be fed. Period. Fortunately, since it is Scientific Fact that unborn humans are mere animals, killing them when unwanted is harmless to society. (I'll paraphrase something from another message: If you Abortion Opponents want them so badly to be born, why don't you put your money where your mouths are, and pay for them???" The primary Answer, so far, to that Question, is, "Most Abortion Opponents are actually a bunch of stupid hypocrites, wanting other people to pay for what they, the Abortion Opponents, want".)
YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS WILL GET YOU NOWHERE. I simply indicated a parallel between parasitism and lack of rights, in two different situations. Abortion Opponents stupidly want to grant parasitic animal organisms personhood rights, in spite of both the Scientific Facts and the legal parallel I pointed out.
