• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
I'm not playing games. I'm willing to call a viable fetus a person, but at six weeks? No. And I don't think you are saying that either.
Click to expand...


But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.
 
Warp12 said:
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.
Click to expand...

Quote anyone saying "it isn't a developing human". You can't because no one has. We have said it isn't a 'person'. Let's play "Spot the difference".

YOU are the one attempting to distract with the 'parasite and virus' talk by misrepresenting what was said. Still.
 
Warp12 said:
All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.
Click to expand...

Exactly... that is what you are doing.... I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer ....

Leumas said:
Warp12 said:
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.
Click to expand...

Why???

Also... do you think the government should make it illegal for you to refuse to give blood or to refuse to be an organ donor???

Consider this... if a man has a daughter and she just had double renal failure and as a result her lungs are irrevocably diseased.

Do you think that the government should pass a law to make it illegal for the father (who is fully compatible blood and genetically) to refuse giving half a lung and one kidney to his daughter???
Click to expand...


Besides....

Warp12 said:
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie.
Click to expand...


A swab from the inside of my cheek is also a potential human too... and a developing human is not a human... just as an egg is not a chicken and an almond nut is not an almond tree.

You really need to get yourself a biology book and start learning stuff about what a fetus is and what a parasite is.... maybe that would at least let you realize that that "all your piffle about parasite is just an attempt to distract from the fact"...
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Exactly... that is what you are doing.... I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer ....




Besides....




A swab from the inside of my cheek is also a potential human too... and a developing human is not a human... just as an egg is not a chicken and an almond nut is not an almond tree.

You really need to get yourself a biology book and start learning stuff about what a fetus is and what a parasite is.... maybe that would at least let you realize that that "all your piffle about parasite is just an attempt to distract from the fact"...
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Dumb All Over said:
I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.
Click to expand...

But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, Dumb All Over.

What matters is whether the Indy Star story is true, not whether it includes the exhaustive detail one might expect in a three part documentary.

We still await any evidence that the Indy Star story is "fake".

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited to give another member's full name.

Do not change another member's name for purposes of ridicule, nor when they have specifically asked you not to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warp12 said:
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with calling it a developing human life. But then, the "parasite" terminology doesn't bother me either. I see it as fairly neutral.

Interrupting that development under certain circumstances - and not only when a woman's life is threatened - was broadly acceptable for eons. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with third trimester abortions for no reason, but states already had the ability to regulate that. They are vanishingly rare occurrences. At 6 months, I would consider saving the woman's life to be a valid reason. I also don't want to force a woman to birth a baby without a brain. The risk to the mother in that situation is not negligible.
 
arayder said:
But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, DOA.

What matters is whether the Indy Star story is true, not whether it includes the exhaustive detail one might expect in a three part documentary.

We still await any evidence that the Indy Star story is "fake".
Click to expand...

You're a 'the glass is half full" kind of person, aren't ya?
 
Warp12 said:
You are correct. I am generally not engaging you in debate.
Click to expand...


No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights
 
Leumas said:
No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights
Click to expand...


I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid. I'm sure some others will be more than happy to entertain such shenanigans, however. :)
 
Warp12 said:
I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy. :)

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.
Click to expand...

You know, the more you act all holier than thou with people, the harder I laugh.

What a ******* sideshow.
 
Warp12 said:
I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid. I'm sure some others will be more than happy to entertain such shenanigans, however. :)
Click to expand...

Yup... you will never dare ever to answer those questions ... and your ad hominems are not a valid ruse to obfuscate from the fact that you will never dare answer those questions because they demonstrate the moral and legal bankruptcy of the anti-human-rights position of the anti-women's bodily autonomy fundamentalists.
 
In retrospect, this thread should have been aborted a couple of hundred posts ago. I guess it's too late now.
 
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.
Click to expand...

It's far more curious that those who defend a clump of cells which might grow into a sentient creature at some point in the future will toss aside those principles when it comes to actual sentient creatures. Come back when the Christian party starts caring about the poor; rich men and camels and all that. I won't share their believes, but at least I will respect them.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.
Click to expand...

So, you are one of the ones campaigning for comprehensive, state mandated sexual education in all schools (even home schooling), a tax funded healthcare system with free access to birth control (including the morning after pill) and a social security system that allows young mothers the ability to care for their children including access to schools without having to work?

Or are you one of all the others who only cares about children from the moment of ejaculation to the moment of birth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom