The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

archives said:
Looks like another one of those inane posts over when human life begins? Now when a human being dies does he go to an after life or is that just it?

Interesting since Roe v Wade was based upon privacy rights and yet every "conversation" now has little to nothing to do with the actual legalities involved in the 1973 decision
Click to expand...

said 1973 legal arguments are gone......didn't you read the opinion?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no fuckwit.....alive....as opposed to dead......a living human being.........and every human being warrants protection.....its just that you idiots want the right to kill them.......so you've denied them protection.....
Click to expand...
Again, you can't kill what isn't alive and most people don't consider what is the equivalent of cancer cells to be "alive" in a way that requires Constitutional/legal protection, just as we don't consider plants and trees to be "alive" in such a way.

As a country, we lost 10 years of stem cell research because the most religious people in the country wanted to claim that those cells were alive in some meaningful way and had souls.

As I said earlier, just because you consider the equivalent of a mass of cancer cells to be alive, doesn't mean everyone does.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, you can't kill what isn't alive and most people don't consider what is the equivalent of cancer cells to be "alive" in a way that requires Constitutional/legal protection, just as we don't consider plants and trees to be "alive" in such a way.

As a country, we lost 10 years of stem cell research because the most religious people in the country wanted to claim that those cells were alive in some meaningful way and had souls.

As I said earlier, just because you consider the equivalent of a mass of cancer cells to be alive, doesn't mean everyone does.
Click to expand...

no one is denying cancer cells don't merit protection......but only someone totally ignorant of biology (and yes, you are on that list) believes a human fetus and cancer cells share any other commonalities besides being alive.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no one is denying cancer cells don't merit protection......but only someone totally ignorant of biology (and yes, you are on that list) believes a human fetus and cancer cells share any other commonalities besides being alive.......
Click to expand...

This is the problem with dogmatism, specifically religious dogmatism. No rational person is going to claim that a cancerous tumor, a stem cell or a plant, simply because they are considered to be alive is the most basic biological sense, deserves any kind of Constitutional/legal protection, yet that's what the religious try to do when it comes to a zygote.

The questions that allegedly "make cowards out of Leftists" do no such thing. Intelligent people can discuss what when life begins or what it required for a human to be considered to be alive. What brings reasonable conversation to a halt is when you try to incorporate dogmatic views, perpetuated by the Sky Wizard, into the conversation.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
This is the problem with dogmatism, specifically religious dogmatism. No rational person is going to claim that a cancerous tumor, a stem cell or a plant, simply because they are considered to be alive is the most basic biological sense, deserves any kind of Constitutional/legal protection, yet that's what the religious try to do when it comes to a zygote.

The questions that allegedly "make cowards out of Leftists" do no such thing. Intelligent people can discuss what when life begins or what it required for a human to be considered to be alive. What brings reasonable conversation to a halt is when you try to incorporate dogmatic views, perpetuated by the Sky Wizard, into the conversation.
Click to expand...

biology obviously makes cowards out of demmycunts.......you never want to address the scientific facts.....
 
ZenMode said:
This is the problem with dogmatism, specifically religious dogmatism. No rational person is going to claim that a cancerous tumor, a stem cell or a plant, simply because they are considered to be alive is the most basic biological sense, deserves any kind of Constitutional/legal protection, yet that's what the religious try to do when it comes to a zygote.

The questions that allegedly "make cowards out of Leftists" do no such thing. Intelligent people can discuss what when life begins or what it required for a human to be considered to be alive. What brings reasonable conversation to a halt is when you try to incorporate dogmatic views, perpetuated by the Sky Wizard, into the conversation.
Click to expand...
Focus on the precise words of the questions as they were asked, and the precise definitions of the words 'living' and 'human'.

Those questions did, and continue to, make cowards out of leftists.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
biology obviously makes cowards out of demmycunts.......you never want to address the scientific facts.....
Click to expand...

Again, plants and cancerous tumors are considered to be alive, scientifically speaking, but they clearly don't warrant any protections. In other words, being technically alive doesn't automatically mean protection, any more than a male should pay child support on a zygote, or parents should get tax write-offs for an unborn child.

But, you clearly prefer dogmatism over discussion.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what does that have to do with the fact you stupidly claimed that unborn children weren't alive?.......face it, you're a fucking idiot......
Click to expand...

When did I say all unborn children aren't alive? On page 33, I specifically said that I believe life begins when there's a heart beat.

Do you believe males should pay child support for unborn children? Do you believe parents should be able to claim a zygote as a dependent on taxes?
 
ZenMode said:
When did I say all unborn children aren't alive? On page 33, I specifically said that I believe life begins when there's a heart beat.
Click to expand...

sorry demmycunt.....you said it was merely an opinion........its not.......it is an easily verifiable scientific fact.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry demmycunt.....you said it was merely an opinion........its not.......it is an easily verifiable scientific fact.......
Click to expand...

Right, but not all life is equal. So as I asked before:

Do you believe males should pay child support for unborn children? Do you believe parents should be able to claim a zygote as a dependent on taxes?
 
gfm7175 said:
I know what a woman is... I'm seeing if he knows what a woman is. Liberals can't seem to define the term these days...
Click to expand...

Liberal or conservative, are we not all whatever we say we are?

We know that there are variants. They should be allowed their God just as everyone else is.

Yahweh and Jesus were androgynous. Are you?

What is perfect if not that?

Regards
DL
 
gfm7175 said:
Focus on the precise words of the questions as they were asked, and the precise definitions of the words 'living' and 'human'.

Those questions did, and continue to, make cowards out of leftists.
Click to expand...

Do you believe males should pay child support for unborn children? Do you believe parents should be able to claim a zygote as a dependent on taxes?
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe males should pay child support for unborn children? Do you believe parents should be able to claim a zygote as a dependent on taxes?
Click to expand...
Evasion of the questions put forth in the OP.

The OP's claim in the thread title seems to be holding true, even to this day...
 
gfm7175 said:
Evasion of the questions put forth in the OP.

The OP's claim in the thread title seems to be holding true, even to this day...
Click to expand...
The assumption being made in the op is that there is an undisputable truth that life begins at conception and that the life that some people believe starts at conception warrants constitutional and legal protection.

The questions that are actually being evaded are the ones that I've asked regarding child support and tax deductions. If we are going to say that the life that begins at conception is worthy of constitutional and legal protection, then there is no reason that a woman who becomes pregnant in December shouldn't be able to write off that living human child on her taxes. If we are going to say that the life that begins at conception is come equal to a 6-month or 1-year-old child, then there is no reason that a male shouldn't start paying child support based on the date of conception.

I suspect that those questions /situations are being avoided because, if you respond to them honestly, it will require you to acknowledge that not all human life is equal in the eyes of the law or Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top