Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

[apple0154]

You have successfully avoided making a relevant point. Congratulations!

I've made my point. Classifying an embryo/fetus a human being and then saying a woman with a defective body has the right to kill that human being is outrageous, disgusting, perverted and totally illogical.

It results in two classes of human beings. That's my point. We can't go down that road again.

 

[apple0154]

Your choice is only so easy because you choose to fully dehumanize babies.

Babies are born. No birth, no baby.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Babies are born. No birth, no baby.

But before they're born, they're in utero babies.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Here we are again folks. Her entire worldview depends on dehumanization through worldplay. What a cunt.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

So basically the argument is

"It's not dehumanization because fetuses aren't human!"

Now why isn't this convincing?

 

[apple0154]

yea verily. It's a hard situation and a difficult choice. But your full dehumanization of one party to make the choice easier and guilt free is not more noble, it's less.

Why would it be a hard situation and a difficult choice. The law is clear when dealing with any other two human beings. Friends. Neighbors. Co-workers. Spouse. Children. Parents........

It's when we take a closer look at what anti-abortionists are suggesting one sees just how twisted their thinking is. "We're both equal but if I get sick I can kill you." Yea, that's real logical. Makes great sense. Let's build a society around that idea.

 

[apple0154]

The developing brain function of the fetus is EXACTLY functioning at the level intended. The brain damaged persons is not. It is not semantics at all, another canard from you.

It is the level needed to support an individual. An individual like society says all humans are. So, remove the fetus from the woman's body. If it is an individual, if it is developed sufficiently, it will live. If not, it won't.

There's nothing complicated about it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Why would it be a hard situation and a difficult choice. The law is clear when dealing with any other two human beings. Friends. Neighbors. Co-workers. Spouse. Children. Parents........

but it's not clear with a mother and her in utero infant. That's what we're here to discuss. Helloooooo, McFlyyyyyy! doy.

It's when we take a closer look at what anti-abortionists are suggesting one sees just how twisted their thinking is. "We're both equal but if I get sick I can kill you." Yea, that's real logical. Makes great sense. Let's build a society around that idea.

it's a hard choice, but many one would make, probably with twinges of pain for killing a baby. Life is messy, hard, and imperfect.

I still believe your full dehumanization approach is more barbaric.

 

[apple0154]

Apple gets her science understanding from the bible. No wonder she's so fucked.

That's not the case but it would be better than grasping at DNA as another argument against abortion. People have been grasping at straws down through history. Now that science can show a fetus is composed of human material the anti crowd jumps on that wagon.

It's easy to see the mental functioning of anti-abortionists. On the one hand they claim a fetus is an human being and on the other hand they say a woman with a defective body has the right to kill a healthy fetus.

Is any further discussion really necessary?

 

[apple0154]

But before they're born, they're in utero babies.

Ah, yes. Like introducing someone as an "undead corpse."

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Ah, yes. Like introducing someone as an "undead corpse."

That would be true as well.

 

[apple0154]

So basically the argument is

"It's not dehumanization because fetuses aren't human!"

Now why isn't this convincing?

Why? Brainwashing, perhaps. Maybe just the inability to think logically.

But, honestly, I don't know why you have difficulty comprehending.

 

[apple0154]

but it's not clear with a mother and her in utero infant. That's what we're here to discuss. Helloooooo, McFlyyyyyy! doy.

But it is clear to any rational thinker. The exceptions and the twisting and contorting of logic by anti-abortionists surely is a clue their thinking is askew.

it's a hard choice, but many one would make, probably with twinges of pain for killing a baby. Life is messy, hard, and imperfect.

I still believe your full dehumanization approach is more barbaric.

It's not a hard choice as soon as one realizes a baby is not involved. If we start with the wrong premise then, of course, the choice seems difficult. Again, that should be a clue ones thinking is fvcked.

 

[apple0154]

Well, it's been a pleasure, Ass. Time for my afternoon nap.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

But it is clear to any rational thinker. The exceptions and the twisting and contorting of logic by anti-abortionists surely is a clue their thinking is askew.



It's not a hard choice as soon as one realizes a baby is not involved. If we start with the wrong premise then, of course, the choice seems difficult. Again, that should be a clue ones thinking is fvcked.

Again, you dehumanize just by using a different word. In all realities it is a human being.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Babies are born. No birth, no baby.

So at what moment does the magic baby fairy show up to turn it into a baby?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Then you're willing to sacrifice the defective mother's life. Just come right out and say so. If the mother has a defective body and the fetus is healthy you are a hypocrite to say the mother has a right to abort.

Stop being a hypocrite. It's getting old.

If both the fetus/embryo and the woman are human beings then there must be times when the woman's life is sacrificed for the embryo/fetus.

Just come straight out and say you're a misogynist. You aren't defending fetuses/embryos. All you're doing is finding a way to diminish the value of the lives of women, you snot nosed coward.

Well, I feel better now.

Listen you ignorant twit. If the doctor comes in and says, 'because of health concern x, there is no chance that both you and your baby will survive' then you are not dehumanizing anyone. It is simply a fact of life. I am not sacrificing either and neither is the woman in question. She has to make a choice on which of the two has the better chance of survival.

Thus there is no time where the woman 'must be sacrificed'. That is complete horseshit that you obviously have consumed in abundance.

Your pathetic feeble little attempts to pretend I don't like women are simply laughable.

 

[Jarod]

Listen you ignorant twit. If the doctor comes in and says, 'because of health concern x, there is no chance that both you and your baby will survive' then you are not dehumanizing anyone. It is simply a fact of life. I am not sacrificing either and neither is the woman in question. She has to make a choice on which of the two has the better chance of survival.

Thus there is no time where the woman 'must be sacrificed'. That is complete horseshit that you obviously have consumed in abundance.

Your pathetic feeble little attempts to pretend I don't like women are simply laughable.

That is not the current law, the current law is that the mother would still have to go forward with the delivery and allow nature to decide who lives or dies or if both die.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is not the current law, the current law is that the mother would still have to go forward with the delivery and allow nature to decide who lives or dies or if both die.

That is the current law? You sure about that?

The law states that nature will decide who lives and dies? Are you really a lawyer? Or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express once?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Babies are born. No birth, no baby.

can an unborn child be viable before a delivered birth?