Backlash Against Roe Repeal is Just Getting Started

AProudLefty said:
That is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

And there is no such thing as "unborn child". It is an oxymoron.

As to the answer to your question, of course they will say they are expecting a baby and they are attached emotionally to the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.

That isn't janitor science.
Click to expand...

You're going to break the lunch lady's brain with all that logic. lol
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't waste time with people who talk about zygotes........no zygote has ever been aborted......99% of women don't even know they are pregnant until after the zygote stage of HUMAN development.......(you see what I did there?......I made you look like a fucking idiot........it was fun and easy to do.......I encourage all my friends to do it).........
Click to expand...

Says the fucking idiot who first brought up the subject of zygotes then said he doesn't waste his time with people who talk about zygotes...

:laugh:

PostmodernProphet said:
a baby gradually develops from a zygote to an octogenarian.......
Click to expand...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...is-Just-Getting-Started&p=5378254#post5378254

So I guess you don't waste time with yourself?

I don't blame you, given what a waste of time you are.

Do you see what I did there?..... I made you look like a fucking idiot........it was fun and easy to do...

But I will admit that you helped immensely..... :thup:

Fucking rube. :laugh:
 
BartenderElite said:
And it requires a host body to successfully become a fully realized human being.

There's the rub. I'm surprised at your position on this. You are usually pro-liberty.
Click to expand...

I am very pro liberty.........until it comes to disregard of human life. that 'host body' is called a mother. What the pro choice position doesn't like to come to terms with is that the 'choice' is consenting to an act that can result in the pregnancy.......

Women have a huge responsibility, thus all the power, when it comes to children...........something they apparently don't want any longer.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yet you support a supposed right to terminate unwanted pregnancies............i'm also betting that you refuse to see the conflict between those two positions
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple even a caveman can understand. A zygote is not a human being. You can call it "human life" all you want, it still doesn't magically make it a human being.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I am very pro liberty.........until it comes to disregard of human life. that 'host body' is called a mother. What the pro choice position doesn't like to come to terms with is that the 'choice' is consenting to an act that can result in the pregnancy.......

Women have a huge responsibility, thus all the power, when it comes to children...........something they apparently don't want any longer.
Click to expand...

The law shouldn't even consider the idea of how a woman conceives. That's total nanny-state stuff.

Beyond that, you are over-simplifying the myriad of ways that women get pregnant. It goes well beyond cases of rape and incest, which many conservatives inhumanely say don't matter. There are MANY times when women are careful and use birth control, and still get pregnant. There are many more where rape cannot be proven.

It gets to a point of absurdity. Roe was an elegant compromise. The idea of telling any woman that they will be forced to carry a fetus to term without any other options is draconian.
 
AProudLefty said:
It's pretty simple even a caveman can understand. A zygote is not a human being. You can call it "human life" all you want, it still doesn't magically make it a human being.
Click to expand...

it's easy to just call a developing human life as a 'clump of cells'......at least for those who aren't willing to face up to responsibilities or the simple fact that they are indeed supporting infanticide.......

if you have your own kids, try looking at them as just a clump of cells that could easily have been destroyed for convenience........see how you feel.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's easy to just call a developing human life as a 'clump of cells'......at least for those who aren't willing to face up to responsibilities or the simple fact that they are indeed supporting infanticide.......

if you have your own kids, try looking at them as just a clump of cells that could easily have been destroyed for convenience........see how you feel.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Try again.
 
BartenderElite said:
The law shouldn't even consider the idea of how a woman conceives. That's total nanny-state stuff.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even discussing law........that is indeed nanny state stuff. morals cannot be legislated.

BartenderElite said:
Beyond that, you are over-simplifying the myriad of ways that women get pregnant. It goes well beyond cases of rape and incest, which many conservatives inhumanely say don't matter. There are MANY times when women are careful and use birth control, and still get pregnant. There are many more where rape cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
I do indeed support a womans right to choose NOT to carry the baby of a rapist or a product of incest.......THAT is barbaric and traumatic and I do believe those exceptions should be codified and available. same as those of 'life of the mother'.

BartenderElite said:
It gets to a point of absurdity. Roe was an elegant compromise. The idea of telling any woman that they will be forced to carry a fetus to term without any other options is draconian.
Click to expand...

Roe was not a compromise. Roe was an aberration of a activist court deliberately ignoring their constitutional limits. Again, women have great power and responsibility and should not be allowed to avoid it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
deflection and obfuscation, try again. you have no regard for human life.
Click to expand...

Clearly you do not understand what a straw man fallacy is.

I will help point out the straw men for you.

it's easy to just call a developing human life as a 'clump of cells'......at least for those who aren't willing to face up to responsibilities or the simple fact that they are indeed supporting infanticide.......

if you have your own kids, try looking at them as just a clump of cells that could easily have been destroyed for convenience........see how you feel.

Those are the straw men, some being appeals to emotions fallacy.

For further help understanding, don't hesitate to ask me.
 
BartenderElite said:
The law shouldn't even consider the idea of how a woman conceives. That's total nanny-state stuff.

Beyond that, you are over-simplifying the myriad of ways that women get pregnant. It goes well beyond cases of rape and incest, which many conservatives inhumanely say don't matter. There are MANY times when women are careful and use birth control, and still get pregnant. There are many more where rape cannot be proven.

It gets to a point of absurdity. Roe was an elegant compromise. The idea of telling any woman that they will be forced to carry a fetus to term without any other options is draconian.
Click to expand...

But that's what the forced-birthers WANT. Men, of course, are free to spread their seed far and wide, with no repercussions or consequences. It's those filthy harlot women who must pay!
 
AProudLefty said:
Clearly you do not understand what a straw man fallacy is.

I will help point out the straw men for you.

it's easy to just call a developing human life as a 'clump of cells'......at least for those who aren't willing to face up to responsibilities or the simple fact that they are indeed supporting infanticide.......

if you have your own kids, try looking at them as just a clump of cells that could easily have been destroyed for convenience........see how you feel.

Those are the straw men, some being appeals to emotions fallacy.

For further help understanding, don't hesitate to ask me.
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand: :hand:

Nice job with Burning Man there. That's the same argument the fake teacher and the other more ignorant of the forced-birthers here. Some try to use science, like Dr. ExLax (my new name for him since for no reason other than childishness, he has decided to refer to me as Fowlwoman.) Unfortunately Dr. ExLax uses twisted science and opinion pieces rather than actual credible scientific information.
 
AProudLefty said:
I see no definition of "human being". :dunno:
Click to expand...
Are you drunk or have you just gone blind. :dunno:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top