Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

[Cancel 2016.2]

God almighty did this really turn into an abortion rant? I am so glad there is a supreme court nomination that might kill the torture and abortion post. Probably not though.

lmao... not likely.... abortion will never go away and the torture issue is one both sides want to poke at.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The Pro baby murder crowd's only argument is a bizarre insistence that we all dehumanize babies.

 

[apple0154]

As I stated you twit... it IS based on DNA. While identical twins start from the same embryo, after the embryo splits into two the twins no longer have the exact same development. When cells split, they do not do so perfectly. Thus after the division, they do not necessarily develop all of the same traits.

That is why fingerprints are different. That is why one may have health issues and the other doesn't.

They are still unique.... even though they are twins.

Again, take a basic genetics class... you clearly are lacking in that knowledge.

Unfortunately, it is you who is lacking in common sense. If a fertilized egg is a unique human being what is the cell before it splits? Do we have a Bill or a Jane or a Bill and a Jane? Or do we have some form of a unique hermaphrodite?

Who or what is that unique "whatever-it-is"? Until the cell splits who is not there? Does Bill form after the cell splits or is it Jane who comes into being?

Furthermore, there is a situation referred to as Vanishing Twin Syndrome. One of the twin fetuses disappears in the uterus during pregnancy due to either the mother or the other twin absorbing the fetal matter. Where did Bill go? Is Bill's soul now living inside of Jane, his twin, or inside his mother?

And let's not forget another important point. Should a woman have a miscarriage that means, according to your logic, a human being died. So, do we start an investigation? Was it due to something the mother ingested? Did she lift something heavy which led to the miscarriage?

Or do we follow the usual Conservative, twisted logic when it comes to fetuses and say that type of death is different so no investigation is necessary? We'll deny the mother the right to kill another "human being" but if that "human being" dies it's no big deal?

How would that work in your world?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Unfortunately, it is you who is lacking in common sense. If a fertilized egg is a unique human being what is the cell before it splits? Do we have a Bill or a Jane or a Bill and a Jane? Or do we have some form of a unique hermaphrodite?

Who or what is that unique "whatever-it-is"? Until the cell splits who is not there? Does Bill form after the cell splits or is it Jane who comes into being?

Furthermore, there is a situation referred to as Vanishing Twin Syndrome. One of the twin fetuses disappears in the uterus during pregnancy due to either the mother or the other twin absorbing the fetal matter. Where did Bill go? Is Bill's soul now living inside of Jane, his twin, or inside his mother?

And let's not forget another important point. Should a woman have a miscarriage that means, according to your logic, a human being died. So, do we start an investigation? Was it due to something the mother ingested? Did she lift something heavy which led to the miscarriage?

Or do we follow the usual Conservative, twisted logic when it comes to fetuses and say that type of death is different so no investigation is necessary? We'll deny the mother the right to kill another "human being" but if that "human being" dies it's no big deal?

How would that work in your world?

You suck at thinking.

 

[apple0154]

Keep telling yourself whatever you need to to justify killing kids.


If you believe you should have the right to kill kids and that they should not be entitled to basic human rights, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

But again, to proclaim they are not human is moronic. THAT is the point.

Maybe you should check out the history of abortion.

Whether it was St.Augustine in the 4th century with his 80 days for females and 40 days for males until the spirit came along or folks in Connecticut in 1821 deciding quickening was the determining factor or Naploeon III, in 1969, making a deal with Pope Pius IX that if he forbade all abortions Napoleon would acknowledge papal infallibility there's always been people ready to jump on any wagon.

Now it's science and DNA. "See, it's human." Well, of course it's human material. Just like an apple seed might or might not grow into an apple tree but a seed is not a tree regardless of how one wants to twist it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Maybe you should check out the history of abortion.

Whether it was St.Augustine in the 4th century with his 80 days for females and 40 days for males until the spirit came along or folks in Connecticut in 1821 deciding quickening was the determining factor or Naploeon III, in 1969, making a deal with Pope Pius IX that if he forbade all abortions Napoleon would acknowledge papal infallibility there's always been people ready to jump on any wagon.

Now it's science and DNA. "See, it's human." Well, of course it's human material. Just like an apple seed might or might not grow into an apple tree but a seed is not a tree regardless of how one wants to twist it.

More shitty thinking.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Let's say greenpeace was suing a corporation for squashing the eggs of an endangered turtle species . Does greenpeace have a case? or are those not infractions since they are merely turtle eggs and may not have anything to do with actual turtles?

 

[apple0154]

You suck at thinking.

And you don't think.

It's referred to as "thinking things through". When one starts off with an illogical conclusion such as a fetus is a human being they start to stumble when logic is applied. What will we do in "this" situation? How will we handle "that" circumstance? How will laws be applied across the board?

One absurd idea thrown out there by anti-abortionists is if the woman's life is in danger she should be allowed to abort regardless of whether the problem lies with a faulty fetus (tubal pregnancy, for example) or the woman has a faulty body. In the case of a woman having a faulty body that would result in a healthy human being (assuming a fetus is a human being) being killed so the faulty one could live. Talk about convoluted logic! Where do people come up with these ideas?

As for Superfreak writing,

The term 'people' is subjective. It is arbitrary. It was once stated that black people were only 3/5 of a 'person'. That should tell you how moronic it is to somehow proclaim that a child is not human because to you it is not a 'person'. It is the same type of justification Hitler used to kill Jewish people.

such a law/rule as I stated above automatically sets the precedent that one class of human being (the fetus) is worth less than another class of human being (the woman).

But that's what happens when people don't think things through. Such a rule/law would legally sanction two classes of human beings. Ones life is automatically worth more than the other regardless of the situation.

It's obvious Superfreak is unable to make the connection between Hitler and the beliefs/ideas of the anti-abortionists.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Unfortunately, it is you who is lacking in common sense. If a fertilized egg is a unique human being what is the cell before it splits? Do we have a Bill or a Jane or a Bill and a Jane? Or do we have some form of a unique hermaphrodite? Who or what is that unique "whatever-it-is"? Until the cell splits who is not there? Does Bill form after the cell splits or is it Jane who comes into being?"

Prior to it splitting it is one unique human. When it splits it becomes two humans with identical codes. As they grow from there, that is where the imperfections in cell divisions result in two unique individuals. Seriously, take a genetics course so that you might not embarrass yourself so much.

"Furthermore, there is a situation referred to as Vanishing Twin Syndrome. One of the twin fetuses disappears in the uterus during pregnancy due to either the mother or the other twin absorbing the fetal matter. Where did Bill go? Is Bill's soul now living inside of Jane, his twin, or inside his mother?"

If one of the eggs ceases growing... it is DEAD. I am agnostic, so I really don't care about 'souls'. That is a religious issue, not scientific.

"And let's not forget another important point. Should a woman have a miscarriage that means, according to your logic, a human being died."

That is correct. A human being dies with a miscarraige.

"So, do we start an investigation? Was it due to something the mother ingested? Did she lift something heavy which led to the miscarriage?"

Only if she was physically attacked. What does this have to do with the FACT that the child is human?

"Or do we follow the usual Conservative, twisted logic when it comes to fetuses and say that type of death is different so no investigation is necessary? We'll deny the mother the right to kill another "human being" but if that "human being" dies it's no big deal? "

Ask a woman who has gone through a miscarriage if it is 'no-big deal'. We do not investigate every natural death. Nor would we in this situation.

How would that work in your world?

In my world, the child would be protected by the same basic human rights that you and I have. The child would not be dehumanized and subject to murder on a whim like it would in your world.

 

[apple0154]

Let's say greenpeace was suing a corporation for squashing the eggs of an endangered turtle species . Does greenpeace have a case? or are those not infractions since they are merely turtle eggs and may not have anything to do with actual turtles?

It depends if the eggs are included in the restriction.

There are certain plants/trees that are protected. Would we prosecute someone who picked up a seed and put it in their pocket?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Maybe you should check out the history of abortion.

Whether it was St.Augustine in the 4th century with his 80 days for females and 40 days for males until the spirit came along or folks in Connecticut in 1821 deciding quickening was the determining factor or Naploeon III, in 1969, making a deal with Pope Pius IX that if he forbade all abortions Napoleon would acknowledge papal infallibility there's always been people ready to jump on any wagon.

Now it's science and DNA. "See, it's human." Well, of course it's human material. Just like an apple seed might or might not grow into an apple tree but a seed is not a tree regardless of how one wants to twist it."

Check out the history of abortion? Again, you attempt to divert from the facts. It matters not that in the past people did not have the technology or understanding to map the human genome. The fact of the matter is this.... it is genetically proven that an unborn child is a unique human life.

Nothing you say is going to change that simple basic fact.

again, you can legitimately argue that the unborn child should not be entitled to human rights protection. I disagree with that position, but it is at least a valid argument. Trying to dehumanize the child is not valid.... it is simply an act of desperation by those who wish to take that childs life and who want to feel better about killing a kid.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It depends if the eggs are included in the restriction.

There are certain plants/trees that are protected. Would we prosecute someone who picked up a seed and put it in their pocket?

It depends on if the seeds are included in the restriction.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"When one starts off with an illogical conclusion such as a fetus is a human being "


Again I ask... when does the magic baby fairy arrive to turn the child into a human? Can you please document that for us?



"As for Superfreak writing, such a law/rule as I stated above automatically sets the precedent that one class of human being (the fetus) is worth less than another class of human being (the woman).

But that's what happens when people don't think things through. Such a rule/law would legally sanction two classes of human beings. Ones life is automatically worth more than the other regardless of the situation.
It's obvious Superfreak is unable to make the connection between Hitler and the beliefs/ideas of the anti-abortionists.

See, that is all you had to admit. You want to create different 'classes' of humans. Just like they did when they said blacks were only 3/5 of a person.
Just like Hitler did with the Jews. You pretend I cannot see the connection, yet you just admitted you wanted to do exactly what hitler did.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

See, that is all you had to admit. You want to create different 'classes' of humans. Just like they did when they said blacks were only 3/5 of a person.
Just like Hitler did with the Jews. You pretend I cannot see the connection, yet you just admitted you wanted to do exactly what hitler did.

yes. This connection is totally real. Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, was a nazi enthusiast.
\

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

 

[Canceled2]

There's no confusion regarding the brain. When it is incapable of performing certain functions the individual is considered dead. If one insists on referring to a fetus as a human being then let's apply the same standards. I'm surprised that concept is so confusing.

Another strange word play is the use of "developing". We do not classify things that are developing the same as those that are developed. On that subject who can say what will develop. If there is a stillbirth the embryo never developed into a human being. There are probably kids in kindergarten who will become doctors but we do not refer to them as doctors.

Human beings are individual creatures. They do not require the use of body parts while someone else is using them.

The medical argument you again attempt is false. Not ONE medical doctor or bioligist would consider the brain of a developing fetus dead. Only persons intent on declaring abortion morally OK make these kinds of spurious arguments.

 

[apple0154]

Check out the history of abortion? Again, you attempt to divert from the facts. It matters not that in the past people did not have the technology or understanding to map the human genome. The fact of the matter is this.... it is genetically proven that an unborn child is a unique human life.

Nothing you say is going to change that simple basic fact.

again, you can legitimately argue that the unborn child should not be entitled to human rights protection. I disagree with that position, but it is at least a valid argument. Trying to dehumanize the child is not valid.... it is simply an act of desperation by those who wish to take that childs life and who want to feel better about killing a kid.

It's got nothing to do with desperation. Again, let's compare. That's how we classify things. By comparison.

For example, if a person walks into a store, takes something and leaves without permission (paying for it) we call that theft because if a person took something from our home without permission it would be theft. We can compare.

Now, as for a "developing" human being it's like throwing an egg, flour,water and a few other ingredients in a pot and calling it a cake. It may become a cake if the ingredients are mixed and baked but it is not a cake at the present time even though it may contain all the ingredients of a cake.

Also, human beings have certain parts. A fertilized cell does not contain all the parts that human beings normally have. They develop. They come into existence at a later time.

You keep saying genetically proven. What makes genetics the defining definition? Genetics can prove my toe is human. Genetics can prove there is certain material present. That does not prove my toe a human being.

For a geneticist to claim something is a human being is nothing more than an arbitrary designation. They can prove something contains human material. That's where it stops.

The revolting thing about designating a fetus a human being is it dehumanizes every other human being, especially women by having the value of their life compared to something one can barely see.

That is the vileness of the comparison. Maybe you don't feel the life of your wife or daughter or sister or mother is worth more than a fertilized cell but most people do.

On the other hand if you do feel their lives are worth more then.....well, down the road we go towards two classes of human beings and I think a German fella tried that once.

So, Superfreak, which is it? Are the lives of your female family members not worth more than a fertilized cell or are you going down the other road?

 

[apple0154]

It depends on if the seeds are included in the restriction.

Exactly! That shows the seeds are different than the plant just as the eggs are different than what may develop from the eggs. If they were the same there would be no need to mention them. They would be automatically included.

We're making progress!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Exactly! That shows the seeds are different than the plant just as the eggs are different than what may develop from the eggs. If they were the same there would be no need to mention them. They would be automatically included.

We're making progress!

What shows the seeds are different than the plant?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"It's got nothing to do with desperation. Again, let's compare. That's how we classify things. By comparison. "

We do NOT classify humans into categories where ones life is worth less than another.

"For example, if a person walks into a store, takes something and leaves without permission (paying for it) we call that theft because if a person took something from our home without permission it would be theft. We can compare. "

the above has NOTHING to do with whether or not someone is Human. It does not dehumanize them. Period.

"Now, as for a "developing" human being it's like throwing an egg, flour,water and a few other ingredients in a pot and calling it a cake. It may become a cake if the ingredients are mixed and baked but it is not a cake at the present time even though it may contain all the ingredients of a cake. "

Wow, you really are desperate. Now you equate a human life to a cake? Your analogy is seriously flawed. Just so you know... if you are looking for the correct analogy using your pathetic cake analogy, then the sperm cell and egg cell are the ingredients. Once the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, the 'cake' is made. Period.

"Also, human beings have certain parts. A fertilized cell does not contain all the parts that human beings normally have. They develop. They come into existence at a later time."

Again, desperation. missing body parts does not make someone less of a human. Or do you believe that amputees are less human?

"You keep saying genetically proven. What makes genetics the defining definition? Genetics can prove my toe is human. Genetics can prove there is certain material present. That does not prove my toe a human being."

Desperation yet again. Genetics is how we map genomes. It is how we determine the difference between one species and the next. How else are we to determine the difference? By some arbitrary bullshit from people like you? your toe is a part of a human, it does not contain the genetic makeup of an entire human. A fertilized egg does. A toe has the genetic makeup of a toe.

"For a geneticist to claim something is a human being is nothing more than an arbitrary designation. They can prove something contains human material. That's where it stops. "

LMAO.... geneticists have mapped the entire human genome you twit. They most certainly CAN prove something is human.

"The revolting thing about designating a fetus a human being is it dehumanizes every other human being, especially women by having the value of their life compared to something one can barely see. "

Bullshit, designating a human a human does not dehumanize any other human. LMAO.... so women are devalued because they cannot see something?

"That is the vileness of the comparison. Maybe you don't feel the life of your wife or daughter or sister or mother is worth more than a fertilized cell but most people do. "

seriously... you are really pulling shit out of your ass now.

"On the other hand if you do feel their lives are worth more then.....well, down the road we go towards two classes of human beings and I think a German fella tried that once. "

So you do want to be just like Hitler. Like I said... just proclaim yourself a nazi and be done with it.

"So, Superfreak, which is it? Are the lives of your female family members not worth more than a fertilized cell or are you going down the other road?"

A fertilized egg cell is a Human child. Period. That childs life is every bit as valid as my sisters (one of whom is pregnant again with a CHILD) or my mothers or aunts or cousins. No matter how much you would like to treat kids as subhumans, it does not make you right.

Like I said, you are desperate because you wish to feel better about your desire to kill kids.

 

[apple0154]

What shows the seeds are different than the plant?

The need to specify they be included.