Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

[Sammy Jankis]

when my baby brother jesus comes back, he's going to kick your ass for that.

Maybe, but crossing the border is getting harder and harder though, with the swine flu, drug cartels, etc.

 

[apple0154]

but your toe will not blossom into a fully functional human being if left unmurdered.

Your mind is apparently completely barren of biological knowledge.

An embryo doesn't always blossom into a fully functional human being, you being the perfect example. HA! Sorry, but you walked into that one.

Talking about being barren of knowledge check out the statistics on spontaneous abortion. "It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort."
http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

25-50%. Imagine if 25-50% of month old babies died. What would be society's reaction? Perhaps anti-abortionist money would be better spent on research regarding why 25-50% of conceptions spontaneous abort. What do you think?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

An embryo doesn't always blossom into a fully functional human being, you being the perfect example. HA! Sorry, but you walked into that one.

Talking about being barren of knowledge check out the statistics on spontaneous abortion. "It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort."
http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

25-50%. Imagine if 25-50% of month old babies died. What would be society's reaction? Perhaps anti-abortionist money would be better spent on research regarding why 25-50% of conceptions spontaneous abort. What do you think?

None of this means a toe is the same as a complete organism. You work so hard to be stupid. Why?

 

[apple0154]

In the cancer scenario you set forth... again, this is a case where the woman would have to choose since it was not likely that both could survive.

Why should the woman have the right to choose IF a fetus is a human being? Once again, let's transpose that idea to any other situation. In what other instance does a person get to choose to kill someone else when the other person is not doing anything wrong?

Please explain your last two paragraphs. How is it that pro-life individuals want two class of humans? You truly are a moron. In one breath you say that you don't want unborn children compared to a woman because they are not equal, in the next breath you say how repugnant it is for people to classify humans to where we are not all equal. Which is it?

You pose a false dichotomy. Embryos/fetuses are not children. They are not human beings. By classifying them as such and then saying a woman has the right it kill it if she has a defective body you are effectively establishing two classes of human beings.

If they are equal then the woman should have no right to kill them just because her body is defective. It's absurd to claim both embryos/fetuses and women are human beings but a woman has the right to kill it when it's her body that is defective. Can't you see how crazy your argument is?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1) Where you are going wrong is in your idiotic reference to a human child as a 'fertilized cell'. Both the woman and the child are unique human beings.

2) Actually, yes, you are pro-abortion as you support abortions being legal. Not only that, but you seem to have a hatred for the child as well. Kind of like how people 100 years ago didn't want to be compared on an equal level with blacks.

3) No, there is no time that the woman would be forced to be sacrificed. But if the womans life was in danger to the extent that only she or the child could survive.... then she would have to choose.

4) In the cancer scenario you set forth... again, this is a case where the woman would have to choose since it was not likely that both could survive.

5) "It makes a mockery of the whole anti-abortionist platform which is "a fetus is a human being with all the corresponding rights but when push comes to shove the fetus is worth just a little bit less."

This is comical. It makes absolutely no sense with what you had said thus far.

6) "Haven't we had enough lessons in history regarding one class of people being worth less? Can we afford to let another twisted version of "this human being is worth more than that human being" enter our society again? "

This is even more comical. YOU are the one who sishes to regard one class of people as being worth less. It is not the pro-life people doing so. It is YOU. and NO, we cannot afford to let another twisted version of 'this human being is worth more than that one' enter our society again.

So why do you insist upon bringing back?

7) Please explain your last two paragraphs. How is it that pro-life individuals want two class of humans? You truly are a moron. In one breath you say that you don't want unborn children compared to a woman because they are not equal, in the next breath you say how repugnant it is for people to classify humans to where we are not all equal. Which is it?

 

[Canceled2]

Exactly, a child is considered a child, not a dwarf or a midget or an adult.

While the general pattern of fetal development is documented so is the development of doctors and lawyers but no one is considered a doctor or a lawyer until they are a doctor or a lawyer.

It's the "embryo is a human being" fruitcakes who pervert logic. When something is developing it means it is not what it may become. A house is not a house until it is built. Why pervert logic and the English language when discussing fetuses?

It's like holding an apple seed in ones hand and claiming it's an apple tree. If the terms and logic that people use to try and justify the "embryo is a human being" argument were used in any other circumstance the person would be considered a nut job.

All of the aforementioned persons are "human" and all began as "living" human embryo's. At any stage of their developement they could have been killed and would no longer be alive.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, the bible says that life is in the blood and scientifically, the fetus isn't infused with blood until around the 18th day after conception. So one could conceivably believe that life doesn't begin until the 18th day.

Personally, I could care less what the bible says on the matter. The bible is not scientific.... and in this particular case it is wrong.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You pose a false dichotomy. Embryos/fetuses are not children. They are not human beings. By classifying them as such and then saying a woman has the right it kill it if she has a defective body you are effectively establishing two classes of human beings.

If they are equal then the woman should have no right to kill them just because her body is defective. It's absurd to claim both embryos/fetuses and women are human beings but a woman has the right to kill it when it's her body that is defective. Can't you see how crazy your argument is?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

They are human beings, but they aren't children. There are situation where I believe it should be legal to end the life of the inutero baby, and it should be considered thoughtfully, and maybe even people should feel a little bad about doing it. You are right that one life is placed over the other in these scenarios, but fully dehumanizing the victim is more horrible and unacceptable than doing what's necessary to save a mother, and then feeling a little bit bad later, and working working to prevent these situations in the future.

your full dehumanization approach is merely to alleviate guilt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why should the woman have the right to choose IF a fetus is a human being? Once again, let's transpose that idea to any other situation. In what other instance does a person get to choose to kill someone else when the other person is not doing anything wrong?



You pose a false dichotomy. Embryos/fetuses are not children. They are not human beings. By classifying them as such and then saying a woman has the right it kill it if she has a defective body you are effectively establishing two classes of human beings.

If they are equal then the woman should have no right to kill them just because her body is defective. It's absurd to claim both embryos/fetuses and women are human beings but a woman has the right to kill it when it's her body that is defective. Can't you see how crazy your argument is?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1) The woman should choose for the two as the child cannot voice its opinion on the matter now can it?

2) "In what other instance does a person get to choose to kill someone else when the other person is not doing anything wrong? "

Um in the instance of ABORTIONS you moron. You know... the thing you support? This isn't a question of doing anything wrong.

3) "You pose a false dichotomy. Embryos/fetuses are not children. They are not human beings. By classifying them as such and then saying a woman has the right it kill it if she has a defective body you are effectively establishing two classes of human beings. "

You are a fucking moron. One, the child is human and it does exist... thus it is a human being. If you feel otherwise please demonstrate why. YOU are the one who is trying to establish two classes of humans you ignorant fool.

The rest is the same moronic gibberish that you continue to present. It has already been addressed.

Just admit you enjoy killing kids and be done with it.

 

[apple0154]

There's nothing arbitrary about considering and in-utero baby a human being. Nor does it mean that all human beings are in utero babies.

We can have babies in petri dishes. In syringes. In cups and saucers.

Hell, we can have babies everywhere!

Man: How many children do you have?
Woman: Well, let's see. I have two at home and eight frozen at the fertility clinic.
Man: Wow! Ten children. That must make for a nice tax deduction. BTW, what is the deduction per child these days?

Your minds is a mass of senseless goo.

It doesn't help trying to follow what is being passed off as logic by you and a few others.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We can have babies in petri dishes. In syringes. In cups and saucers.

Hell, we can have babies everywhere!

Man: How many children do you have?
Woman: Well, let's see. I have two at home and eight frozen at the fertility clinic.
Man: Wow! Ten children. That must make for a nice tax deduction. BTW, what is the deduction per child these days?



It doesn't help trying to follow what is being passed off as logic by you and a few others.

You have successfully avoided making a relevant point. Congratulations!

 

[apple0154]

Sometimes in rough situations we make hard choices, that doesn't necessarily mean someone has been dehumanized or second classed.

There isn't anything to make a hard choice about. As I said before you're posing a false dichotomy. There is one human being involved and that's the woman.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There isn't anything to make a hard choice about. As I said before you're posing a false dichotomy. There is one human being involved and that's the woman.

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

 

[apple0154]

Pro-life individuals VALUE life. They think the unborn child should have EQUAL protection. So please EXPLAIN how it is you think they dehumanize the fetus.

By allowing the woman to choose whether it lives or dies. You said the woman CHOOSES. So, how would you like someone to choose whether you live or die? Is that your definition of valuing life? Is that your definition of equal protection under the law?

Are you insane or is it a matter of putting the pipe down?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

By allowing the woman to choose whether it lives or dies. You said the woman CHOOSES. So, how would you like someone to choose whether you live or die? Is that your definition of valuing life? Is that your definition of equal protection under the law?

Are you insane or is it a matter of putting the pipe down?

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.

 

[Canceled2]

If you want to get into semantics, fine. Let's just say the level of brain function, vis-à-vis supporting the body, is the determining factor. Damaged. Missing. Developing. Call it what you will.

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.

 

[apple0154]

Actually, the bible says that life is in the blood and scientifically, the fetus isn't infused with blood until around the 18th day after conception. So one could conceivably believe that life doesn't begin until the 18th day.

As well, the Bible continually refers to the "breath of live". God breathes into people "the breath of life". When people die they lose the "breath of life".

Breath "as smoke in the nostrils" leaves little doubt they were talking about breath as we understand it, IMO.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

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

 

[apple0154]

They are human beings, but they aren't children. There are situation where I believe it should be legal to end the life of the inutero baby, and it should be considered thoughtfully, and maybe even people should feel a little bad about doing it. You are right that one life is placed over the other in these scenarios, but fully dehumanizing the victim is more horrible and unacceptable than doing what's necessary to save a mother, and then feeling a little bit bad later, and working working to prevent these situations in the future.

your full dehumanization approach is merely to alleviate guilt.

Alleviate guilt? How can anyone suggest a woman can kill her child and feel "a little bit bad" later on?

Refusing to classify something as a human being is worse than doing so and then assigning them as second class human beings? "You're a human being but my life is worth more than yours." You really believe that way of thinking is beneficial to society, as a whole? You believe it's a good precedent to set?

Most peculiar considering history is replete with examples.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Alleviate guilt? How can anyone suggest a woman can kill her child and feel "a little bit bad" later on?

I suggested it by typing it.

Refusing to classify something as a human being is worse than doing so and then assigning them as second class human beings?

Yes. Isn't it? Wouldn't your rather be considered second class, than completely nonhuman?

"You're a human being but my life is worth more than yours." You really believe that way of thinking is beneficial to society, as a whole? You believe it's a good precedent to set?

Most peculiar considering history is replete with examples.

Complete dehumanization is worse. "I am a human being and you are not." That sounds even worse, if we're getting into dramatizations.

 

[apple0154]

1) The woman should choose for the two as the child cannot voice its opinion on the matter now can it?

2) "In what other instance does a person get to choose to kill someone else when the other person is not doing anything wrong? "

Um in the instance of ABORTIONS you moron. You know... the thing you support? This isn't a question of doing anything wrong.

3) "You pose a false dichotomy. Embryos/fetuses are not children. They are not human beings. By classifying them as such and then saying a woman has the right it kill it if she has a defective body you are effectively establishing two classes of human beings. "

You are a fucking moron. One, the child is human and it does exist... thus it is a human being. If you feel otherwise please demonstrate why. YOU are the one who is trying to establish two classes of humans you ignorant fool.

The rest is the same moronic gibberish that you continue to present. It has already been addressed.

Just admit you enjoy killing kids and be done with it.

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.