The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[Timshel]

Murder is a legal term: Since Roe the only time the term murder can be used to address a fetal death is if a prosecutor says so. It is for the sake of debate important to differeniate technical terms to prevent hair splitters like stringy from going off on hair splitting rabbit trails of non arguments. Medical abortions legally kill unborn babies they do not murder them.

It is important to define terms when fucking retards demand that their definition is absolute. There is also occasion to do it for simply improving the quality of communication by clarifying your meaning.

The rabbit trail runners are the fucking IDiots who continue to demand that your words mean what they say they mean and not what you say they mean. It is almost pointless to discuss such a complex issue with such IDiots because they will always attempt to sink the argument in to angel counting contests.

I still don't care what word you use. If I have a problem with it I will tell you, you can explain what you meant, I will say "okay" with buts (if disagreement remains on the topic not the word) or I might give you a definition I prefer and we can move on. Who fucking cares about your definition, beyond the information it brings to your intent? It proves nothing.

 

[Timshel]

Back to the issue... what is your point in the source? If it is to make a point about when the brain appears or comes on line, then are you acknowledging that before that point the mother can abort? If not then there really is no point in debating such a complicated issue of how we might measure that, because you will just revert to life at conception.

 

[apple0154]

Apple believes that there's a baby fairy that appears, waves a wand the moment the cord is cut, and EUREKA, a baby is created out of nothing.

Are you projecting? It sounds like the Right's belief a baby fairy appears in the womb at the moment of fertilization.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you projecting? It sounds like the Right's belief a baby fairy appears in the womb at the moment of fertilization.

You've had this discussion with others and it's become obvious that you believe the Baby Fairy creates a tiny living human being, the minute the cord is cut.
Until then, it's just a group of cells.

 

[apple0154]

actually, in apple's world an abortion fairy appears, waves a wand, and Eureka!....."nothing" is created out of "baby"..........

All this "Eureka" stuff sounds like...well, we all know what it sounds like, don't we? Be honest, now.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You are therefore not a human being just as a house is not a house if the proper resources are not supplied.

It is a process. Everything in this world is a process. In other words time is involved, be it building a house or "building" a human being.

Just like trees grow and produce fruit. An orange seed is not an orange tree or an egg a chicken even if the DNA matches. DNA is just one way to classify something.

Yes, they both require resource, but the relevant part is that the baby directs it's own conttruction based on dna, where the house's resources are assembled together by a third party, the contractor and construction worker.

You keep failing to comprehend relvancy and sense.

 

[apple0154]

You've had this discussion with others and it's become obvious that you believe the Baby Fairy creates a tiny living human being, the minute the cord is cut.
Until then, it's just a group of cells.

No, I believe a birth marks the beginning of a human being's life. One of our most sacred beliefs is a human being's body belongs only to them. We do not have a right to use another person's body and certainly not their internal organs.

A zygote/fetus is not a human being and, in any case, it does not have a right to use a person's body against their wishes. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, they both require resource, but the relevant part is that the baby directs it's own conttruction based on dna, where the house's resources are assembled together by a third party, the contractor and construction worker.

You keep failing to comprehend relvancy and sense.

If I don't supply bricks for the exterior of the house and supply vinyl instead it doesn't matter what the blueprints say. The house will be covered in vinyl.

If the mother does not supply certain resources it doesn't matter what the DNA says. The DNA may call for brain development but if the resources are not supplied the brain will not develop "according to plan".

Again, where are you having difficulty?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Try again. The problem is classifying something as a human being when everything from common sense to every day practice shows it is wrong.

Everything, as a society, we hold dear....be it the sanctity of life to the equal right to life....has to be twisted and exceptions made when claiming something that has not been born is a human being. It makes a mockery of and erodes the very foundation of everything our society is built upon.

don't be a fool.....common sense tells us that an unborn child displays more evidence of being human than you, who is prepared to kill it.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, it is a process.

no, it isn't.....it was human before, it was human after.......

The point is all these changes happen at birth.

the only change relevant to the issue of life that occurs at birth is that before, you pretend it isn't human and deny it rights, after you admit it.....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I believe a birth marks the beginning of a human being's life. One of our most sacred beliefs is a human being's body belongs only to them. We do not have a right to use another person's body and certainly not their internal organs.

A zygote/fetus is not a human being and, in any case, it does not have a right to use a person's body against their wishes. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

But you forgot to add that you have no problem in having that unborn baby killed, as long as it hasn't been born; because it's not human.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope. So then let's define the terms. Murder is an unlawful killing. We are not bickering over what the law is but what it should be, so let's agree then that it is an unjust killing. Without a right to life a being cannot be murdered. A chicken has no legal right to life and I can kill it without having committed murder. Without a working brain a human has no right to life. For instance, the brain dead. Therefore, an unborn child or a being with a right to life exists when it has a working brain. At that point, I would not condone killing it or doing anything that would constitute negligence in the duty to protect it, without just cause. Therefore, I do not condone murder or even negligent homicide of an unborn child/a being with a right to life. Thanks, for playing.

you are a lowlife that wants to wrongfully deprive an innocent human being of life for political purposes.....at least your typical murderer acts either out of passion or greed......you act out of nothing more than satisfying your fucking ego.....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Taichiliberal wrote:

First off, were did you get the data...and how does it compared to the actual number of married couples...the actual number of married couples with children? Secondly, your supposition and conjecture are NOT fact...period. Once you understand that, the rest of your life will go easier, and discussion will be shorter.

RS Stringfield wrote:

The census. I mentioned that. What supposition and conjecture? It is a fact that many couples married now will divorce. It is a fact that many people lie on surveys. Illegitimacy is not a pretty subject in our society and families lie about it all the time. They always have.

I want a link to your information, so I can examine the information for myself. And PUH-LEEZE stop repeating your supposition and conjecture.....because all you're doing is just giving out generalizations and opinions. I notice that you avoided providing the information I requested...remember, YOU make this statements as fact, so the burden of proof is on YOU. If you can't do this, then you're just blowing smoke.

Taichiliberal Quote:
Oh spare me this fucking psychotic bullshit of yours! In order to buy into your nonsense, one would have to redefine "natural". Well guess what toodles, NATURE isn't going to redefine itself via reproduction to make the gay family advocates feel comfortable. Why the hell do you think medical science calls it "artificial insemination"? Already, you destroy your argument with these absurd declarations.

RSStringfield wrote:
There is no need to redefine a thing. Homosexual women have children and conceive them (not important but...) in usually the same way that heterosexual women do. I am not talking artificial insemination. It would not matter, but there are plenty of kids in homosexual homes that were conceived the same way you were.

Nice try toodles, but a simple examination of the FACTS blows your BS back into the toilet. Gay women who were in the closet and married to straight men conceive kids and then (sometimes) gain custody after the divorce. Gay women who have NEVER been with a man get pregnant through artificial insemination.....the ONLY way they can conceive a child during their gay marriage...unless one the partners goes and has sex with a man....which is pretty schzoid if they are NOT sexually attracted to heterosexual men. Then there's adoption.

So no matter how you slice it, the gay marriage is an artificial construct when it comes to producing children from that union. Remember toodles, heterosexual couples have the OPTION of adopting, or using surrogacy or artificial insemination IN THE EVENT THAT ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS ARE MEDICALLY IMPAIRED FROM BEING ABLE TO PERFORM TOWARDS CONTRACEPTION. Gay couples, as dictated by biology, do NOT have that option.

Taichiliberal Quote:
YOU sure as hell implied that it was.

Nope, the "myth" is the exaggeration that you and others are promoting. No one is denying that "marriage" has gone through changes in the last 50 some odd years or so, but last time I checked men and women are still getting married and having kids to raist the pretty stable at a rate that's still the vast majority of how people get together and raise kids in the world...whether you like it, believe it or not.

RSSTRINGFIELD WROTE:
You are full of shit. I did not imply that traditional two parent homes are a myth. Of course, they are not. That's just a straw man.

A straw man that YOU put forth in your opening salvo. Go back and READ CAREFULLY what I wrote and you might understand....if you don't, I'll explain it to you again.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680871&postcount=134

The myth is that they are the only way, that they are perfectly stable or even, necessarily, the most stable. Marriages are fragile, sometimes toxic, while potentially of great benefit to the partners and the children raised between them. Everybody should get their chance to spin the wheel and see if they can make it work. To deny children of homosexuals the stability, emotional and financial, that marriages can bring is stupid and counterproductive to the interests of society. Not to mention, extremely cruel.

A flowery speech that dodges my main point. No matter what you say, you CANNOT change facts of biology....gay couples by themselves CANNOT produce children...EVER. So to say they are "normal" family..as you did...is incorrect. As I've explained above, it's an artificial construct.

And why do you imply that gay parents are any more stable than heterosexual? Do a little honest homework on the divorce rate of gay unions/marriages and you'll see my point. Also, after YEARS of reading and hearing testimony by gay folk about the trials and tribulations of being raised by straight parents, why is it suddenly okay to put straight kids into a situation where their parental role models are gay? Are you saying there's no angst or emotional changes there? Like I said before, the Stacey/Bilblarz study is the thorn that pops the hot air mantras you spew here.

Gay marriages...no problem. Gay couples and kids....pretty much nothing can be done outside of draconian laws. I am just not going to let all the mythology and BS about it go unchallenged. TFB if you don't like it...but you can't logically disprove what I poiht out here.

 

[Timshel]

you are a lowlife that wants to wrongfully deprive an innocent human being of life for political purposes.....at least your typical murderer acts either out of passion or greed......you act out of nothing more than satisfying your fucking ego.....

Nothing but ad hom. Here is some back at you, but I can back mine up with arguments and all you have is your ignorant assumptions...

You are a lowlife that does not care about the rights of children or the women, but only care about advancing your religion.

You don't care how many women are killed or how they may suffer. Your immoral religion tells you they must be punished for having sex without the intent to procreate.

You don't care about the unborn child if it dies from something other than the woman's choice. You don't mourn it, you probably would not give a dollar to help prevent such an event or offer any aid. The moment the child is born you assholes may very well start your verbal attacks on it and the family on which it depends if that family does not meet your definition of God's will. You will deny the parents many rights that it could use to further the goal of supporting the child.

After it is born, your concern ends, because it no longer affords you any ability to dictate the actions of the mother.

You are not a moral person. Not even your religion is really important to you as you completely ignore its commands to "love thy neighbor" and only use it to find excuses to hate.

It is quite possible to incorporate rights into your religion, even the right to an abortion. It's been done. But that would not give you license to hate and discriminate, which IS your true religion. You are a piece of shit.

 

[Timshel]

I want a link to your information, so I can examine the information for myself. And PUH-LEEZE stop repeating your supposition and conjecture.....because all you're doing is just giving out generalizations and opinions. I notice that you avoided providing the information I requested...remember, YOU make this statements as fact, so the burden of proof is on YOU. If you can't do this, then you're just blowing smoke.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/complex-poster.pdf

So then I am just guessing that some married couples will divorce, that people lie on surveys or that illegitimacy is something frowned upon in our culture? Okay, whatever...

I made no claims on how many. It is, without any doubt whatsoever, some.

Nice try toodles, but a simple examination of the FACTS blows your BS back into the toilet. Gay women who were in the closet and married to straight men conceive kids and then (sometimes) gain custody after the divorce. Gay women who have NEVER been with a man get pregnant through artificial insemination.....the ONLY way they can conceive a child during their gay marriage...unless one the partners goes and has sex with a man....which is pretty schzoid if they are NOT sexually attracted to heterosexual men. Then there's adoption.

First off, it is not necessary that they marry in order to conceive. Most conceived with a man, I never claimed otherwise, so? Are only a child's parents allowed to marry?

Your reasoning here is getting more and more tortured. Gay women have kids. Those kids need a stable home as much as anybody. If the state has an interest in the stability of a child's home then it doss not change based on the sexuality of the parent or how they are conceived. Your attempts to stand in the way serve absolutely no useful purpose, nor are you stupid arguments of any relevance.

So no matter how you slice it, the gay marriage is an artificial construct when it comes to producing children from that union. Remember toodles, heterosexual couples have the OPTION of adopting, or using surrogacy or artificial insemination IN THE EVENT THAT ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS ARE MEDICALLY IMPAIRED FROM BEING ABLE TO PERFORM TOWARDS CONTRACEPTION. Gay couples, as dictated by biology, do NOT have that option.

So what? Why is that important?

A flowery speech that dodges my main point. No matter what you say, you CANNOT change facts of biology....gay couples by themselves CANNOT produce children...EVER. So to say they are "normal" family..as you did...is incorrect. As I've explained above, it's an artificial construct.

Fuck you and your definition of the "normal family," motherfucker! You, obviously, are no more concerned with the children than the religious reich.

And why do you imply that gay parents are any more stable than heterosexual? Do a little honest homework on the divorce rate of gay unions/marriages and you'll see my point. Also, after YEARS of reading and hearing testimony by gay folk about the trials and tribulations of being raised by straight parents, why is it suddenly okay to put straight kids into a situation where their parental role models are gay? Are you saying there's no angst or emotional changes there? Like I said before, the Stacey/Bilblarz study is the thorn that pops the hot air mantras you spew here.

I implied no such thing.

I have no clue what you are talking about with the trials and tribulations of being raised by straight couples. My guess is, you are just using another straw man and that they actually complained about being raised by parents that did not understand homosexuality. I am sure gay parents (of which most conceive in a heterosexual coupling) can understand heterosexuality just fine.

Gay marriages...no problem. Gay couples and kids....pretty much nothing can be done outside of draconian laws. I am just not going to let all the mythology and BS about it go unchallenged. TFB if you don't like it...but you can't logically disprove what I poiht out here.

You are sick and demented.

Your point is not relevant to anything. Two women can't conceive. Okay, now tell us why that means they can't marry?

 

[apple0154]

But you forgot to add that you have no problem in having that unborn baby killed, as long as it hasn't been born; because it's not human.

It's not a human being. Laws, custom, precedence, accepted practices...rules that govern human beings can not be applied to something that is unborn. The most obvious example is most people agree the life/health of the mother takes priority, in every case, even if it means killing the supposed human being known as a fetus.

If a woman is at great risk of having a stroke due to uncontrolled high blood pressure or at risk of suffering severe consequences due to diabetes those very folks who claim life is sacred have no problem automatically sentencing a fetus to death.

If the pregnant woman is likely to suffer partial or full blindness due to diabetes, kill the fetus. If the pregnant woman is likely to lose a kidney due to high blood pressure, kill the fetus.

It is never contested nor seldom debated. Is one person's kidney worth another person's life? Is it morally correct or even logical for a person with a defective body to have the right to kill an innocent human being? Is that showing sanctity for life......unless the goal is to force a woman to bear a child regardless of the consequences. Or maybe some compromise in between and the occasional woman does suffer blindness or suffers a stroke.

As others have asked where do the "right for lifers" really stand? Like they did in Romania?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Laws, custom, precedence, and accepted practice are all bullshit when it comes to basic human rights and civil rights, as we have learned way too many times from pre-history to Rwanda, Darfur, and beyond.

 

[Canceled2]

It is not scientifically false and you seemed to acknowledge that by saying that the mother's body responds and or communicates in a bi-directional manner. Are you now denying that?

Fine then, I reject the idea that the woman's body is passive. That was not the way I intended it. You have not shown that to be the case.

Her body works with the developing life in concert, both sending and receiving messages. Who initiates the communication? I don't care, it is not relevant. If she is not necessary to the process then there COULD BE NO harm in withdrawing her participation in whatever way she chose. It would be quite simple for developing life to continue its growth disconnected from her body. Because she is, we are left with difficult question about what her duties and rights are. If she has no rights she has no duty and vice versa in a contract.

An unverifiable source that you cut and paste from is of no use to me and I damn sure will not consider it authoritative.

You are simply full of shit. The fertilized egg is not "left alone" by being left to use the mother's body as it sees fit. An unborn child "left alone" can consciously choose actions that will preserve it's life for some time without aid. However, at that point the mother has no right to just leave it alone. She has a duty which she willfully accepted to care and protect for the child. She, also, has the right to discharge those duties under the law. It's still her choice to do with HER body as she sees fit and is balanced against the rights of the child.

You think a brainless mass of cells has absolute rights to do whatever it chooses without regard to its effects on anyone else, until it is born (magic rational fairy appears and takes away its rights to use others), based on nothing but your incoherent religion and ethics. Your position IS NOT based on science alone, which is why you have avoided the issue of rights and the resulting conflicts between those of the mother and the developing life. You also avoid all the questions your answer begs. For instance, why don't we treat "spontaneous" abortions of a brainless mass of cells as a death? Why do we allow fertility patients/doctors do something that is very likely to result in death? Are we going to protect the life of a "baby" conceived against the mother's will?

Now see if there is some word in there that you can play gotcha games with, like the retard and silly angel counter that you are.

My position is based on science alone. I have also represented my opinion about the capricious and contradictory nature in the applications of law with regards to protection and rights of the unborn.

You are an absolutely dishonest person. You are the one who inserts side issues when cornered. You are the one who attempts emotionalism when cornered. You are the one in fact who cannot comprehend the argument in a rational, logical, and thoughtful manner...basically stringy your a big dorky asshole.

The woman is the passive participant in pregnancy once conception takes place. Apart from her sexual and or medical decision to get pregnant she is passive. Her body directs nothing, but is directed. That is a very well established scientific fact within any biological discussion and in fact is clearly understood as passive participation.

Again you attempt to suggest I say the mother is irrelevent...you fucking hack! I said no such thing...I said she does not direct the growth (she is sending no fucking signals assbite) She is being sent signals...your inability to discuss this honestly has proven a waste of my time...but at least I know I have made it evident to all who read that you are dishonest. You made the fucking claim that the mother MUST send signals. When it was made clear you were wrong, instead of just manning-up you pussied-out and tried to reinvent what you meant...

The baby's brain is in fact in evidence as early as 3 weeks gestation...and it progresses onward.

Your arguments have not only been debunked, they are archaic! You need to catch up to your fellow pro abotionists at the very least dork!

 

[apple0154]

Laws, custom, precedence, and accepted practice are all bullshit when it comes to basic human rights and civil rights, as we have learned way too many times from pre-history to Rwanda, Darfur, and beyond.

My point is it's impossible to extend human rights to a fetus because it is not a human being. It is inside another person's body. Our laws, our customs, our rights all depend on each of us being individuals, independent of each other.

For example, we're allowed to eat what we want because what we eat does not affect another individual.....well, I suppose we could exclude garlic if having a face to face conversation!

 

[Socrtease]

Laws, custom, precedence, and accepted practice are all bullshit when it comes to basic human rights and civil rights, as we have learned way too many times from pre-history to Rwanda, Darfur, and beyond.

And Communist Romania forbid all types of abortion and contraception. They must have been the most humane state ever.