Indiana bill that would attempt to define abortion as murder

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

:yawn:

Boy the grass growing outside my window sure is relatively interesting and worth looking at.

P.S. The continued lack of condemnation or even notice of Removable Mind's trashy call for politicians to be jailed for disagreeing with his views creates a deafening silence.

AGENT J · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
:yawn:

Boy the grass growing outside my window sure is relatively interesting and worth looking at.

P.S. The continued lack of condemnation or even notice of Removable Mind's trashy call for politicians to be jailed for disagreeing with his views creates a deafening silence.

Translation: you want to deflect for the blatant and factual lies that were called out in your posts. We get it LMAO

RickJames3000 · Jan 13, 2017

I don't know what all the fuss is about. These legislators need to rethink their strategy.
Aborted fetuses are among the very best of things to come out of Indiana nowadays.

joG · Jan 13, 2017

AGENT J said:
except for the fact the vast major human rights orgs are for choice (the ones that actually do human rights and were spawned just because of "some" pro-life claims) and there there are TWO human lives in the equation not just one, TWO. ANY decision infringes on one of them, that fact will never change. So its a matter of where people feel its ok to infringe on one or the other. Thats the only place honest discussion is and thats even supported by pro-lifers. Many here have simply admit they value the NEW life over the other in most circumstances or they protect the life that cant speak for itself. I myself want somethign in the middle. RvW is actually very close. I wouldnt mind seeing RvW change to 20/21 weeks (viability) and about as equal as you can possible get even though you cant.

So moving the chosen solution closer to giving ZEFs, babies, preborns etc MOST of the rights and violating the womans current legal and human rights doesnt make anything more consistent with human rights. It just factually violates them in a different way and gets further away from equal (which is impossible) than it currently is now.

If one doesn't mind about rule of law and all that. If one does, one is honest and does things the right way and not with deception .

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
There is no rational reason to voice displeasure. The legal definition should match the objectively true scientific definition. :shrug:

"human life" and "personhood" are two totally different things, BOTH legally and scientifically. Therefore, as usual, you are spouting nonsense.

JayDubya said:
Bigotry is an ugly look.

YUP; applies to most abortion opponents. We have Separation of Church and State to prevent religious bigotry (intolerance of others' opinions). But banning abortion is a promotion of one opinion over others; pro-choicers have no objection to abortion opponents choosing, for themselves, to not get abortions.

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
"human life" and "personhood" are two totally different things, BOTH legally and scientifically. Therefore, as usual, you are spouting nonsense.

I mean I dunno, try reading. Then you wouldn't say this sort of dumb thing that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

YUP; applies to most abortion opponents.

No, but applies to all abortion proponents.

Removable Mind · Jan 13, 2017

RickJames3000 said:
I don't know what all the fuss is about. These legislators need to rethink their strategy.
Aborted fetuses are among the very best of things to come out of Indiana nowadays.

IMHO, these participating Indiana politicians need to be impeached on the grounds that they are completely incompetent, violating the Constitution, failure to uphold their sworn duty, charged with fraudulently attempting to dismantle women's fundamental rights described in the Constitution and attempting to force women into slavery, then prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison with chance of parole on their death bed.

Seems like a fair way to get the attention of sanctimonious and/or corrupt politicians who will sell their grandmothers for a buck.

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

Gaugingcatenate said:
Good. Finally.

IF ALL THE RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC DATA IS CONSIDERED (because "human life" and "personhood" are two totally unrelated independent things, else no scientist would ever have suggested that dolphins qualify as persons), abortion opponents could see a "backfire", and the allowing of infanticide. I'm quite sure, however, that abortion opponents will do everything they can to prevent consideration of all the relevant scientific data. Tsk, tsk!

Gaugingcatenate said:
Your side has had its reign of error terror on the unborn and defenseless long enough, far too long.

THE UNBORN LACK THE BRAINPOWER TO EXPERIENCE TERROR. Also, you spout a Standard Stupid Lie, in calling the unborn "defenseless". That's because they infuse the mind-altering substance "oxytocin" into the bodies of their hostesses, which promotes emotional bonding, and is the reason you **don't** get between a mamma bear and her cubs. That is, by drugging their hostesses, the unborn strive to make those hostesses their defenders.

Gaugingcatenate said:
We had our VE and VJ days to finally bring to an inglorious end to the cruel fascism and Japanese Militarism of WW2,

TRUE, but irrelevant to the Overall Abortion Debate. Only animals are targeted by abortion, not persons.

Gaugingcatenate said:
we saw the wall come down in Berlin signaling the end of another merciless era in Eastern Europe in particular,

TRUE, but irrelevant to the Overall Abortion Debate. Only animals are targeted by abortion, not persons.

Gaugingcatenate said:
an end to the Cold War worldwide...

A STUPID LIE, since the Commie Chinese are in charge of everything exported to the USA, and lots of that stuff has proven to be toxic. Haven't you read Sun Tzu?

Gaugingcatenate said:
now its time that the heinous, beyond mass genocide of our unborn be conquered fully and finally.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. As usual for an abortion opponent. "Genocide" only applies to killing people, and unborn humans are, **provably**, mere-animal entities.

Gaugingcatenate said:
When its a matter of murder

NOT APPLICABLE TO THE OVERALL ABORTION DEBATE

Gaugingcatenate said:
citizens should expect government to be thrust into the situation...

GOVERNMENT BEGINS WITH THE CONSTITUTION, so see the stuff about the Census (all persons **must** be counted, except Indians not taxed), and the fact that the unborn have never been counted, thereby making Roe v Wade irrelevant with respect to Constitutional personhood.

Gaugingcatenate said:
it is a primary function of government to protect its citizens.

TRUE. So see the 14th Amendement, which quite clearly associates citizenship with the **born**.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Which includes all of our fellow Americans.

EXCLUDES MERE-ANIMAL ENTITIES LIKE THE UNBORN.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Shoe is on the other foot now...

NOT YET.

Gaugingcatenate said:
and my hope is that it will stomp out this atrocity for all time. Remember: Never again.

IF IT BACKFIRES ENOUGH (as mentioned above), perhaps abortion opponents will be so shocked they will stop spouting their worthless nonsense?

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
I mean I dunno, try reading.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, because I have read plenty and **do** know.

JayDubya said:
Then you wouldn't say this sort of dumb thing that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! You were not very specific about what you were blathering about:

JayDubya said:
The legal definition should match the objectively true scientific definition.

LEGAL DEFINITION OF WHAT? "human life"? "personhood"? They ARE two different things, both scientifically and legally, already! It is precisely because of scientific research into personhood that various extremists (NOT most pro-choicers) want to legalize infanticide. And here's some info about the legal definition of "person". I see it uses the phrase "human being", but ask any scientist to think about what "being" **means in such contexts** (why don't scientists ever say "toadstool being" but do say "alien being"?), and you will see the generic conclusion that "human being" means "human person" and --DUH!!-- the phrase is therefore redundant and unnecessary. That is "human persons" are persons, but just because some entity is "human", like a hydatidiform mole, that doesn't automatically qualify it for personhood.

JayDubya said:
No, but applies to all abortion proponents.

A BALD CLAIM UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. As usual. But I provided evidence showing exactly how abortion opponents are bigots. Your mere claim to the contrary is worthless, if you can't (1) support it with evidence! and (2) show why my evidence is flawed!

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

Removable Mind said:
IMHO, these participating Indiana politicians need to be impeached on the grounds that they are completely incompetent, violating the Constitution, failure to uphold their sworn duty, charged with fraudulently attempting to dismantle women's fundamental rights described in the Constitution and attempting to force women into slavery, then prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison with chance of parole on their death bed.

Is that H for HELLISH, REPUGNANT, & DESPICABLE?

Because what you just stated is absolutely contemptible and vile.

Again, the silence from your peers is deafening.

prometeus · Jan 13, 2017

VanceMack said:
Expression of fact is not emotional drivel.

Indeed, that is why what you post is just ignorant emotional drivel.

I can understand...

Quite the contrary, it is clear that you do not and remain clueless.

GEIxBattleRifle · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
Considering that the above displays an absolute lack of knowledge regarding what the right to life is and means.

Are you talking about me specifically or RM?

calamity · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
Considering that the above displays an absolute lack of knowledge regarding what the right to life is and means, were you just trying to demonstrate an example of "sheer wacknuttery?"

We all know what you think it means: letting born children starve and go without medical care. I get the impression that the real reason you want to ban abortions is so that you can watch more born babies die.

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
Because what you just stated is absolutely contemptible and vile.

IN CASE YOU ARE IGNORANT (wouldn't be surprised) "IMHO" is short for "in my humble opinion". Therefore Removable Mind expressed an opinion in Msg #57, which you quoted in Msg #60. Your disagreement is also nothing more than opinion, since you didn't support your denunciations with any valid data.

For example, Removable Mind's opinion included a statement to the effect that certain Indiana politicians should be impeached partly on the grounds that they are violating their Oath of Office ("sworn duty"). That Oath of Office is specified in the Constitution (I'm adding some stress):

US Constitution Article VI paragraph 3 said:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

GENERALLY, the Oath of Office, for each different officer, is modeled after the oath that the President must swear (I'm adding some stress):

US Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 8 said:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

NOW NOTE that women have various Civil Liberties under the Constitution, which currently includes freedom to refuse to tolerate the assaults of unborn humans, and to force those assaults to stop via abortion. Since the Constitution, per the Census (see Msg #58 in this Thread), doesn't consider unborn humans to have personhood --and ALL available scientific data supports that consideration-- so for Indiana legislators to try to ban abortion means they are trying to enslave women as life-support systems for mere-animal assailants. THAT is why Removable Mind says the legislators are worthy of impeachment and prosecution (deserving to be labeled "slavers").

IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THERE IS AN ERROR IN THAT REASONING, THEN YOU NEED TO PRESENT DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.

JayDubya said:
Again, the silence from your peers is deafening.

CONSIDER THE SILENCE ENDED. For quite a list of awful things that abortion opponents are associated with, some of which might be worthy of criminal charges, read this.

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

I think I need to clarify something I wrote in Msg #59:

the generic conclusion that "human being" means "human person" and --DUH!!-- the phrase is therefore redundant and unnecessary

The particular "phrase" I had in mind, when writing that, goes like this, "human beings are all persons". The redundancy should be obvious if the word "beings" is simply replaced with "persons": "human persons are all persons". THAT is why I included the --DUH!-- in what I previously wrote.

The Measurable Scientific Fact Is, there is nothing so inherently special about humans that "personhood" in an intrinsic part of their existence. For the simplest proof of that, look up "feral children", and all the available data about how they happen to begin existing --clue: the Natural Default human animal is "feral", unable to process abstractions sufficiently to understand legal stuff; "left to themselves" (a favorite phrase of abortion opponents), all humans can ever become are clever animals, like an ordinary gorilla is a clever animal, and it is because we DON'T leave humans to themselves that they (like Koko the gorilla) can grow extra abstraction-processing brainpower, and become person-class entities.

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
IN CASE YOU ARE IGNORANT (wouldn't be surprised) "IMHO" is short for "in my humble opinion".

:roll:

His opinion wasn't humble, it was monstrous and despicable and anyone opining it should be ashamed of themselves.

IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THERE IS AN ERROR IN THAT REASONING, THEN YOU NEED TO PRESENT DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.

It's a representative republic; the Constitution says nothing about abortion, their constituents want laws against abortion, and those who approve of thought crime or advocacy being a crime are despicable authoritarians who not only approve of needless killing but oppose liberty and the idea of a republic itself and while they should be free to state such awful views, they should be immediately and loudly condemned, and any government that behaved as they desire would only warrant immediate and violent revolution against such a tyranny.

CONSIDER THE SILENCE ENDED.

Consider the contempt extended to you and your equally deplorable statement.

Again, the silence is deafening. I wonder if this means the rest of the pro-abort radicals also approve of thought crime. Joko was the only confessed one before today.

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

Nilly said:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1134#document-169c5a8e

Indiana Bill No 1134
Synopsis:
Protection of life. Repeals the statutes authorizing and regulating abortion. Finds that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. Asserts a compelling state interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins. Redefines "human being" for purposes of the criminal code to conform to the finding that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. Makes other conforming changes.
Effective:
July 1, 2017

Click to expand...

Perhaps the ignorant louts in the Indiana legislator should study hydatidiform moles, which are 100% alive, 100% human, and begin to exist when a sperm fertilizes an ovum.
AND they should study the fact that there is no easy way to identify whether or not a particular new zygote will yield a hydatidiform mole, or yield a more-ordinary human body.

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
:roll:
His opinion wasn't humble, it was monstrous and despicable and anyone opining it should be ashamed of themselves.

YOUR MERE CLAIMS ARE STILL WORTHLESS WITHOUT DETAILED EXPLANATIONS. Why is it monstrous to condemn slavers?

JayDubya said:
It's a representative republic;

TRUE

JayDubya said:
the Constitution says nothing about abortion,

TRUE. However, the Constitution (and its Amendments) DOES say quite a bit about **persons** and the rights of persons.

JayDubya said:
their constituents want laws against abortion,

WILL SUCH LAWS INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS? Absolutely! And therefore UnConstitutionally!

JayDubya said:
and those who approve of thought crime

WHAT "THOUGHT CRIME"? Are those legislators guilty or not, of **actually** writing a law that promotes enslavement of pregnant women?

JayDubya said:
or advocacy being a crime

WHAT "ADVOCACY"? Are those legislators guilty or not, of **actually** writing a law that promotes enslavement of pregnant women?

JayDubya said:
are despicable authoritarians

ABORTION OPPONENTS, THAT IS! (Enslavement is Authority run rampant)

JayDubya said:
who not only approve of needless killing

DO YOU KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO RIGHT-NOW STOP THE NEED-NOT-BE-TOLERATED ASSAULTS COMMITTED BY AN UNBORN HUMAN?

JayDubya said:
but oppose liberty and the idea of a republic itself

REALLY? Are you not aware that Republicans are the ones most interfering with ensuring that electronic voting becomes associated with a verifiable paper trail?

JayDubya said:
and while they should be free to state such awful views,

THAT'S BECAUSE OPINIONS ARE NOT ACTIONS, the way the Indiana Legislators are guilty of committing a certain action....

JayDubya said:
they should be immediately and loudly condemned,

ALMOST EVERY OPINION HAS ITS SUPPORTERS AND ITS DENOUNCERS. Result: cacaphony. The only thing that can resolve the cacaphony is Measurable Data (facts can frequently replace opinions).

JayDubya said:
and any government that behaved as they desire would only warrant immediate and violent revolution against such a tyranny.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE OVERTHROWN, DUE TO APPARENT PROMOTION OF TYRANNICAL ENSLAVEMENT OF WOMEN?

JayDubya said:
Consider the contempt extended to you and your equally deplorable statement.

YOUR WORTHLESS BLATHER IS NOTED (worthless because unsupported by evidence)

JayDubya said:
Again, the silence is deafening.

GIVE IT TIME. Most folks haven't considered the details of what Removable Mind wrote, the way I have considered them.

JayDubya said:
I wonder if this means the rest of the pro-abort radicals also approve of thought crime.

WHAT THE INDIANA LEGISLATORS DID DOES NOT QUALIFY AS "THOUGHT CRIME". Therefore lots of folks can disapprove of them without qualifying for the thing you are worthlessly blathering about.

JayDubya said:
Joko was the only confessed one before today.

REALLY? ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE NOT DOING STILL-MORE MISINTERPRETATION OF ACTUALITIES?

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
Why is it monstrous to condemn slavers?

Slavery is directly analogous to abortion, and I do condemn you anti-human rights folks on the same grounds.

WILL SUCH LAWS INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS?

Not at all.

WHAT "THOUGHT CRIME"?

Wanting to throw someone in prison for life for disagreeing with your political opinion. It's scummy and terrible, and you should feel bad.

Are those legislators guilty or not, of **actually** writing a law that promotes enslavement of pregnant women?

No, not at all. Your claim is absurd and crazy.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE OVERTHROWN, DUE TO APPARENT PROMOTION OF TYRANNICAL ENSLAVEMENT OF WOMEN?

The incoming administration is actually not proposing arresting people for their political opinions and if they did so then that would warrant some kind of action.

I'm not onboard whatever crazy train it takes to try and perceive anything the incoming president's administration wants to do as "promotion of enslavement of women."

FutureIncoming · Jan 13, 2017

JayDubya said:
Slavery is directly analogous to abortion,

A STUPID LIE. Slavery targets persons; abortion targets animals.

JayDubya said:
and I do condemn you anti-human rights folks on the same grounds.

THE GROUNDS OF A STUPID LIE ARE THEMSELVES STUPID. Remember, hydatidiform moles are 100% human entities, but I don't see you insisting that they must have "human rights".

JayDubya said:
Not at all.

ANOTHER STUPID LIE. The rights of persons include the right to not be assaulted. And abortion opponents want to force women to be subjected to assaults!

JayDubya said:
Wanting to throw someone in prison for life for disagreeing with your political opinion.

THAT IS NOT WHAT REMOVABLE MIND ADVOCATED. He referenced a specific ACTION (a law that was physically written down, which promotes enslavement of pregnant women).

JayDubya said:
It's scummy and terrible, and you should feel bad.

YOU ARE SPOUTING UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS. Tsk, tsk!

JayDubya said:
No, not at all. Your claim is absurd and crazy.

YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. **SHOW EXACTLY HOW** what I wrote qualifies as "absurd and crazy", to yourself avoid having spouted more worthless blather.

JayDubya said:
The incoming administration is actually not proposing arresting people for their political opinions

NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I was talking about enslaving women, by banning abortion.

JayDubya said:
and if they did so then that would warrant some kind of action.

THANK YOU.

JayDubya said:
I'm not onboard whatever crazy train it takes to try and perceive anything the incoming president's administration wants to do as "promotion of enslavement of women."

IF IT DOES ANYTHING TO OPPOSE ABORTION, then that is very equivalent to insisting women must be enslaved as life-support systems for assailing animals.

JayDubya · Jan 13, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
A STUPID LIE. Slavery targets persons; abortion targets animals.

Yes, that was a good topic sentence - what you said after was despicable and stupid.

Technically as mammals we humans are animals, but you meant to suggest that the unborn aren't even human, and that's absurd and bigoted.

ANOTHER STUPID LIE. The rights of persons include the right to not be assaulted. And abortion opponents want to force women to be subjected to assaults!

Yes, you have posted another stupid lie. There is no assault.

THAT IS NOT WHAT REMOVABLE MIND ADVOCATED. He referenced a specific ACTION (a law that was physically written down, which promotes enslavement of pregnant women).

No enslavement was promoted.

I was talking about enslaving women, by banning abortion.

Banning abortion promotes human rights it does not enslave. Your assertion is crazy.

IF IT DOES ANYTHING TO OPPOSE ABORTION, then that is very equivalent to insisting women must be enslaved as life-support systems for assailing animals.

Again, this assertion is flat-out insane. Mothers do have obligations to provide for their kids, but parenthood is NOT slavery.

LaylaWindu · Jan 14, 2017

Nilly said:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1134#document-169c5a8e

Indiana Bill No 1134

So, whilst GOP have a supermajority in Indiana, this is clearly an unconstitutional bill. It's likely the intention is to trigger a lawsuit so Roe V Wade can be challenged.

Coalition fighting abortion bills | Indiana | www.journalgazette.net

This bill won't pass, it's just a big waste of money right now (ever fiscally responsible, our GOP) but this is the kind of bill/lawsuit that could start to probe at Roe v Wade over the next four years (esp if Ginsburg or Kennedy kick the bucket). By the definitions put forward in the bill (that, legally, life begins when sperm meets egg) this would also define miscarriage as manslaughter.

Hear that ladies? Mr Kruse knows best about your life and your pregnancy.

All from the party that wants to keep government out of our lives :roll:

To anyone that wishes to voice their displeasure:
Curt Nisly | State of Indiana House of Representatives
Phone: 317-234-2993 | 1-800-382-9841

Dennis Kruse | Indiana Senate Republicans
P: 800-382-9467 or 317-232-9400

Well one thing I sort of respect is Nisly and Kruse aren't trying to hide intentions. They says its about trying to wipe abortion out and stop women from having them. They don't try lies like "women's health". He admits that he wants to force women to wait longer and force them to listen and see ultrasounds.

Of course that will make the bill unpassable for the long haul even more so than lying and it's actually also counterproductive to the fight. Like I said, at least they aren't hiding their intentions. Trying to move that far, that fast will never survive. ANy bill that is the basic personhood at conception will never make it without another 100 pages behind it explaining the many scenarios in which abortion can still happen. A black and white move for conception = personhood is doomed and hurts the fight. I have read so many ideas and compromises and paths to get RvW to be lower and lower and they are sound in that they could actually find success and keep moving us towards a goal of more restriction. Something more like europe better. Why do people think moves this big will work and survive. The worse part is when they lose they create precedent making future moves even harder.

FutureIncoming · Jan 14, 2017

JayDubya said:
Yes, that was a good topic sentence

THANK YOU.

JayDubya said:
- what you said after was despicable and stupid.

HAW! HAW!!! HAW!!! Your worthless opinion is based on Bad Data, as explained below:

JayDubya said:
Technically as mammals we humans are animals,

TRUE. But most humans are also more than only animals, thanks to person-class minds.

JayDubya said:
but you meant to suggest

THAT THE UNBORN ARE NOT PERSONS; they **measurably** do not have person-class minds.

JayDubya said:
that the unborn aren't even human,

UTTERLY FALSE, as just noted above. Especially since I've used the phrase "unborn humans" hundreds of times in hundreds of posts over the years, and you KNOW that! --how could I **possibly** be talking about some sort of non-human thing??? I **fully** understand that unborn humans are human life-forms. But that has absolutely nothing to do with personhood!

THEREFORE I CONCLUDE YOU ARE TRYING TO PUT YOUR IDIOTIC LIES IN MY MOUTH!

JayDubya said:
and that's absurd

TRUE

JayDubya said:
and bigoted.

FALSE. The word "bigoted" only applies to matters of opinion, not fact, and it is most certainly a fact that unborn humans are human animal entities, and nothing more than human animal entities. I assume you have used that word merely to denounce AS opinion the idiotic LIE that **you** tried to put in my mouth.

JayDubya said:
Yes, you have posted another stupid lie.

ANOTHER WORTHLESS UNSUPPORTED CLAIM --and a Stupid Lie, as well!

JayDubya said:
There is no assault.

PROVE IT!!! Your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence. Meanwhile, there is lots of evidence that unborn humans steal resources from the bodies of their hostesses, dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hostesses, and more. If **you** did any one of those things to another person (say, steal iron from someone's bloodstream), you could indeed be arrested for assault!

JayDubya said:
No enslavement was promoted.

FALSE. Forcing a woman to **serve** her body as a pantry, and as a waste-receptacle, is such a horrid concept that to call it "slavery" would be just the tip of an iceberg of evil. You-all abortion opponents would reduce her from "person" status to "toilet".

JayDubya said:
Banning abortion promotes human rights

FALSE. Every time you blather about "human rights" I'm going to mention hydatidiform moles, 100% living human entities that cause trophoblastic disease and **must** be killed. I'll also mention cuticle cells, which are also 100% living human entities that are routinely killed by the hundred during manicures and pedicures, just for the sake of mere appearance. THEREFORE, just because something is human, that is **not** sufficient reason for it to have rights.

ALSO, as previously mentioned elsewhere, promoting "human rights" automatically allows Stupid Prejudice against other person-class entities that could also deserve rights, like dolphins, True Artificial Intelligences, and friendly extraterrestrials. PERSON RIGHTS is a **far** better thing than the Stupidly Prejudiced notion of "human rights" --and the Founding Fathers knew it well enough to use the word "person" exclusively throughout the Constitution, and not use the word "human" even once.

So why do you keep spouting the Stupid Prejudice of "human rights"????

JayDubya said:
it does not enslave.

IT MOST CERTAINLY CAN LEAD TO THE ENSLAVEMENT OF NON-HUMAN PERSONS. Because if they are not human, and the only thing that matters is human rights.....

JayDubya said:
Your assertion is crazy.

MY ASSERTION IS QUITE SENSIBLE, AND SUPPORTED WITH THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY. Humans have routinely, over and over again, defined groups that favor some persons over other persons --and abortion opponents are STILL doing that awful thing!

JayDubya said:
Again, this assertion is flat-out insane.

ABSOLUTELY SANE, AND BASED ON FACTUAL DATA REGARDING THE ACTIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS. Abortion opponents want women to have no more say about pregnancies than do toilets.

JayDubya said:
Mothers do have obligations to provide for their kids,

KIDS ARE BORN HUMANS, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE UNBORN. When you see an ordinary kid walking around with an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ, let me know!

JayDubya said:
but parenthood is NOT slavery.

PARENTHOOD IS ALSO MOSTLY ABOUT BORN HUMANS (decades versus months). And the very first thing about parenthood, in a free society, is the freedom to choose not to be a parent.

VanceMack · Jan 14, 2017

prometeus said:
Indeed, that is why what you post is just ignorant emotional drivel.

Quite the contrary, it is clear that you do not and remain clueless.

Nothing but continued attacks. I feel for you. I really do. I understand why you have so much hatred.

GEIxBattleRifle · Jan 14, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
UTTERLY FALSE, as just noted above. Especially since I've used the phrase "unborn humans" hundreds of times in hundreds of posts over the years, and you KNOW that! --how could I **possibly** be talking about some sort of non-human thing??? I **fully** understand that unborn humans are human life-forms. But that has absolutely nothing to do with personhood!

From hanging around on the pro life facebook page for the last two weeks, I noticed people accusing me of denying the unborn are humans also despite me using the accurate terms like "unborn human" and "prenatal human." I find out they think the word "person" is simply just a term used for humans. Even after correcting them with various links, they still deny it all together.

Indiana bill that would attempt to define abortion as murder

JayDubya

Struggler

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

RickJames3000

joG

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

prometeus

GEIxBattleRifle

calamity

Privileged

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

FutureIncoming

JayDubya

Struggler

LaylaWindu

One with the Force

FutureIncoming

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

GEIxBattleRifle