• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iceland is close to eradicating their country of Down Syndrome!

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #199]

cpwill said:
Man. You sure are a sane, balanced, and effective representative for your cause.
Click to expand...
THAT'S STILL FAR BETTER QUALIFICATIONS THAN ANYONE OPPOSING ABORTION EXHIBITS. Since they regularly spew cherry-picked data and outright lies. Most of their arguments are totally erroneous, founded in Stupid Prejudice and "supported" by Stupid Hypocrisy. Tsk, tsk!

cpwill said:
Fun Fact: Women often poll as being more pro-life than men.
Click to expand...
IRRELEVANT to wanting to dehumanize pregnant women, turning them into toilets. I will admit that I accidentally left out the word "pregnant" in my other post. (and lots of women don't like many other women)

cpwill said:
The Left: Glaciers can be people.
Click to expand...
WE ALL KNOW THAT LAWS CAN BE STUPID, entirely because they can be Arbitrary. But lots of laws are based on reasonable grounds. Remember the ozone hole? Have you checked its status lately? Do you know why it has that status instead of being bigger than ever? One of the most idiotic thing various political conservatives in power have done is take the fact that we have dumped half-a-million times as much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, as chlorocarbons, and then claim that all that CO2 is not having any effect. (All to protect their greedy corporate bottom lines, of course!)

cpwill said:
Not Babies, tho.
Click to expand...
FALSE. The Law arbitrarily declares that ordinary babies are persons. The Law does not declare that unborn humans qualify as persons, and THAT Law has been consistent ever since the days of the Founding Fathers. See the Constitution about the Census --all persons **must** be counted (except Indians not taxed)! The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to decide how to conduct the very first Census, and the proof that they did not consider unborn humans to be persons (hey, in those days many unborn humans were not even considered to be alive!) is that the unborn were not included in the Census. In Fact, our unborn have never been counted as persons in any Census. We have more than 220 years of Legal Precedent on the non-personhood of unborn humans, far preceding the Roe v Wade Decision!
 
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #199]

cpwill said:
Or, it seems, children who are neglected.
Click to expand...
YOU APPEAR TO HAVE MISSED THE POINT. For more than 100,000 years after species H. sapiens began to exist, they left no indication of artistry, the understanding and especially the manipulation of abstract concepts. There is a Natural Default Mental State for humans, and that state was the norm for more than 100,000 years. However, during that time (and actually for a couple million years preceding that time), our ancestors were gradually learning and inventing stuff, and the accumulation of knowledge had to be passed on to their offspring. A youthful human body is able to adapt somewhat to its circumstances (someone growing up at high altitude will have a greater red-blood-cell count, and a greater lung capacity, than someone growing up at sea level --and here is a different example), and the growing brain is no exception. Roughly 60,000 years ago the total quantity of stuff children typically learned began to cause some extra brain growth, to process it. And THAT is when we began leaving artistic works in the paleontological record.

Any human child that is not inundated/Nurtured with things to learn will not develop beyond the Default Natural Mental State. That default human is little more than just a clever animal, like an ordinary gorilla is just a clever animal. It is not our human-ness that makes us superior to other animals. It is the extra brain-power that we grow in response to Nurturing that turns human animals into human persons.

THE POINT YOU MISSED IS, human cultures have been Nurturing children for so long that they typically and wrongly think that human personhood is Natural for humans, instead of a consequence of Nurture. What you call "child neglect" is Perfectly Natural, and such insufficient Nurturing was normal for all humans for more than 100,000 years. Humans exist as persons **only** because we boot-strapped ourselves to a higher level than the Natural Default.

AND SO I REPEAT: It really is totally impossible for an unborn human to qualify as a person, and there is absolutely nothing in the way of "sanity" in thinking otherwise (or in trying to change Arbitrary Law by Denying Facts). Every unborn human is a mere-animal entity, and nothing more than just a mere-animal entity.
 
[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #200]

cpwill said:
THAT IS GOOD TO see.
Click to expand...
BUT IT IS NOT GOOD TO SEE YOU QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT. When encountering the word "child", most folks still envision a young human somewhere in-between the toddler and adolescent stages. And so THAT is what you are equating an unborn human with, when you assign the label of "child" to it. WRONGLY, since the two stages of human growth are not-at-all equal to each other.

cpwill said:
...... the existence and use of a feeding tube,
Click to expand...
A STUPID LIE. Why are you repeating something that I explained is a Stupid Lie? Putting a human on a feeding tube does not revert that human to the "construction project" stage that exists before birth.

cpwill said:
much like your earlier insane claim involving individual rights hinging on whether or not one needed a protective environment:
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. That is **your** insane claim, not mine, a Stupid effort to put words into my mouth. The phrase "individual rights" refers to rights of persons. And you haven't got the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Data to show how an unborn human qualifies as a person. MEANWHILE, born humans that find themselves in situations needing a feeding tube are persons. The Law says so, if nothing else!

cpwill said:
1. In no way makes us human or not
Click to expand...
IRRELEVANT. We are not arguing the human-ness of humans here!!! Nothing I have written can you quote, showing me to claim a human somehow isn't a human.

cpwill said:
2. In no way makes an unborn child not a child,
Click to expand...
FALSE. No unborn human has an artificial feeding tube --you are trying to compare apples and oranges. The unborn human has a Natural Organ for feeding, known as the placenta. That placenta is used parasitically, to steal biological resources from another human's body. It takes what it wants regardless of what the other human wants. These Facts make an unborn human fundamentally physically different from an ordinary human baby or child, which neither has nor needs a placenta, because it has a very different organ for feeding (the mouth --and the baby can starve if not given sustenance; it is unable to take anything except breaths of air).

cpwill said:
or a fully grown adult not a fully grown adult, or a 10 year old kid in ICU not a 10 year old kid
Click to expand...
WHICH MEANS AN UNBORN HUMAN IS WHAT IT IS, AND IS NOT EQUAL TO AN ORDINARY BABY OR CHILD. Duuuuhhhhhh!!! So why do you keep equating them (other than for the Stupidly Propagandistic purpose of opposing abortion)?

cpwill said:
See: Have you noticed how none of the other pro-choicers in this thread are leaping in to agree with/ build upon this argument? It's because you're embarrassing them.
Click to expand...
MOST OF THEM ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF CULTURAL HABIT (thinking of an unborn human as equal to a baby or child, because Facts about the placenta were unknown). Intellectually, they know that modern-discovered Facts support what I'm saying. It will take time for such Facts to percolate through society and generally lead to more-accurate thinking about unborn humans. But even now some of them routinely use the word "fetus" instead of "baby", since that is the word most often used by scientists, for whom accurate communications are extremely important. No scientist studying an unborn human wants folks reading the results to think they apply to ordinary years-old children!
 
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #200]

cpwill said:
Babies sometimes do, in fact, require feeding tubes. That doesn't make them not babies.
Click to expand...
THEY STILL DO NOT REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL STATUS OF "CONSTRUCTION PROJECT". I notice you STILL have failed to respond to this that I previously wrote: "You don't claim a house-under-construction is equal to a house you can move into and live in, do you? So, on what basis should an unborn human be equated with something to which it is obviously not actually equal (thanks to the existence of an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ for the unborn human)?"

cpwill said:
....Babies in the womb do pee on you.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. They are "in", not "on"!!!

cpwill said:
There is no physiological difference in the actual child
Click to expand...
ONLY BECAUSE YOU IGNORE THE EXISTENCE OF THE PLACENTA AS A VITAL ORGAN. You are basically LYING about what an unborn human actually is, by Denying Fact. The overall entity includes an attached placenta and a protective amniotic sac (which is also a vital organ, because if bacteria could invade the unborn human in the womb, it would die). You are claiming that thousands of years of ignorance disguised as "common wisdom" somehow supersedes Modern Objectively Verifiable Fact. Tsk, tsk! You are claiming that only the fetus matters, in the womb, But The Fact Is, all of it matters, else it would die.

cpwill said:
before and after birth
Click to expand...
AN EXTREMELY COMMON ANTI-ABORTION ARGUMENT IS TO QUESTION THE DIFFERENCE BIRTH MAKES. The placenta makes almost all the difference. Period. Prior to birth it is a vital organ, part of the overall unborn human, and after birth it isn't.

cpwill said:
- merely (as you note, but give too much credence to) the existence of a feeding tube,
Click to expand...
YOUR MISCHARACTERIZATION GETS YOU NOWHERE. The placenta is not a feeding tube. It is an entire organ. The umbilical cord is a feeding (and breathing!) tube. And if you think the existence of the umbilical cord is unimportant, then why not recommend cutting it inside the womb? Oh, that's right, the unborn human brain will die about 10 minutes afterward, from lack of oxygen....

YOUR PROBLEM IS, you somehow think that the existence of an average unborn human is important. But I bet you cannot prove it. Abortion is legal because the existence of that entity is NOT important!

cpwill said:
and specific geography.
Click to expand...
FALSE. Location has nothing to do with the fact that an Overall Unborn Human includes a placenta as a vital organ. The placenta is a vital part of the overall construction project, pure and simple.
 
FutureIncoming said:
AGREED; IT IS A TYPE OF PREGNANCY, and typically includes an embryo or fetus. It is also almost always fatal (usually ruptures a Fallopian Tube, and more). To both the mother and the unborn human.


THAT INCLUDES THE FETUS INVOLVED IN AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY. There is almost never the ending of an ectopic pregnancy without killing an unborn human.


AND kills an unborn human!
Click to expand...

No, it protects the mothers life. You need to understand the difference.
 
FutureIncoming said:
MY EXPERIENCE WITH YOU IS, STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVIDE A SOURCE. To support such claims as, "an unborn human qualifies as a being", or "an unborn human with an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ is the same thing as an ordinary baby or child that neither has nor needs an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ", or "a human zygote, morula, and blastocyst is a person, unless it turns into a hydatidiform mole instead of a normal embryo". WELL??
Click to expand...

First, born children have the “capacity to mature and reproduce.” but they haven’t reached that stage of development yet. Does that make a 10-year-old less human? Second, unlike a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, an acorn or any other seed is nothing like a human fetus. An acorn is more like a human egg. In order for the acorn to become a tree, germination must take place, just as in order for a human egg to become a human being, fertilization must take place. The comparison is therefore nonsense. As for the chicken egg, it is not a chicken, that’s true, just as a human egg is not a human being. After fertilization, a chicken egg becomes an unborn chicken and a human egg becomes an unborn human being.

It is all basic science, backed up in medical textbooks that include Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology. Robert George, M.D. had this to say in his book Embryo:
Click to expand...

https://www.liveaction.org/news/responding-to-claims-that-the-unborn-are-not-human-beings/
 
Bucky said:
No, it protects the mothers life. You need to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

And it is still an abortion even when it saves the woman's life.
Abortions that save women's lives are still abortions.
They still kill an unborn.

There are medical reasons for some abortions , doctors often refer to them as therapeutical abortions ( abortions for life/ major health reasons) but they are still abortions and are included the abortion stat numbers.

Theraputic abortions save the life or prevent irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman ( such as stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, etc.) if the pregnancy continued.

Btw I am glad you admit sometimes abortions are needed to protect the woman's life.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/responding-to-claims-that-the-unborn-are-not-human-beings/
Click to expand...

So your live action opinion piece wishes to compare an acorn to an unborn?

Here is an interesting article about acorns , a pre viable unborn , and a living being.

In fact if we wish to talk about living being than it is even more questionable to refer to an embryo or pre viable fetus as a living being since the embryo or pre viable fetus is incapable of sustaining its life without the woman and her body's systems.

To be clear I believe an unborn is a potential being but when used in context of authors definition ...it's not.

From the following article:

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors.[/B]

A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman.

As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role.
Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother

and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...referring-unborn-person-9.html#post1065765653
 
FutureIncoming said:
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #199]


YOU APPEAR TO HAVE MISSED THE POINT. For more than 100,000 years after species H. sapiens began to exist, they left no indication of artistry, the understanding and especially the manipulation of abstract concepts. There is a Natural Default Mental State for humans, and that state was the norm for more than 100,000 years. However, during that time (and actually for a couple million years preceding that time), our ancestors were gradually learning and inventing stuff, and the accumulation of knowledge had to be passed on to their offspring. A youthful human body is able to adapt somewhat to its circumstances (someone growing up at high altitude will have a greater red-blood-cell count, and a greater lung capacity, than someone growing up at sea level --and here is a different example), and the growing brain is no exception. Roughly 60,000 years ago the total quantity of stuff children typically learned began to cause some extra brain growth, to process it. And THAT is when we began leaving artistic works in the paleontological record.

Any human child that is not inundated/Nurtured with things to learn will not develop beyond the Default Natural Mental State. That default human is little more than just a clever animal, like an ordinary gorilla is just a clever animal. It is not our human-ness that makes us superior to other animals. It is the extra brain-power that we grow in response to Nurturing that turns human animals into human persons.

THE POINT YOU MISSED IS, human cultures have been Nurturing children for so long that they typically and wrongly think that human personhood is Natural for humans, instead of a consequence of Nurture. What you call "child neglect" is Perfectly Natural, and such insufficient Nurturing was normal for all humans for more than 100,000 years. Humans exist as persons **only** because we boot-strapped ourselves to a higher level than the Natural Default.

AND SO I REPEAT: It really is totally impossible for an unborn human to qualify as a person, and there is absolutely nothing in the way of "sanity" in thinking otherwise (or in trying to change Arbitrary Law by Denying Facts). Every unborn human is a mere-animal entity, and nothing more than just a mere-animal entity.
Click to expand...

On the contrary; neglecting children is not at all our natural state - we are and have always been social animals. Our humanity, our individuality, and our personhood is not determined by whether or not we were rocked as babies, any more than they are determined by whether or not we are dependent on a feeding tube, exist in a protected environment, or any of the other stupid standards you have attempted to bring to bear.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary; neglecting children is not at all our natural state - we are and have always been social animals. Our humanity, our individuality, and our personhood is not determined by whether or not we were rocked as babies, any more than they are determined by whether or not we are dependent on a feeding tube, exist in a protected environment, or any of the other stupid standards you have attempted to bring to bear.
Click to expand...

Is that why there's 10's of 1000's of children who are wards of the State?
 
Bucky said:
No, it protects the mothers life.
Click to expand...
I SAID "AND". Abortion of an ectopic pregnancy both protects the mother's life AND kills an unborn human.

Bucky said:
You need to understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I FULLY UNDERSTAND that two related things happen during the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. YOU, apparently, don't. Tsk, tsk!
 
Bucky said:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/responding-to-claims-that-the-unborn-are-not-human-beings/
Click to expand...
AH, THE USUAL SET OF CHERRY-PICKED NONSENSE. I've told you before that dictionary definitions are based on what people say, more than on Objective Fact. Therefore if the dictionary definition claims an unborn human is a person, that doesn't make it Objectively True. Nothing in the article you linked provides the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence that an unborn human qualifies as a "being", a person. All it blathers about is human-ness, as if that is the only thing required for personhood --but we already have proof that just because something might be human, like a hydatidiform mole, that doesn't mean it is automatically also a person.

TRY AGAIN, therefore!

(So, see, I did not claim your link was biased. I claimed it is wrong because it embraces Subjective dictionary definitions instead of Objective Reality.)
 
FutureIncoming said:
I SAID "AND". Abortion of an ectopic pregnancy both protects the mother's life AND kills an unborn human.


I FULLY UNDERSTAND that two related things happen during the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. YOU, apparently, don't. Tsk, tsk!
Click to expand...

You understand the difference between murder and self-defense?
 
FutureIncoming said:
THAT'S STILL FAR BETTER QUALIFICATIONS THAN ANYONE OPPOSING ABORTION EXHIBITS. Since they regularly spew cherry-picked data and outright lies. Most of their arguments are totally erroneous, founded in Stupid Prejudice and "supported" by Stupid Hypocrisy. Tsk, tsk!
Click to expand...

Thus far, you are the one who needs to SPITTLE IN ALL CAPS while MAKING INCREDIBLY STUPID AND HYPOCRITICAL ARGUMENTS, DEPENDING ON SEMANTICS TO AVOID ADMITTING SO.

:shrug:


IRRELEVANT to wanting to dehumanize pregnant women, turning them into toilets. I will admit that I accidentally left out the word "pregnant" in my other post. (and lots of women don't like many other women)
Click to expand...

Such as this, for example. The idea that women sometimes don't get along with other women in no way counters the fact that women's heavy participation in the pro-life movement rather demonstrates the lie that it is about demonstrating an animus by turning women into toilets. :roll:

WE ALL KNOW THAT LAWS CAN BE STUPID, entirely because they can be Arbitrary. But lots of laws are based on reasonable grounds. Remember the ozone hole? Have you checked its status lately? Do you know why it has that status instead of being bigger than ever? One of the most idiotic thing various political conservatives in power have done is take the fact that we have dumped half-a-million times as much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, as chlorocarbons, and then claim that all that CO2 is not having any effect. (All to protect their greedy corporate bottom lines, of course!)
Click to expand...

Your Fallacy is Red Herring.

FALSE.
Click to expand...

True. You are here in this thread, insisting on it.
 
Josie said:
For many people everywhere, it seems.

To be clear, Iceland's government doesn't decide -- the mother does. Creepy, though, to kill your child simply because they aren't normal.
Click to expand...

Are you going to raise their child for them? If you find out early in your pregnancy that your child has down's syndrome, you are choosing to take on a lot by choosing to have them. You don't just have to raise them, you have to be able to provide for their care in adulthood, and after you die.

But I guess its easier to just judge people than it does to actually put some thought it what it means to choose to have a child with down's syndrome.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary; neglecting children is not at all our natural state - we are and have always been social animals.
Click to expand...
BUT WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN AS ABLE as in the last 60,000 years or so, to provide enough Nurturing to turn human animals into human persons. You might say that for over 100,000 years, humans thought they were doing a quite-adequate job of Nurturing, despite the fact that all during that time every human was basically just a clever animal. I might ask you, "Why can't we consider that level of Nurturing to be adequate today?" On what basis must an average young human be converted from a clever animal into a person?

cpwill said:
Our humanity,
Click to expand...
IS DETERMINED BY BIOLOGY. But that is not what lets us declare ourselves superior to other animals.

cpwill said:
our individuality,
Click to expand...
IS EITHER SYNONYMOUS WITH OUR PERSONHOOD --or it has no greater meaning than when one talks about "individual rocks".

cpwill said:
and our personhood is not determined by whether or not we were rocked as babies,
Click to expand...
PROVEN TO BE THE WRONG TYPE OF NURTURING. Mental interactions are far more important than physical interactions, and THAT is what turns human animals into human persons.

cpwill said:
any more than they are determined by whether or not we are dependent on a feeding tube, exist in a protected environment, or any of the other stupid standards you have attempted to bring to bear.
Click to expand...
THE ONLY STUPIDITY HERE IS YOUR INSISTENCE ON COMPARING THE PLACENTA TO A FEEDING TUBE. If you take away the heart of a fetus, it dies. If you take away the placenta of a fetus, it dies. You can no more ignore the placenta than you can ignore the heart; it is an essential part of an overall unborn human. And that makes the unborn human very different from a born human, which neither has nor needs a placenta as a vital organ. YOU are more similar to an ordinary baby or child than is an unborn human. SO, since you insist on calling an unborn human a baby or a child, perhaps YOU should also be called a baby or child. Why not?
 
Bucky said:
You understand the difference between murder and self-defense?
Click to expand...
ALL ABORTIONS QUALIFY AS SELF-DEFENSE (regardless of any other reasons for carrying them out). And I've explained that to you before, how the unborn human commits assault at least 4 different ways, upon its hostess. No woman can be required to submit to assault! Especially when the assailant is a mere-animal entity, and not a person! (Remember, the word "murder" does not apply to killing a mere-animal entity, like when you swat a fly, you never say you are murdering the fly.)
 
FutureIncoming said:
ALL ABORTIONS QUALIFY AS SELF-DEFENSE (regardless of any other reasons for carrying them out). And I've explained that to you before, how the unborn human commits assault at least 4 different ways, upon its hostess. No woman can be required to submit to assault! Especially when the assailant is a mere-animal entity, and not a person! (Remember, the word "murder" does not apply to killing a mere-animal entity, like when you swat a fly, you never say you are murdering the fly.)
Click to expand...

You lack any sense of reality if you think a fetus is assaulting its host. FYI talk to ANY pregnant women and ask her if her fetus is assaulting her. Give me a break.

FYI, not only do you sound cuckoo, you are scientifically, wrong:

But the host-parasite relationship is one of conflict, while the mother-baby relationship is intrinsically cooperative. Consider the immunology of the two. Host and parasite are locked in an arms race: the parasite evolves ever more complex techniques of avoidance, while the host evolves ever more complex techniques of detection and attack.

Meanwhile, mother and baby cooperate to prevent immunological conflict. The site of this cooperation is the placenta--the big blob of tissue that's genetically part of the baby and physically connects baby to mom. For a long time, scientists thought of the placenta (and by extension, the fetus) as a kind of natural organ transplant. Just as in medical organ transplants, the mother's immune system would have to be suppressed to prevent it from rejecting the foreign body.

It all boils down to the fact that parent and child have a common goal: the child's survival. Host and parasite, on the other hand, have a fundamental disagreement about the desirability of the parasite's survival.
Click to expand...

The Cephalopodiatrist: Why Babies Aren't Actually Parasites

FutureIncoming, can a fetus take over its mother's brain? Please, stop taking drugs before posting your ridiculous theories.



FutureIncoming believe a fetus can takeover its host. LOL.
 
FutureIncoming, the arbiter of false sci-fi narratives. :lamo

The fetus' are out to takeover their hosts? Watch out ladies! Your baby is a killer!

:giggle1:
 
cpwill said:
Thus far, you are the one who needs to SPITTLE IN ALL CAPS
Click to expand...
NOT A NEED. It is quite deliberate, and this is the reason why. I never use this particular writing style when posting stuff under my real name.

cpwill said:
while MAKING INCREDIBLY STUPID AND HYPOCRITICAL ARGUMENTS,
Click to expand...
YOUR MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS UNLESS SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. So far the only "evidence" you have offered is to lie about the placenta, comparing it to a feeding tube. You haven't presented anything to support a claim that I've exhibited hypocrisy.

cpwill said:
DEPENDING ON SEMANTICS TO AVOID ADMITTING SO.
Click to expand...
FALSE; I've presented quite a bit of Objectively Verifiable Data to support my position. I even explained in detail an entirely consistent set of descriptive labels for different humans, and you said nothing to indicate there was anything wrong with those labels/descriptions. I even explained why it is Stupid Hypocrisy to normally use a wide range of descriptive labels for different humans, yet insist on using a provably-unethical label for unborn humans. So, thus far, the only hypocrisy demonstrated here is yours.

cpwill said:
Such as this, for example. The idea that women sometimes don't get along with other women
Click to expand...
SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT THEY CAN BE WILLING TO DEHUMANIZE OTHER WOMEN.

cpwill said:
in no way counters the fact that women's heavy participation in the pro-life movement rather demonstrates the lie that it is about demonstrating an animus by turning women into toilets.
Click to expand...
YOU HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY LIE. To insist that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term is to insist that that woman must be a slave that acts like a toilet. There is no escaping FACTS about what unborn humans do, using their placentas. There is no escaping FACTS about taking away Choice.

cpwill said:
Your Fallacy is Red Herring.
Click to expand...
FALSE. The world is full of things that are connected in various ways to each other. Understanding the Big Picture depends on paying attention to as many connections as possible. But abortion opponents prefer to cherry-pick their data, and that is why they have no chance of winning the Overall Abortion Debate. The FACT that persons are made (via Nurture), not born (via Nature), is something no abortion opponent ever considered before, so intent were they on insisting that human biology was inextricably linked to personhood. NOPE!! And, "tsk, tsk!"

cpwill said:
True. You are here in this thread, insisting on it.
Click to expand...
FALSE. They are working on artificial wombs, and any unborn humans grown from zygotes in them will have placentas, too. Therefore "location" is irrelevant. The placenta exists because it is essential for enabling an unborn human to develop until it is mature enough to qualify as a "baby" and get born.

AND NOW CONSIDER YOU-THE-PERSON. "You" are not your human body, and that Fact is very easy to prove. If you think of your body as a machine, and you get a kidney transplant, you are basically replacing a filter, and "you" will still be "you" afterward. If you get a heart transplant, you are replacing a pump, and you will still be you. If you get a brain transplant, a computer gets replaced. Plus all the software inside that computer. Will you-the-person still be the same you-the-person after a brain transplant? If not, then it should be obvious that you are not your human body! Human-ness and personhood are two totally different and independent things!
 
Bucky said:
You lack any sense of reality if you think a fetus is assaulting its host.
Click to expand...
YOU DENY FACTS ABOUT THE WORD "ASSAULT". It can take a very wide variety of forms. Chinese water torture qualifies as a type of assault, despite the only things impacting a victim are separate drops of water!

Bucky said:
FYI talk to ANY pregnant women and ask her if her fetus is assaulting her.
Click to expand...
YOU CAN ASK THIS ONE.

Bucky said:
Give me a break.
Click to expand...
NOPE. The idiocy blathered by abortion opponents (like Fact-Denial) must be exposed as thoroughly as possible.

Bucky said:
FYI, not only do you sound cuckoo,
Click to expand...
YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. I care not-at-all about your not liking Objectively Verifiable Facts.

Bucky said:
you are scientifically, wrong:
Click to expand...
FALSE. Because I never made the claim that you are claiming I made. I have never called unborn humans parasites, because I know full well that an actual parasite is always a different species than its host. I have said that unborn humans **act**like** parasites, and that is quite a correct statement. Both parasites and unborn humans not only steal biological resources from the bodies of their hosts, they also dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hosts. I've even said that unborn humans **act**worse** than parasites, and that is quite a correct statement, also. Because parasites don't, while unborn humans do, infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bodies of their hosts.

Bucky said:
FutureIncoming, can a fetus take over its mother's brain?
Click to expand...
I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM. However, post-partum depression is partly a "withdrawal symptom" because the supply of addictive substances is cut off when a pregnancy ends (regardless of how it ends). And it is well-known how women who initially say they are willing to adopt-out their newborns can often change their minds by the time birth actually happens. That's the mind-altering substance at work!

Bucky said:
Please, stop taking drugs before posting your ridiculous theories.
Click to expand...
BAD ASSUMPTION. I'm a life-long non-smoker and teetotaler, and have never been interested in messing up my brainpower with street drugs. I almost never even drink caffeine-containing stuff, like soda pop.

Bucky said:
FutureIncoming believe a fetus can take over its host.
Click to expand...
A STUPID LIE. I've never made any such claim. An unborn human assaults its host, and causes distress to its host, and can sometimes even kill its host. But "take over"? I've never made that claim.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOU DENY FACTS ABOUT THE WORD "ASSAULT". It can take a very wide variety of forms. Chinese water torture qualifies as a type of assault, despite the only things impacting a victim are separate drops of water!


YOU CAN ASK THIS ONE.


NOPE. The idiocy blathered by abortion opponents (like Fact-Denial) must be exposed as thoroughly as possible.


YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. I care not-at-all about your not liking Objectively Verifiable Facts.


FALSE. Because I never made the claim that you are claiming I made. I have never called unborn humans parasites, because I know full well that an actual parasite is always a different species than its host. I have said that unborn humans **act**like** parasites, and that is quite a correct statement. Both parasites and unborn humans not only steal biological resources from the bodies of their hosts, they also dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hosts. I've even said that unborn humans **act**worse** than parasites, and that is quite a correct statement, also. Because parasites don't, while unborn humans do, infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bodies of their hosts.


I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM. However, post-partum depression is partly a "withdrawal symptom" because the supply of addictive substances is cut off when a pregnancy ends (regardless of how it ends). And it is well-known how women who initially say they are willing to adopt-out their newborns can often change their minds by the time birth actually happens. That's the mind-altering substance at work!


BAD ASSUMPTION. I'm a life-long non-smoker and teetotaler, and have never been interested in messing up my brainpower with street drugs. I almost never even drink caffeine-containing stuff, like soda pop.


A STUPID LIE. I've never made any such claim. An unborn human assaults its host, and causes distress to its host, and can sometimes even kill its host. But "take over"? I've never made that claim.
Click to expand...

My claims are not stupid. I know for a fact you believe a fetus has the ability to control its host's mind. You have been spewing this parasite crap for a long time.

A fetus and a mother work in concert with each other while a parasite and its host work against each other. A fetus does not assault its host. That is the most ludicrous statements ever made on dp.

It is clear to me you are backtracking your parasite statement. Again, you were called out for your bizzarre view on science and nature. Are you related to Ron L Hubbard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom