The Abortion Question

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2015, 11:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Eat a snickers. 

I didn't call "it" embryonic and fetal. I called the type of development embryonic and fetal. I used them as adjectives to describe development, not nouns. Of course it is human, you *******!  It's not another species. I've never denied a human zygote was human.

An education doesn't make someone more intelligent. It makes them more educated. Do I think I'm smarter than you?  Without a doubt. It has nothing to do with my education and everything to do with your stupid responses like this one where I find myself explaining basic English to your ass. If you would like to share your science background feel free. 

Yes, you called human development embryonic and fetal, not sure what you are trying to dispute here.

 
When I used “it” to describe your use of the inanimate words embryonic and fetal “it” becomes a noun (subject).
 
Quick, look on the ground; there’s a hair that you can try to split.
 
As long as ewe think your smarter than me, their will at least be won. Isle go out on a limb and suggest you’re sidekick feels this way two; so that makes too. (just for U)
 
I do hope the two of you continue, but I must admit: The matador has grown tired of dancing with the blind shoemakers. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-09-2015, 11:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, you called human development embryonic and fetal, not sure what you are trying to dispute here.

You know what I'm disputing.  I described the type of development as embryonic and fetal development because that is what it is called, embryonic and fetal development.  I wasn't referring to "it" as the embryo or fetus which is why I didn't mention zygote.

Secondly, the "little picture" isn't titled "the developing human."  "The Developing Human" is part of the title of the book the picture is taken from, not the picture itself.

Quote:When I used “it” to describe your use of the inanimate words embryonic and fetal “it” becomes a noun (subject). 

"It" is a pronoun, genius.  WTF is an "inanimate word"?  If there are "inanimate words" that implies there are animated words.  Knowledgeable, my ass.  Outside of your knowledge of college football players and mock drafts, I have yet to see any evidence of this knowledge which you speak.


 

Quote:Quick, look on the ground; there’s a hair that you can try to split. 

Ironic.

Quote:As long as ewe think your smarter than me, their will at least be won. Isle go out on a limb and suggest you’re sidekick feels this way two; so that makes too. (just for U)  

It's not just a personal opinion.  Test results and IQ statistics indicate you have a 1% chance of being more intelligent than me . . . on an IQ test.  However, the content of your posts would indicate a 1% chance would actually be an improvement in those odds.

Quote:I do hope the two of you continue, but I must admit: The matador has grown tired of dancing with the blind shoemakers. 

Are you asking me to be your Katie Couric?

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2015, 11:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  
Quick, look on the ground; there’s a hair that you can try to split.

(10-10-2015, 06:04 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "It" is a pronoun, genius.  WTF is an "inanimate word"?  If there are "inanimate words" that implies there are animated words.  Knowledgeable, my ass.  Outside of your knowledge of college football players and mock drafts, I have yet to see any evidence of this knowledge which you speak.

What the hell was I thinking....


As to your IQ: those online quizzes are scams. They tell you that you scored within the top 1% and then try to sell you some books to "unlock your true potential". I've heard the latest is they are telling folks they can be doctors if they just purchase and read this series books. The more guilable of society fall for it. When is your next book scheduled to arrive?

But to once again show that I am the bigger man, I'm going to help you from making a future mistake and getting further swindled. When you send in the drawing of "Sparky" the results really do not indicate that you have untapped artist genius; they are just trying to sell you art supplies. 

[GMDino]

(10-10-2015, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What the hell was I thinking....


As to your IQ: those online quizzes are scams. They tell you that you scored within the top 1% and then try to sell you some books to "unlock your true potential". I've heard the latest is they are telling folks they can be doctors if they just purchase and read this series books. The more guilable of society fall for it. When is your next book scheduled to arrive?

But to once again show that I am the bigger man, I'm going to help you from making a future mistake and getting further swindled. When you send in the drawing of "Sparky" the results really do not indicate that you have untapped artist genius; they are just trying to sell you art supplies. 

Darn good thing you don't like it when people make posts about the poster and not the topic of the thread.

Solid post.

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2015, 12:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Darn good thing you don't like it when people make posts about the poster and not the topic of the thread.

Solid post.

Not to mention my disdain for when folks follow me around. 

Don't start none........won't be none.

[GMDino]

(10-10-2015, 01:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to mention my disdain for when folks follow me around. 

Don't start none........won't be none.

Solid.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-10-2015, 01:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to mention my disdain for when folks follow me around. 

Don't start none........won't be none.

Dude. You seriously need to get your ego under control. It's a message board. People read different threads, they see your posts, and if they have something to say about them, they respond to them. Nobody is "following" you, and in fact, I'd bet nobody on here even cares about you as a person. They just see your errors plastered all over just about every thread and feel compelled to correct them, more for the benefit of other readers than you.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 10:20 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: GodHatesBengals
Dude. You seriously need to get your ego under control. It's a message board. People read different threads, they see your posts, and if they have something to say about them, they respond to them. Nobody is "following" you, and in fact, I'd bet nobody on here even cares about you as a person. They just see your errors plastered all over just about every thread and feel compelled to correct them, more for the benefit of other readers than you.


GodHatesBengals
Actually, pretty much everything bfine says is empirically, demonstrably wrong; the  only people who think he's "owning" me are a. other people who can't read very well and b. troll accounts like yours.

That's the last I have to say to this "Sovereign Nation" account of yours. You'll have to try create a better fake than this for any further interaction.

What was I thinking. 

Quick, tell everybody how you just made me look silly. Say it enough and at least you may start to believe it. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-10-2015, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What was I thinking. 

Yeah, I ask the same about you nearly every time you post. Including this time.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2015, 01:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who is The Decider when it comes to exceptions?

Good question. How about common sense? Considering most seem to be okay with having the exceptions for rape and incest, let's ban abortion except in the cases of rape and incest.

(10-09-2015, 03:46 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: As for the rest, until you prove that zygote=child/human being, everything you said is meaningless.

If left un-aborted, what happens to the zygote? I guess it just disappears? Or maybe it turns into a spare stomach or a third leg? I mean, it IS a part of the woman's body, right? So maybe it just becomes extra estrogen or something? Gee, does anyone know what happens to a zygote if we don't mess with it? OBVIOUSLY, it doesn't eventually exit the womb and become a person. I mean, if it did, then there shouldn't be a problem with people calling it a human being if so. :snark:

See, that's the crux of the matter. Pro choicers HAVE to convince people (and themselves, usually) that an unborn child in any stage of development post-conception is not a human until whatever they're uncomfortable with killing it. That's why you get uncomfortable when I and others continue to call it an unborn child and their deaths at your hands to be murder. That's why you have to come up with some convoluted rationale about viability or its humanity in order to justify what abortion really is: the systematic murder of unborn human beings.


Abortion ends the life of a human being. You don't want to call a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc a human being? Ok, but EVERYONE knows that you're keeping a human being from living. That's no different than a parent that refuses to feed their child and the child dies of hunger or of any other case of someone whose reckless actions led to the death of someone else and they were found guilty of murder.

(10-09-2015, 04:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: But your definition of murder is irrelevant. Lumping things you disagree with into the definition of murder is sensationalization just as it would be to lump things that aren't rape into the category of rape. 

Except it's not "sensationalization" if I'm defining my terms to you. I'm not calling it murder becuase it's murder or because I say so. I have logical reasons which I've again explained above. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-10-2015, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If left un-aborted, what happens to the zygote? I guess it just disappears?

It depends.

It could eventually implant in the uterine cavity and develop into a perfectly healthy embryo, then a fetus, and then eventually a birth would occur and you'd have an infant.

Or, it could implant elsewhere, such as in the Fallopian tube, which is called an ectopic pregnancy. In this case it will most likely never develop into a viable fetus and is extremely dangerous to the woman carrying it.

Or, it might not implant at all, in which case it will degenerate and pass from the woman. So actually, yes; in many cases it does basically "just disappear".

The rest of your reply to me=word games and rebutted points.

[BmorePat87]

(10-10-2015, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Except it's not "sensationalization" if I'm defining my terms to you. I'm not calling it murder becuase it's murder or because I say so. I have logical reasons which I've again explained above. 

Unless we suddenly live in a world where it is illegal, it's not murder. Calling it so is sensationalization. 

You can explain why you believe "fur is murder", but that doesn't mean that the phrase "fur is murder" is not an act of sensationalization. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-10-2015, 03:12 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It depends.

It could eventually implant in the uterine cavity and develop into a perfectly healthy embryo, then a fetus, and then eventually a birth would occur and you'd have an infant.

Or, it could implant elsewhere, such as in the Fallopian tube, which is called an ectopic pregnancy. In this case it will most likely never develop into a viable fetus and is extremely dangerous to the woman carrying it.

Or, it might not implant at all, in which case it will degenerate and pass from the woman. So actually, yes; in many cases it does basically "just disappear".

The rest of your reply to me=word games and rebutted points.

Thanks for once again proving my point that pro choicers have to go to great lengths to rationalize the murder of unborn children. The fact of the matter that zybotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. are all stages of HUMAN development and that the intentional ending of such is what usually called murder.

(10-10-2015, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Unless we suddenly live in a world where it is illegal, it's not murder. Calling it so is sensationalization. 

You can explain why you believe "fur is murder", but that doesn't mean that the phrase "fur is murder" is not an act of sensationalization. 

Just like those advocating for gay marriage to be accepted were sensationalizing when saying the ban on GM was unconstituational and/or discrimination? Please spare me your bullshit. 

[GMDino]

(10-11-2015, 11:04 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Thanks for once again proving my point that pro choicers have to go to great lengths to rationalize the murder of unborn children. The fact of the matter that zybotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. are all stages of HUMAN development and that the intentional ending of such is what usually called murder.


Just like those advocating for gay marriage to be accepted were sensationalizing when saying the ban on GM was unconstituational and/or discrimination? Please spare me your bullshit. 

The bans on SSM were unconstitutional. 

Abortion IS the removal of a fetus from a woman.  It is horrible.  It is a terrible decision.  It is legal and protected and the only person who can make that decision is the pregnant woman.

The rest is so much mental masturbation.  It feels good, but serves no purpose other than to make yourself feel good. 

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2015, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: The rest is so much mental masturbation.  It feels good, but serves no purpose other than to make yourself feel good. 

I guess that's why the same bullshit is repeated over and over, in these threads.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-10-2015, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What the hell was I thinking.... 

You just implied you think.

Quote:As to your IQ: those online quizzes are scams. They tell you that you scored within the top 1% and then try to sell you some books to "unlock your true potential". I've heard the latest is they are telling folks they can be doctors if they just purchase and read this series books. The more guilable of society fall for it. When is your next book scheduled to arrive?

The fact you believe I'm discussing online quizzes proves my point.

Quote:But to once again show that I am the bigger man, I'm going to help you from making a future mistake and getting further swindled. When you send in the drawing of "Sparky" the results really do not indicate that you have untapped artist genius; they are just trying to sell you art supplies.

You know this how?  A failed retirement plan?  Thanks for serving as an example of what not to do.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2015, 01:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guess that's why the same bullshit is repeated over and over, in these threads.  

Yep.

"Define 'life'..."
"When does 'life' begin?!?!?!"
"Who has more rights?!?!"
"When do rights begin?!?!"
"Garagegegelelel!!!"

Over and over.

I have never, ever, talked to anyone who LIKES abortions.  Even the ardent pro-abortion people would rather there be other choices made...but they would rather the procedure be safe and legal IF that is the choice the woman is making.  And it IS an informed choice.  The movement to have forced, vaginal ultrasounds (for example) under the guise of making sure the woman "knows" what she is doing is so much horsehockey.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-10-2015, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Good question. How about common sense? Considering most seem to be okay with having the exceptions for rape and incest, let's ban abortion except in the cases of rape and incest.

Your "common sense" exceptions also include an exception to murder people for weapons they don't have based upon your religious beliefs which not everyone shares.  So I disagree.  Once again, I support the Supreme Court's decision for the reasons they stated.

Quote:If left un-aborted, what happens to the zygote? I guess it just disappears? Or maybe it turns into a spare stomach or a third leg? I mean, it IS a part of the woman's body, right? So maybe it just becomes extra estrogen or something? Gee, does anyone know what happens to a zygote if we don't mess with it? OBVIOUSLY, it doesn't eventually exit the womb and become a person. I mean, if it did, then there shouldn't be a problem with people calling it a human being if so. :snark:

Depending upon which study you wish to believe the zygote is spontaneously aborted up to 80% of the time.  A human zygote is a human zygote.  A dog zygote is a dog zygote.  A horse zygote is a horse zygote.  What ever species a zygote belongs to, it is that species.

Quote:See, that's the crux of the matter. Pro choicers HAVE to convince people (and themselves, usually) that an unborn child in any stage of development post-conception is not a human until whatever they're uncomfortable with killing it. That's why you get uncomfortable when I and others continue to call it an unborn child and their deaths at your hands to be murder. That's why you have to come up with some convoluted rationale about viability or its humanity in order to justify what abortion really is: the systematic murder of unborn human beings.

Not true.  Why do soldiers get a pass for killing the enemy again?  Some BS John the Baptist allegedly said?

Quote:Abortion ends the life of a human being. You don't want to call a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc a human being? Ok, but EVERYONE knows that you're keeping a human being from living. That's no different than a parent that refuses to feed their child and the child dies of hunger or of any other case of someone whose reckless actions led to the death of someone else and they were found guilty of murder.

Gametes are another stage of human development, but you don't assign them the same rights as zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.  Why?

Quote:Except it's not "sensationalization" if I'm defining my terms to you. I'm not calling it murder becuase it's murder or because I say so. I have logical reasons which I've again explained above. 

" the systematic murder of unborn human beings"

That's not sensationalism?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-11-2015, 11:04 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Thanks for once again proving my point that pro choicers have to go to great lengths to rationalize the murder of unborn children. The fact of the matter that zybotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. are all stages of HUMAN development and that the intentional ending of such is what usually called murder.

Human gametes are all stages of HUMAN development.  Are you calling the intentional ending of such as murder?  No.  Why not?

Quote:Just like those advocating for gay marriage to be accepted were sensationalizing when saying the ban on GM was unconstituational and/or discrimination? Please spare me your bullshit. 

Are you claiming same sex marriage bans based upon Christian beliefs isn't discrimination?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-11-2015, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: The bans on SSM were unconstitutional. 

Please don't insult your intelligence (yes, "your"). I'm clearly talking about PRIOR to the recent ruling that they were. PRIOR to such, they were legal and deemed constitutional. By your logic, claiming they were unconstitutional when they were legally deemed the opposite should be sensationalism. Color me surprised at your hypocrisy.
  

(10-12-2015, 12:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Human gametes are all stages of HUMAN development.  Are you calling the intentional ending of such as murder?  No.  Why not?

First off, gametes are NOT stages of human development, let alone "all stages of human development." They are required for human development, but they are not a stage of human development. You do know that gametes are literally sperm and ova, right? As such, the reason the intentional ending of such is NOT murder for the simple fact that the sperm don't turn into babies while in our scrotums (or is it scrota?)