Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,110
Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision. Full Story

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#313321 Oct 15, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The population growth in the US is going down.
Just because the mother doesn't want it, that doesn't mean nobody does. There are thousands of couples wanting to adopt a baby and they are all being aborted. They are going to other countries to adopt children.
Sounds like you better start crankin' out some kids, girlfriend.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#313322 Oct 15, 2013
Deborah wrote:
<quoted text>
The acorn vs. oak analogy used in defense of the "perform or die" pro-choice view of acquired humanity obscures the truth. Why do pro-aborts compare a plant to a human being? A more fitting analogy would be to compare one mammal to another, like a human to a cat or a horse or a dog. Why not compare mammal to mammal? Because such a comparison -- in which the unborn progeny of these other mammals are developing, growing, and living members of the same species as their parents, just as are unborn humans of their parents -- obviously points out the illogic of the pro-abort position.
And, consistent with pro-aborts' view of the value of human beings, "Oak trees and acorns are not equally valuable," write Robert George and Patrick Lee, "because the basis for their value is not WHAT they are but precisely those accidental [not substantive] characteristics by which oak trees differ from acorns. We value the ugly, decaying oak tree less than the magnificent, still flourishing one; and we value the mature, magnificent oak more than the small, still growing one. But we would never say the same about human beings."
Only artifacts (clocks, cars, cell phones) come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once. Because one can only develop certain functions by nature (a result of basic, intrinsic capacities) because of the sort of being one *is*, a human being at every stage of her development is never a potential person; she is *always* a person with potential, even if that potential is never actualized due to premature death or the result of the presence or deformity of a physical state necessary to actualize that potential.
Human beings are valuable and worth protecting at all stages of their lives because of who they are, not because of what they can or cannot do.
Here's your apt comparison, honey:

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague."

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#313323 Oct 15, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>In the United States there are 13.69 births for every 8.38 deaths.
According to Adopt America there are 130,000 children in the U.S. foster care system waiting to be adopted. But, they are shit out of luck, because the "in" thing right now is for rich white couples to adopt non-white babies.
In the mean time we just keep adding to that 130,000 every day.
I still say it is more humane to abort an UNWANTED pregnancy in the first month than to dump it, like a stray pup, on an overcrowded child welfare system.
Now you've done it: you compared Ink's deity to a dog.

(She worships the fetus, you know...show some respect. Ink insists.)

:)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313324 Oct 15, 2013
Sociopath being another word you don`t comprehend, obviously.
Husker Du wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you have, feel guilty you do? i think you are a sociopath.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313325 Oct 15, 2013
What is it about analogies that you PLM zombies can`t understand? Analogies are not direct comparisons.

Scientifically speaking, an entity becomes a member of a species only after birth. BTW--some mammals can abort by choice; why should humans be constrained by genetics?
Deborah wrote:
<quoted text>
The acorn vs. oak analogy used in defense of the "perform or die" pro-choice view of acquired humanity obscures the truth. Why do pro-aborts compare a plant to a human being? A more fitting analogy would be to compare one mammal to another, like a human to a cat or a horse or a dog. Why not compare mammal to mammal? Because such a comparison -- in which the unborn progeny of these other mammals are developing, growing, and living members of the same species as their parents, just as are unborn humans of their parents -- obviously points out the illogic of the pro-abort position.
And, consistent with pro-aborts' view of the value of human beings, "Oak trees and acorns are not equally valuable," write Robert George and Patrick Lee, "because the basis for their value is not WHAT they are but precisely those accidental [not substantive] characteristics by which oak trees differ from acorns. We value the ugly, decaying oak tree less than the magnificent, still flourishing one; and we value the mature, magnificent oak more than the small, still growing one. But we would never say the same about human beings."
Only artifacts (clocks, cars, cell phones) come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once. Because one can only develop certain functions by nature (a result of basic, intrinsic capacities) because of the sort of being one *is*, a human being at every stage of her development is never a potential person; she is *always* a person with potential, even if that potential is never actualized due to premature death or the result of the presence or deformity of a physical state necessary to actualize that potential.
Human beings are valuable and worth protecting at all stages of their lives because of who they are, not because of what they can or cannot do.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313326 Oct 15, 2013
You really NEED to put something up my ass, dontcha?

Sorry, but I don`t date outside my species.
King Edward II wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Are you prepared yet?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313327 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie V.: "A male or female embryo/fetus probably equals a newborn son or daughter in your immature eyes. Tried to help you learn to differentiate."
Pffft.....you said a newborn remains a fetus for 48 hours after born.
You said calling a preborn baby "a useless was of cells" isn't offensive to anyone.
No, you're too lost to be able to teach.
You're a LIHOM (Legend In Your Own Mind).
Nothing more.
No, you are misquoting me and taking words out of context. Again. Seems to be all you're good at, NR. I said it takes the newborn brain up to 48hrs or longer to awaken out of its anesthetic sleep, to become completely aware. It's a medical fact any quick google or bing search will confirm. Guess that means you choose staying stuck on stupid. Figures.

Like Bitner said earlier, when all you have are lies, you've already lost the argument.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#313328 Oct 15, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Mantra
Doctrine
Dogma
Talking points
Pick the word you like.
No, you can pick the words that you'd like to describe the "pro abort formula".

I'd like to know more about, and what you consider the "pro abort formula" to be, and does it directly oppose the fundie playbook that guides you?

Have a good night.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#313330 Oct 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are misquoting me and taking words out of context. Again. Seems to be all you're good at, NR. I said it takes the newborn brain up to 48hrs or longer to awaken out of its anesthetic sleep, to become completely aware. It's a medical fact any quick google or bing search will confirm. Guess that means you choose staying stuck on stupid. Figures.
Like Bitner said earlier, when all you have are lies, you've already lost the argument.
You were discussing the "process of a fetus becoming a baby" and said it lasts 48 hours AFTER birth.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#313331 Oct 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what term of endearment Drew Barrymore used for her fetus? She could call it a banana for all I care. It's got nothing to do with this debate. Your desperation is truly pathetic.
I'd bet they had a name for a boy picked out too. Most people don't know the gender at 10 weeks, despite the marketing ploy of your favorite website, Uterine Envy.
Picking out names means nothing. It's a potential name for a potential infant, who is not guaranteed to become an infant in reality anyway.
I had a girl's name picked out when I was sixteen, five years before I was even pregnant. First name at any rate. The child was four days old before we could agree on a middle name.
And NONE of this proves it's a "human being".
DNA analysis of preborn babies prove he/she is a human (noun)/Human being (synonym).

YOU YOURSELF said a human (noun) exists in the womb.

You're a mess.........
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313332 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You were discussing the "process of a fetus becoming a baby" and said it lasts 48 hours AFTER birth.
What do you think these words mean?

I said it takes the newborn brain up to 48hrs or longer to awaken out of its anesthetic sleep, to become completely aware.

It doesn't mean a newborn remains a fetus as you keep erroneously claiming no matter how many times I've corrected you.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313333 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA analysis of preborn babies prove he/she is a human (noun)/Human being (synonym).
YOU YOURSELF said a human (noun) exists in the womb.
You're a mess.........
You do know the words Human Being have more than one meaning, correct? Just because you focus on the basic meaning doesn't mean you're 100% correct. Because you're not.

You've been shown time and again that the Philosophy of Human Being is much deeper than its general, elementary dictionary definition.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#313334 Oct 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what's missing from your argument here? Logic.
It's Drew Barrymore's pregnancy, her baby, her civil right to do as she chooses. I support that, even though you lie about it.
Besides, Kurt Cobain and what's her face gave their daughter the middle name of Bean for the same reason.
So how does any of your post refute anything I said? It doesn't. Simple as that.
Your "logic" says that Drew Barrymore is correct in considering her baby girl a baby girl & naming her at 3 months gestation. Yet, you say I am "immature" for considering her preborn baby girl a baby.

Further, you say it's also correct for a mother who doesn't want to be "inconvenienced" with her baby girl to call her a "useless wad of cells" - and kill her.

Where your "logic" is flawed is that a preborn baby girl is no different biologically from being perceived a baby girl or "useless wad of cells." DNA analysis results are no different, 4-D ultrasound is no different, beating heart is no different, etc. In either case - Preborn Baby Olive is a unique, distinct human being.

Yes, your argument fails => "The baby is a baby if mom thinks so...or is a useless wad of cells if mom thinks so." Interestingly enough, you preach "science" as the supposed support for backing your arguments in favor of killing preborn babies.

Mom's "perception" or "sentiments" towards her preborn baby do not change her baby's biology in any way. Nada. None. Zilch. Zippo. You can't even call your view junk science. It's nothing but gobbledygook. It's just another one of your assinine "excuses" to kill.

To be fair, you are no different than the other proaborts in here. bHitner, too, pretends to preach science.....until she doesn't. Heck, she will go as far as to use Wronglish to claim "a human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms.

You're both frauds.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#313335 Oct 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know the words Human Being have more than one meaning, correct? Just because you focus on the basic meaning doesn't mean you're 100% correct. Because you're not.
You've been shown time and again that the Philosophy of Human Being is much deeper than its general, elementary dictionary definition.
You do realize you did not support bHilter's claim that "a human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms.

You're just saying stuff hoping it sticks.

Show me a legitimate site that states "human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms. bHitler has failed to provide EVEN ONE site to support her claim. Not one.

Ready..........go..........
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313336 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie V.: "A male or female embryo/fetus probably equals a newborn son or daughter in your immature eyes. Tried to help you learn to differentiate."
Pffft.....you said a newborn remains a fetus for 48 hours after born.
You said calling a preborn baby "a useless was of cells" isn't offensive to anyone.
No, you're too lost to be able to teach.
You're a LIHOM (Legend In Your Own Mind).
Nothing more.
A former poster here would call an embryo/fetus a "useless wad of cells [you used the word WAS above haha]" when arguing with others to drive her points home. Somebody asked if I found it [her use of the phrase, not the phrase itself] offensive and I said no. Then I detailed the context around it and told others to grow a thicker skin.

Yet you still outright LIE and try to claim I said it or that it wasn't "offensive to anyone" which is another LIE on your part.

If you have to LIE, you've already lost, and you've lost. Big time. Stop projecting your shortcomings onto me. Scroll on.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#313337 Oct 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know the words Human Being have more than one meaning, correct? Just because you focus on the basic meaning doesn't mean you're 100% correct. Because you're not.
You've been shown time and again that the Philosophy of Human Being is much deeper than its general, elementary dictionary definition.
For someone who preaches science, you sure flop around like a fish out of water. You saw science was going against your argument to kill, so you pulled out philosophy.

You're running out of options, just as science is making advancements countering your illogical arguments.

Desperation much?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313338 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "logic" says that Drew Barrymore is correct in considering her baby girl a baby girl & naming her at 3 months gestation. Yet, you say I am "immature" for considering her preborn baby girl a baby.
Further, you say it's also correct for a mother who doesn't want to be "inconvenienced" with her baby girl to call her a "useless wad of cells" - and kill her.
Where your "logic" is flawed is that a preborn baby girl is no different biologically from being perceived a baby girl or "useless wad of cells." DNA analysis results are no different, 4-D ultrasound is no different, beating heart is no different, etc. In either case - Preborn Baby Olive is a unique, distinct human being.
Yes, your argument fails => "The baby is a baby if mom thinks so...or is a useless wad of cells if mom thinks so." Interestingly enough, you preach "science" as the supposed support for backing your arguments in favor of killing preborn babies.
Mom's "perception" or "sentiments" towards her preborn baby do not change her baby's biology in any way. Nada. None. Zilch. Zippo. You can't even call your view junk science. It's nothing but gobbledygook. It's just another one of your assinine "excuses" to kill.
To be fair, you are no different than the other proaborts in here. bHitner, too, pretends to preach science.....until she doesn't. Heck, she will go as far as to use Wronglish to claim "a human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms.
You're both frauds.
YouR arguments are nothing but LIES. Lots of words that have no meaning, no truth, and no sense.

You've already lost. And you know it.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313339 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize you did not support bHilter's claim that "a human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms.
You're just saying stuff hoping it sticks.
Show me a legitimate site that states "human" (noun) and "human being" are not synonyms. bHitler has failed to provide EVEN ONE site to support her claim. Not one.
Ready..........go..........
What Bitner, others, and I have said time and again is that you're arguing about dictionary definitions when we're discussing PHILOSOPHIES. Which is exactly what I spelled out for you earlier.

If you still don't get it, you never will.

You lose. Big time.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313340 Oct 15, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
What is it about analogies that you PLM zombies can`t understand? Analogies are not direct comparisons.
Scientifically speaking, an entity becomes a member of a species only after birth. BTW--some mammals can abort by choice; why should humans be constrained by genetics?
<quoted text>
Cptr, this quote was in the post to which you responded.

"Oak trees and acorns are not equally valuable," write Robert George and Patrick Lee, "because the basis for their value is not WHAT they are but precisely those accidental [not substantive] characteristics by which oak trees differ from acorns. We value the ugly, decaying oak tree less than the magnificent, still flourishing one; and we value the mature, magnificent oak more than the small, still growing one. But we would never say the same about human beings."

Do you see what I see? Humans "value the ugly, decaying [elderly, poor, black, brown, yellow, deemed different, etc.,] less than the magnificent, still flourishing one[wealthy, good looking, smart, successful, young, nubile, etc.,] one; and we value the mature, magnificent [fill in the blank] more than the small, still growing one. And we do this to other human beings [even if we don't say or admit it] all the fckn time." All anyone needs to do is pick up a newspaper or watch the national news to verify.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#313341 Oct 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
For someone who preaches science, you sure flop around like a fish out of water. You saw science was going against your argument to kill, so you pulled out philosophy.
You're running out of options, just as science is making advancements countering your illogical arguments.
Desperation much?
What a sad attempt on your part trying to distract.

But you had to make up more LIES to do so.

Look NR, if you can't debate by even loosely following the rules of debate, don't bother wasting anybody's time. All the effort put in to correcting your false claims only confirm our claims that the PLM you follow is based on nothing but false premises, false promises, half-truths, and outright lies. As I said earlier, you are exceptional at it. Yay you.

:-\

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min woodtick57 1,156,234
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr KiMare 233,182
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Trojan 28,494
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 11 hr yinefsfgd 3
What role do you think humans play in global wa... Sat Earthling-1 2,741
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Fri zubedaanur 693
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 Dec 25 ivyawe 1
More from around the web