Reply With Quote
Warren has more BALLS than all the Repug slimebags and tea baggers combined.
typical stupid . thinking the world revolves around her and her facebook friends
Warren has more BALLS than all the Repug slimebags and tea baggers combined.
"I intend to jump to conclusions before the truth is known!"
Alluding to Margaret Sanger and race based eugenics in the present context tickles your funny bone?
No reasonable person could conclude you were referring Sanger in mind in the following...
... but it's clear you had eugenics in mind. LA needs PP because there are " way too many black babies."Googles your friend wad. Way too many black babies for Planned Parenthood not to be working there.
http://plannedparenthood.org/planned...pgc-louisiana/
your offhand joke about eugenics reframes your dehumanizing reference upstream to "litters" of Hispanic children.
like I said, lighten up. Of course I had Sanger/PP eugenics in mind. I figured most in here would be sharp enough to make the connection.
what was the funny part? what about eugenics in 2015 makes you laugh?
Margaret Sanger advocated for eugenics 100 years ago. You're joking about it in the present tense.
PA is 5th state to find no wrongdoing by PP.
This stuff needs to be seen for its wickedness. Surgeries save lives, abortions kill.
WOMAN'S RIGHTS! (unless they are being aborted)
Warren has more BALLS than all the Repug slimebags and tea baggers combined.
What are your thoughts on women that get pregnant when raped? Should they be allowed to get an abortion or do you want to force her to have the baby?
Cosmetic surgeries save lives? How about an abortion for a poor family that used contraceptive but fell in the % of error for that contraceptive? I would argue that an abortion to save a family from crippling debt and bankruptcy also "saves lives". Not like it matters to you.
I was arguing against his point of using DNA to determine life. Every cell contains DNA so using his definition, every cell has a right to life.
even then... no.
each of my cells are part of me, not an individual life form. my skin cell has DNA, but its my DNA. the "every cell has a right to life" thing doesn't apply.
a zygote, though one cell, has DNA unique to itself. its DNA is not that of the mother or the father, but its own. its fallacious to compare a zygote within a mother to any random cell in her body
That's not what he was arguing. You're right in the uniqueness of the DNA but I don't think we're going to agree on what that means re: abortion.
im pro-abortion/pro-choice however you want to call it.
despite that, i do consider a zygote to be human. i see it as a living thing (though obviously not viable outside the prenatal environment), and if i had to choose a species it belonged to, human seems to make the most sense imo
i would be hard-pressed to call a single cell a human being. i dont consider each skin cell on my body to be a human being. a human being is the entirety of all the cells. but if that particular being only has 1 cell at that time (zygote), then that one cell IS "the entirety of that being." this is just how i happen to see it.
I think our definitions differ only slightly. While I agree that a zygote has human DNA, I wouldn't call it a human being. It's an undifferentiated cell(s) that happens to have unique DNA. Semantics really but using DNA to support anti-choice legislation, IMO, is irresponsible.
"i do consider a zygote to be human"
.... so when do you bomb fertility clinics, murder the stuff for destroying 100s or 1000s of zygotes?
That was well thought out. You are correct in calling a skin cell not a human, because it isn't. It is a part of a human. Sperm is not human, eggs are not human. Once they come together to form a developing, living organism; that is when a human , in my opinion is formed. A skin cell isn't a developing human organism.
I understand when people call a fetus not a baby. For me, a zygote is not a fetus, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, a child is not an adult. But I can not under people calling a fetus not a human.
He personally bombed fertility clinics? And yes, that would be murder.
No cosmetic surgeries don't. But I never said they did.
And saving a family from "crippling debt" is no reason for murder. Especially when adoption is an option. And it matters to everyone.
I already stated my stance on this earlier in the thread. Obviously, that's a horrible situation and only ~3% of abortions are for medical and rape reasons. 97% are for casual/convenience reasons. So out of the roughly 60,000,000 abortions in the US since 1973, only 1,800,000 have been for rape or medical issues. I'd say 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I completely understand why that would be legal even if I don't think the would abortion solve any of the problems for the victim.
"97% are for casual/convenience reasons"
casual/convenience? slander away.
Ok you pick the word. But I guarantee it won't be good enough to justify taking a human life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
