Baby butchers admitting prenatal infantacide kills a baby

[Turtle]

As we've covered, the Morning After pill doesn't only prevent conception. If that was it, I'd be all for it. But if conception has already occurred, it prevents implantation i.e. murders a baby. So it's a no-go. If you can invent something that works another way, I'll cheer you on.

Uhm, as we've covered, the Morning After Pill ONLY prevents conception. That's all it does. Conception does not and cannot occur until the cell within the egg divides, which does not and cannot occur until the egg is implanted. You're also using the term "baby" incorrect here, in any regard. So once again, despite your thoughts, feelings, hopes and wishes on the matter, you're dead wrong. It really sucks to be dead wrong about something you're so impassioned about, doesn't it?

One of my favorite sig lines seems so appropriate here:

Why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous?

 

[Turtle]

I use the term knowing full well what it means.

If that's true, then you are intentionally using it incorrectly, likely to tug at some emotional thread. That's a tactic that's at the very bottom of a long list of how to convince people of your argument and that you're right. On the other hand, it's at the very top of the list of how to showcase and celebrate ignorance.

Objection overruled.

Ignorance can be fixed. But when one prefers the ignorance over the dismissed knowledge of the truth, it becomes something heavily steeped in a multitude of the Seven Deadly Sins. I do love a good irony.

 

[AMonger]

Hell, I thought we disposed of calling it murder, even tho it's not against the law.

Absolutely not. The nanosecond the spermatazoa breaks the plane, intentionally doing away with it by any means is murder, regardless of what 51+% of any group says to the contrary.
If I take your wallet against your will, but your state legislature decriminalized theft, didn't I still steal from you? That law doesn't reflect fact doesn't change the fact. That a majority of assclowns moves the goalposts on the legal definition of murder doesn't change what murder is.

 

[Turtle]

Absolutely not. The nanosecond the spermatazoa breaks the plane, intentionally doing away with it by any means is murder...

That's a theory unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It's a belief. Believing in something, no matter how strongly that belief is held, doesn't make it true. For example, I believe with all my heart and soul that you're a smart, intelligent man who's mind is open to all kinds of thoughts and ideas and that learning is important to you.

 

[AMonger]

That's a theory unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It's a belief.

No, your definition is a parochially-derived standard definition reflecting the ideas of the definers.
Similarly, I was discussing gun rights with a lawyer. I stated, "I have the right to tuck an Uzi under my jacket and walk through Times Square with it," an assertion that he vigorously disputed. His idea of rights is that rights are whatever the government says they are, an idea that's both hideous and incorrect, but one you can imagine is common among lawyers. He ridiculed me, demanding, "Who knows more about the law, a lawyer who's (insert his achievements, qualifications, tenure, degrees here), or an anonymous guy from the internet?" My response to him applies here: Your "education," from which you're deriving your "facts," is one of parochial indoctrination. Your professors told you what to believe of the law, and you had to adopt those beliefs to get your degree, obtain your law license, and get and retain your job and privilege to practice law in front of a court. It doesn't make you or your professors right; it just makes it the accepted standard.
In this case, those maintaining the accepted standard went through the same process, but the insistence on adhering to the party line is even more ferocious, because society relies on the decriminalization of prenatal infanticide to enable us to fornicate with fewer consequences. Because of this desire, prenatal infanticide will be protected at all costs, even that of defining life without regard for the truth.
That life begins when the spermatazoa breaks the plane can be inferred from scripture. That's more reliable than accepting a malleable definition subject to the parochial indoctrination of fallen man and his rebellious desires.
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

 

[moose]

In N Out Burger still makes the best fries (by far), but the crinkle cut offerings from the Castle are strong performers.

'5 guys burgers' have the best fries. hands down. 5 guys won't have a baby. but you can grab their peanuts for free.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Unfortunately, I think Amonger plans on winning the argument by repeating it so many times, people just give up trying to debate him. I guess he'll be a champion by default. *shrug*

 

[scottm4211]

'5 guys burgers' have the best fries. hands down. 5 guys won't have a baby. but you can grab their peanuts for free.

Volume over quality. How dare you!

 

[Turtle]

No, your definition is a parochially-derived standard definition reflecting the ideas of the definers.
Similarly, I was discussing gun rights with a lawyer. I stated, "I have the right to tuck an Uzi under my jacket and walk through Times Square with it," an assertion that he vigorously disputed. His idea of rights is that rights are whatever the government says they are, an idea that's both hideous and incorrect, but one you can imagine is common among lawyers. He ridiculed me, demanding, "Who knows more about the law, a lawyer who's (insert his achievements, qualifications, tenure, degrees here), or an anonymous guy from the internet?" My response to him applies here: Your "education," from which you're deriving your "facts," is one of parochial indoctrination. Your professors told you what to believe of the law, and you had to adopt those beliefs to get your degree, obtain your law license, and get and retain your job and privilege to practice law in front of a court. It doesn't make you or your professors right; it just makes it the accepted standard.
In this case, those maintaining the accepted standard went through the same process, but the insistence on adhering to the party line is even more ferocious, because society relies on the decriminalization of prenatal infanticide to enable us to fornicate with fewer consequences. Because of this desire, prenatal infanticide will be protected at all costs, even that of defining life without regard for the truth.
That life begins when the spermatazoa breaks the plane can be inferred from scripture. That's more reliable than accepting a malleable definition subject to the parochial indoctrination of fallen man and his rebellious desires.
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Oh, well, in that case, you've got me convinced.

 

[cheri1122]

The worst thing about the whole abortion clinic horror story here is that if the 'pro life' folks have their way, it will be replicated many times over.
Because that's what Roe vs Wade was meant to prevent: the horror of illegal abortion, tolerated by women desperate enough to feel they had no better options.
Making it illegal doesn't make it go away - remember the Volstead Act [aka prohibition]?
Even worse, as many abortion providers are also the sole providers of affordable birth control, shutting them down will only exacerbate the problem of poor women having babies they can't afford.
Women of means will still have access to both birth control and abortion, so they won't be reproducing at anywhere near the rate of poor women. Is this a good idea for our future?

 

[layoutshooter]

The worst thing about the whole abortion clinic horror story here is that if the 'pro life' folks have their way, it will be replicated many times over.
Because that's what Roe vs Wade was meant to prevent: the horror of illegal abortion, tolerated by women desperate enough to feel they had no better options.
Making it illegal doesn't make it go away - remember the Volstead Act [aka prohibition]?
Even worse, as many abortion providers are also the sole providers of affordable birth control, shutting them down will only exacerbate the problem of poor women having babies they can't afford.
Women of means will still have access to both birth control and abortion, so they won't be reproducing at anywhere near the rate of poor women. Is this a good idea for our future?

Roe V Wade did not work to prevent it, did it? Women HAVE access to birth control. Poor or rich. There is NOTHING stopping them from taking advantage of it, other than lack of personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of EACH individual, male or female, to insure that THEY do not, for the most part of their own accord, produce offspring that they are not able to care for.

Yeah, it is not free, nothing is. That does not, however, remove the responsibility.

There is even FREE birth control. Always has been. It is the ONLY 100% effective method, it's called "Keep it in your pants". Same for either sex. NEVER fails.

The assumption that "we" are responsible to pay for THEM is just wrong. The VAST majority of "US" cover our own responsibilities, so should every one else. Other's stupidity does not equal other's covering the cost.

 

[cheri1122]

Roe V Wade did not work to prevent it, did it? Women HAVE access to birth control. Poor or rich. There is NOTHING stopping them from taking advantage of it, other than lack of personal responsibility.

Roe v Wade made huge strides in shutting down the unsafe 'doctors', creating medical standards that protected women.
You are 100% wrong if you think poor women have the same access to birth control as women of means. The conservatives have been steadily chipping away at women's reproductive rights on every front possible, especially Planned Parenthood. In many areas, there simply is no option for birth control that poor women can access. The conservatives seem quite proud of this, and that boggles my mind.

It is the responsibility of EACH individual, male or female, to insure that THEY do not, for the most part of their own accord, produce offspring that they are not able to care for.

Blablabla - we've heard that about a brazillion times, and so what? Like the saying 'haters gonna hate', people are going to do things they shouldn't, and as a civilized society, we need to figure out how to help them stop doing it.
Because it's society that will pay for their 'mistakes'.

Yeah, it is not free, nothing is. That does not, however, remove the responsibility.

There is even FREE birth control. Always has been. It is the ONLY 100% effective method, it's called "Keep it in your pants". Same for either sex. NEVER fails.

Just say no didn't work for drug abuse, and it sure as heLL won't work for birth control by abstinence - that goes against human nature and biological imperatives and hormones, too.
People will continue to have sex. The question is, should they continue to have babies?

The assumption that "we" are responsible to pay for THEM is just wrong. The VAST majority of "US" cover our own responsibilities, so should every one else. Other's stupidity does not equal other's covering the cost.

News flash: utopia doesn't exist. Reduce birth control options, more babies appear. If the creators can't feed them, guess who will?
We're gonna cover the cost one way or the other, the question is which way is less expensive?

 

[layoutshooter]

News flash: utopia doesn't exist. Reduce birth control options, more babies appear. If the creators can't feed them, guess who will?
We're gonna cover the cost one way or the other, the question is which way is less expensive?

NO WE DON'T have to cover it. It is NOT my responsibility. Why should OTHERS stupidity equal MY responsibility? What givesthe government, or you, the RIGHT to FORCE me to cover others job? I lived up to MY responsibilities, so should they. FORCE THEM to pay for it, not me.

The BIGGEST problem is that we no longer value the idea of personal responsibility. THAT has lead to almost all of the problems we have today. Until we demand that the parties cover their own actions, NOTHING will change.

 

[AMonger]

Oh, well, in that case, you've got me convinced.

You had to quote that whole thing? I suppose if you're going to over-quote, it's a worthy choice, but still...

 

[cheri1122]

NO WE DON'T have to cover it. It is NOT my responsibility. Why should OTHERS stupidity equal MY responsibility? What givesthe government, or you, the RIGHT to FORCE me to cover others job? I lived up to MY responsibilities, so should they. FORCE THEM to pay for it, not me.

Maybe you can contemplate actual babies and children going hungry through no fault of their own, but most civilized people can't.

The BIGGEST problem is that we no longer value the idea of personal responsibility. THAT has lead to almost all of the problems we have today. Until we demand that the parties cover their own actions, NOTHING will change.

The conservatives favorite whine - and it's the same one that has been heard since Cicero was in diapers.
Good luck demanding - I'm sure people will be impressed with it and jump to comply.

 

[layoutshooter]

The conservatives favorite whine - and it's the same one that has been heard since Cicero was in diapers.
Good luck demanding - I'm sure people will be impressed with it and jump to comply.

I don't care what you, or anyone else believes, I will live by MY morals and beliefs. What gives you the RIGHT to determine what I should be responsible for? WHEN I refuse to pay for what I don't believe in are YOU going to agree to the use of FORCE to insure that I "toe the line"? If so, how MUCH force would you agree to?

Whine? How is what I said a "whine"? What part of "Lack of planning on your part, or stupidity on your part, equal a crisis on MY part", is a whine? ( not you personally, just the saying)

 

[AMonger]

If procreation by the poor is a concern of some, perhaps they'd be willing to contribute toward the cost of preventing these pregnancies. One method, of course, is completely free. That should do away with the cost argument.

 

[AMonger]

News flash: utopia doesn't exist. Reduce birth control options, more babies appear. If the creators can't feed them, guess who will?
We're gonna cover the cost one way or the other, the question is which way is less expensive?

Closing one's legs is free.

 

[Turtle]

You had to quote that whole thing?

Yes I did. I felt it had more in an impact than a simple "<snort>" at the end of my sentence. Plus, I know how that sort of quoting just pіsses you off to no end.

 

[Turtle]

It is the responsibility of EACH individual, male or female, to insure that THEY do not, for the most part of their own accord, produce offspring that they are not able to care for.

To that, Cheri says, "Blablabla." I say, if you're not careful, you're going to make a strong case for abortion.