PoliteMight
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 10:20 am
@Region Philbis,
Somebody could hop cross state lines and get an abortion if they want to . It is immature and childish in that mentality.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 11:05 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

If it looks like a duck, if it has wings like a duck, if it quacks and swims like a duck, it's obviously a platypus. No, it's a duck.

A fetus resembles a person, therefore it is a person.


This resembles a person but is not a person. So your comment is bullshit.

https://www.sideshow.com/storage/product-images/907776/superman_dc-comics_gallery_602d4d07388bf.jpg


Quote:


If we are going by brainwaves, we have a working brain at 4 weeks. And then at 5 weeks, it starts to move.

Okay genius, how is something moving if it isn't alive? Is it like the zombie Qilin in Fantastic Beasts?



My car moves. Does that mean it is alive?

Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2022 04:55 pm

https://iili.io/wUPREu.jpg
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2022 05:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
That's a fictional person. Still a person, but today in politics we're deciding to deal in reality. Unless you wanna tackle Saiyans (Dragon Ball) and Mamodo (Zatch Bell).

Brainwaves are not the same as electricity. If you want to reduce them to electricity, then all people are just machines, and I guess anyone can be killed.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2022 09:12 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

That's a fictional person. Still a person, but today in politics we're deciding to deal in reality. Unless you wanna tackle Saiyans (Dragon Ball) and Mamodo (Zatch Bell).

Brainwaves are not the same as electricity. If you want to reduce them to electricity, then all people are just machines, and I guess anyone can be killed.


So we are in agreement. Not everything that looks like a person IS A PERSON...as you erroneously alleged.

And not everything that moves is alive...which you also erroneously inferred.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2022 12:49 pm
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2022 06:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
Actually I said the opposite, but you've done this before.

Saiyans and Mamodo are alive (that is different from a puppet, pet rock, zombie, or animated skeleton) but not real. In the parenthetical examples, two of these appear to be alive, but necromancy is not life.
So what defines life? It is not simply movement but independent movement. A necromancer controls a skeleton, but they are not able to make said skeleton move without them. Computers generslly don't shut on by themselves, without some kinda error or code allowing this. This is animation, not life.
Does a fetus meet this definition of life? Yes, it does. Guess what, brain activity is completely irrelevant to life. Here are many creatures that live without a brain, in addition to every plant, fungi, or bacteria in existence.
https://www.animalwised.com/animals-without-a-brain-names-characteristics-3196.html

Alive is not the same thing as real. Real is defined as existing in this reality. Now there may be infinite realities, which painters and writers draw on, but in this reality, they do not exist. But, they are alive.
Frank Apisa
 
  6  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2022 07:22 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


Actually I said the opposite, but you've done this before.

Saiyans and Mamodo are alive (that is different from a puppet, pet rock, zombie, or animated skeleton) but not real. In the parenthetical examples, two of these appear to be alive, but necromancy is not life.
So what defines life? It is not simply movement but independent movement. A necromancer controls a skeleton, but they are not able to make said skeleton move without them. Computers generslly don't shut on by themselves, without some kinda error or code allowing this. This is animation, not life.
Does a fetus meet this definition of life? Yes, it does. Guess what, brain activity is completely irrelevant to life. Here are many creatures that live without a brain, in addition to every plant, fungi, or bacteria in existence.
https://www.animalwised.com/animals-without-a-brain-names-characteristics-3196.html

Alive is not the same thing as real. Real is defined as existing in this reality. Now there may be infinite realities, which painters and writers draw on, but in this reality, they do not exist. But, they are alive.


Save your bullshit for the rubes, Bulma. You're talking with me now.

I did not say that "alive" and "real" are the same thing. A rock is real...but it is not alive.

This started when you erroneously asserted, "A fetus resembles a person, therefore it is a person."

I merely called your attention to something that "resembles a person...but is not a person."

Your "therefore it is a person" is an absurdity.

But you have shown yourself incapable of acknowledging when you are being absurd...probably because you are being absurd most of the time when you post.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2022 05:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Rock is alive.

See? ROCK! IS! ALIVE!!!

A fetus resembles a person because it is a person. It's a homunculus described in theoretical philosophy. A "little person."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism

Anti-abortion advocates have been on the record showing a fetus avoiding cutting tools while within the womb. Not alive you say? So why is it fighting for its right to live?

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2022 04:21 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:
Rock is alive.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFqqLANw4w[/youtube]
See? ROCK! IS! ALIVE!!!

A fetus resembles a person because it is a person. It's a homunculus described in theoretical philosophy. A "little person."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism

Anti-abortion advocates have been on the record showing a fetus avoiding cutting tools while within the womb. Not alive you say? So why is it fighting for its right to live?





You are nuts, Bulma. With each post, you proudly shout that you are nuts.

A fetus is a fetus...which is why it is called a fetus. You seem to think you are advocating for something moral, but you are instead advocating for one of the greatest of immoral causes.

So...advocate away. People like you do more to help the position for which I advocate more than you can imagine.

I thank you for your help.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2022 06:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Killing babies is moral.
Asking you politely not to kill your baby in front of me is immoral?

Great to know!

ROCK! IS! ALIVE!!!
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2022 06:55 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Killing babies is moral.


Killing babies is NOT MORAL. We agree on that.

Your definition of what is a baby is an absurdity. A fetus...is a fetus...not a baby. A gamete is a gamete...not a baby; an embryo is an embryo...not a baby; a fetus is a fetus...not a baby.


Quote:
Asking you politely not to kill your baby in front of me is immoral?


Refusing a woman the right to control her own body IS IMMORAL.

Quote:
Great to know!


Tough to get it through the concrete in your head, but glad I finally did.

bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2022 07:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
Oh? What's immoral about it?

Would it be moral to stop a man from raping a little child?
Would it be more to stop a woman from murdering her six year old child?

Oh but it's so immoral to stop her from murdering a child that isn't even able to see yet. It's so immoral to prevent a child, who hasn't even gotren to enjoy a sunset or a flower, or drink its mother's milk, hasn't had any experiences at all, from being killed.

Seems like you need a refresher on morality.

Quote:
Killing babies is NOT MORAL. We agree on that.


Good to know you have some standards.

Quote:
Refusing a woman the right to control her own body IS IMMORAL


It's not her body at the the time of pregnancy. She cannot say, "This is my body, to do with what I want." This is "OUR" body, the girl's and her boyfriend's, because they have joined together inside her to create life. The baby is in effect joint property, so unless both partners agree to this, I cannot be cool with it. If the wife and husband both agree, they should use morning after drugs, as soon as possible. Not wait four months.

What did she wait for, anyway? To find out the baby is the wrong sex? That it might be Downs Syndrome? What exactly was the holdup?

Secondly, I am not taking her choices away. She is well within her rights to drive to some clinic that is privately run. What I will not back is the immoral taking of choices of doctors and nurses away. Abortion is the job of an abortion clinic, not the job of a hospital.
A hospital is in the business of saving life, and if you want to do otherwise, join an abortion clinic. But no hospital should demand that of their nurses, threatening them with termination if they deliver a baby rather than perform the abortion.

That, that is immoral. It should never have been part of hospital work, because hospitals are supposed to follow the Hippocratic Oath.

Abortion clinics, and only abortion clinics should do this work. And they shouldn't be allowed to claim to be anything but an abortion clinic.
"Family planning?" Nuhhh, that's a lie.



Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2022 08:59 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


Oh? What's immoral about it?

Would it be moral to stop a man from raping a little child?
Would it be more to stop a woman from murdering her six year old child?

Oh but it's so immoral to stop her from murdering a child that isn't even able to see yet. It's so immoral to prevent a child, who hasn't even gotren to enjoy a sunset or a flower, or drink its mother's milk, hasn't had any experiences at all, from being killed.

Seems like you need a refresher on morality.

Quote:
Killing babies is NOT MORAL. We agree on that.


Good to know you have some standards.

Quote:
Refusing a woman the right to control her own body IS IMMORAL


It's not her body at the the time of pregnancy. She cannot say, "This is my body, to do with what I want." This is "OUR" body, the girl's and her boyfriend's, because they have joined together inside her to create life. The baby is in effect joint property, so unless both partners agree to this, I cannot be cool with it. If the wife and husband both agree, they should use morning after drugs, as soon as possible. Not wait four months.

What did she wait for, anyway? To find out the baby is the wrong sex? That it might be Downs Syndrome? What exactly was the holdup?

Secondly, I am not taking her choices away. She is well within her rights to drive to some clinic that is privately run. What I will not back is the immoral taking of choices of doctors and nurses away. Abortion is the job of an abortion clinic, not the job of a hospital.
A hospital is in the business of saving life, and if you want to do otherwise, join an abortion clinic. But no hospital should demand that of their nurses, threatening them with termination if they deliver a baby rather than perform the abortion.

That, that is immoral. It should never have been part of hospital work, because hospitals are supposed to follow the Hippocratic Oath.

Abortion clinics, and only abortion clinics should do this work. And they shouldn't be allowed to claim to be anything but an abortion clinic.
"Family planning?" Nuhhh, that's a lie.


I'd sooner try to explain the problems with your arguments to an asparagus stalk than to you, Bulma.

Do continue to rant. It is cute.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2022 10:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Here you go.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YBWzWGElD6k/U2-fVUwRFMI/AAAAAAAAAI0/mM0qmH6ST2w/s1600/asparagus.JPG

You have a captive audience. Those who won't talk back or challenge you too much.

Meanwhile, there continues to be a difference from me only being peeved if a man coerces a woman to abort after he finds out the child is the wrong sex, and "denying the choice of women."
I have not voted at any point against state rights to do as they see fit. But there shouldn't be a pro-abortion federal law.

Meanwhile, the choice of women to take away the choices of doctors and nurses, to say to them "Perform this murder or else," this is moral?
Or else what? Or else, you get punished.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/forcing-doctors-perform-abortion/
It is only through legal protections for refusal that doctors have rights at all.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2022 03:37 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
You have a captive audience.

Duh...there's nothing preventing anyone from leaving, so it's not a "captive audience". Pay attention.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2022 07:18 am
@hightor,
Asparagus... is a captive audience.

Try to keep up.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2022 08:26 pm
@hightor,
I have updated my signature. Kindly educate yourself on how abortion is not only anti-woman but also anti-choice. It forces impoverished women into a no-win situation. It allows psycho boyfriends to literally get away with murder. And it damages women for life.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-proof.html

Come back when you understand this statistic.
Quote:
81 percent of women surveyed in a 1992 study reported in the Journal of Social Issues said they felt victimized by the abortion process, and that they were either coerced into the abortion or that information about alternatives or the actual procedure had been withheld.


It goes on to say that only 22 states actually have laws requiring that women are given the full story about how abortion may affect their body, the psychological damage, or the risk to their own life (btw, abortion kills 5000 to 10000 women each year). Without informed consent, a contract cannot be seen as valid. So why is it okay to tell women only incomplete information when they are about to head into a major thing? It's sold as the solution to their problems, but nobody tells them that they will be haunted by nightmares for the rest of their life, that it could leave them sterile, or legit kill them along with their child. Or that any abortion can screw with their hormone balance, actually making a breast cancer more likely.
Quote:
The more hotly contested link—though one supported by numerous epidemiological studies and breast physiology—is that abortion itself can cause breast cancer. Through abortion, a woman artificially terminates her pregnancy at a time when her breast cells have been exposed to high levels of potentially cancer-initiating estrogen but before those cells have matured into cancer-resistant cells (as they ultimately do in a full-term pregnancy). According to breast surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, The same biology that accounts for 90 percent of all risk factors for breast cancer accounts for the abortion breast cancer link.


Not that you care. You seem broken somehow as a human being. Lacking in remorse and empathy. I imagine you say you are pro-woman, but care not at all that women are literally choosing between bodily mutilation and death.

Quote:
While some men lament the choices of their wives or girlfriends (husbands and boyfriends, after all, have no legal rights in the abortion decision), other men serve as the catalysts behind such choices. Nearly 40 percent of post-abortive women in one study reported that partners pressured them into having the abortions.


Nor do you care that women are bullied or threatened into having abortions.

Quote:
The victimization felt by such a large majority of women who undergo abortions, though not appreciated or even recognized by todays pro-choice feminist, was acutely foreseen by an earlier generation of feminists. Americas pioneering feminists, who fought for the right to vote and fair treatment in the workplace, were uniformly against abortion because they recognized it as an attack on women as women—those uniquely endowed with the ability to bear children.


War on women? Hardly!

It is the leftists that make war on women by trying to make them like men.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2022 03:03 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

I have updated my signature. Kindly educate yourself on how abortion is not only anti-woman but also anti-choice.


Allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy occurring in her own body...IS NOT ANTI-WOMAN...NOR IS IT ANTI-CHOICE. Anyone who has convinced him/herself that having that choice is either of those things...is delusional.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2022 04:42 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
It is the leftists that make war on women by trying to make them like men.

Wait, I thought leftists were known for encouraging same sex relationships – which would mean trying to make women like women. Pay attention.
 

Related Topics

What makes people vote Republican? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
The 2008 Republican Convention... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Another Republican Scum-Bag - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Republican Moron Jim DeMint - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Silly, Stupid Republican! - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans hate the working class - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans Dumb and Dumber - Discussion by BigEgo
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/24/2024 at 03:50:12