Dermot's Waterfall
Tremendous news Andy is doing some essentials on site and as soon as that’s done a ban coming up for you .....where will you go to troll and attack people 24/7 ?
I will keep a tag of all your accounts as I told him I will search and find everyone .....ps thanks for reminding me Rusticus was one I’d forgotten
"Bye Jace. Speak soon my dear. I hope you like the handcuffs and quicklime in the back seat. I bought them just for you my love. So we can be together forever." 😂
I think thats something you need to put to Jace ......how’s your mum I believe there’s a plaque going up in the local brothel as tribute to her “dedicated service “ over the last 50 years 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’m a creepy little psychopath.
How many accounts have you now 90?100?
Awwww, is diddums mad?
Yes, you appear to be constantly mad why’s that ?
You have a lot of trouble controlling your own hate, don't you?
Hilarious your last 10 posts has you rabidly attacking people for questioning you , but in Noms world that means everyone else is the hater 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🌹
No I admit I like to torture you and your 700 odd accounts now and then you clot .....
Do continue posting 24/ 7 you’re the only person on site most times any way , just look how many are on line you Idiot
You will never catch Joe but do keep trying for the next 6 years 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Any person cleaning up the site would ban you immediately because you are an infantile troll with no interest in actual debate.
This time last year he promised to get rid of you once and for all , you’ve never actually debated here , pick any of your posts and it’s always the same you screeching “ you’re a Nazi , fascist or retard” like the fucking repetitive idiot you are
You’ve won Joe ......easily .....there’s only about 6 active members on site with hundreds of Alt accounts ......
Andy promised me this time last year a clean up but of course nothing was done as usual ......it’s not a debate site as debate rarely happens
This was a fabulous site years ago with brilliant debates and great debaters , it’s basically one guy now preaching and calling everyone a Nazi/ Fascist or retarded who disagrees with his BS .......Why Andy keeps it going is beyond me as any casual visitor runs a mile when they see it’s just a site to spew bile and hatred
Just because I say that I can kick your ass on the internet does not mean that I can't kick your ass
Another American term used by typical wannabe hard men as in “ass” we over hear find this term hilarious as in why are a certain type of American always threatening to “ kick ass “ or own your ass” or even “bust your ass” ?
dingus. I'm a black belt IRL.
😳😳😳🙀🙀Oh please mister American bar room brawler don’t hurt me
I could kick your fucking ass bitch
Why do Americans think that those outside the U S would find find being called a bitch scary? Now I know in these over the top American prision dramas everyone goes around calling each other bitches and people like you piss yourself in terror over here we roar with laughter as men certainly do not go around calling each other bitch.
You’re a cowardly dog that’s why you banned me which demonstrates that in real life you would run a mile from any possible confrontation like the whiny girl you are
Ahahahaha! You really don't understand how to use punctuation, do you? The truly frightening thing about this sentence is that it is your BEST effort. Omfg. I dread to think what people must think when you write to them. They must know immediately that they are dealing with a bona fide imbecile. ROFLMAO.
Lol. I'd much rather fail at science journalism
🤔 You've achieved that goal easily
than fail at the comprehension of my own native language.
🧐 You also effortlessly mangle the English language every day in an attempt to sound less retarded than you are again failing miserably
I've literally met six year old children with a better understanding of punctuation and grammar than me
On that we agree
🤔 That’s rather rich coming from a wanker like you who cannot spell
Get someone to help you read through this as it might be beyond your “intellectual” level ...🧐
..Skitt’s Law is an Internet axiom which states that people who correct other’s spelling or grammar are likely to commit errors themselves. It is often used as a humorous critique of the pedantic Internet users known as Grammar Nazis. Several similar laws referring to the same principle have arisen independently, but Skitt’s Law is the most prevailing term.😳
Basically thats saying you’re a pedantic prick , I agree 🕺🕺
Well don’t then , I’m sick and tired of constantly posting up links to every stat when it comes to the gun debate as you’re just told by Americans “ your source is biased “ ......
I just posted up another reply to your fellow gun nut with reference to stats
Bullshit buddy so you admit without guns Americans would get tooled up with machetes en masses but it’s not a problem is it ?
Read some real facts from American Health org
Nearly 1,300 children in the United States die from gun-related injuries every year
That makes guns the third leading cause of death for U.S. children, according to a 2017 study in Pediatrics, surpassing the number of childhood deaths from congenital abnormalities, heart disease, flu or pneumonia, respiratory disease, and cerebrovascular causes.
“The shooter playing with a gun was the most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger and older children,” the authors wrote in their study. In addition to the number of children killed, nearly 6,000 are treated for guns
About 50 women a month are shot to death by intimate partners in the U.S.
Everytown for Gun Safety reports this horrific stat, compiled from FBI reports from 2009 to 2013. According to a 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, more than half—54%—of women killed by their partners in the United States are killed with guns.
Gun homicides kill about 13,000 people every year in the United States
That makes America’s gun homicide rate 25 times higher than the average of other global economic leaders, according to a 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine that compared 2010 data from 23 populous, high-income countries. For 15- to 24-year-olds, the U.S. gun homicide rate was 49 times higher than in other countries.
Another finding from that study puts things into even greater perspective: While the U.S. accounts for 46% of the population of these countries, it has 82% of the gun deaths overall—and more than 90% of women, children, and young adult gun deaths. Before this research, the authors note in their paper, the most recent study on this topic was more than a decade old.
Gun deaths and injuries jump 70% in the weeks following (some) nearby gun shows.
More than 4,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States, and gun shows account for 4% to 9% of annual firearm sales. But a 2017 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that when gun shows are held in Nevada, gun-related deaths and injuries increase by 70% in nearby California communities for at least the next two weeks.
54% of U.S. gun owners admit that they do not store their guns safely
“Safely,” in this case, is defined as “in a locked gun safe, cabinet, or case, locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.” Those are the findings of a February study in the American Journal of Public Health based on survey responses from 1,444 U.S. gun owners—believed to be the first nationally representative sample of its kind in 15 years.
Gun owners with children under 18 living at home tended to be more careful with their guns, but 45% still reported not using safe storage techniques. "Household gun ownership can increase the risk of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings in the home,” said lead study author Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, in a press release, “but practicing safe storage for all gun
99.85% of Americans will know a victim of gun violence
Nearly all of us will know someone in our social network who is injured by a gun in our lifetimes, according to a 2016 study in Preventive Medicine, and 84.3% will know someone who dies.
Black people in the U.S. have the highest likelihood of knowing someone who dies from gun violence, at 95.5%. White people have an 85.3% chance, followed by Hispanic people (62.4%) and other racial groups (46.7%).
Of the 30 leading causes of death in the United States, gun violence is the least researched
A 2017 research letter published in JAMA examined federal funding and publication frequency for research into the 30 leading causes of death in the U.S. from 2004 to 2015. In relation to the number of people killed, gun violence was the least researched cause of death and second-to-last (after falls) in the amount of allocated funding. In fact, gun violence received only 1.6% of the funding it should have, compared to other causes of death with similar mortality rates.
That came as no surprise to advocates for more gun research. Two years earlier, House Democrats released a statement decrying the fact that “we dedicate $240 million a year on traffic safety research, more than $233 million a year on food safety, and $331 million a year on the effects of tobacco, but almost nothing on firearms that kill 33,000 Americans annually.”
In order to fully comprehend the threat of gun violence in the United States in 2018, here are five shocking facts.
Three of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history have occurred in the last eight months.
It is more dangerous to be a school student than a deployed service member in 2018. You are twice as likely to be shot dead at school, than in active service.
An American woman is shot dead by her partner every 16 hours.
One in three children live in a home with a gun.
In an average day, 20 American children are shot.
With statistics like that, it’s only a matter of time until we’re covering the next horrific – yet entirely inevitable – mass shooting.
Wonder how many children will be shot today in the U S ?
I said I can pull up thousands of gang violence murders that are done with Machetes.
I never said it was in the U.S.
But you said comparing stats with other countries was ridiculous , except of course when an idiot like you tries to argue otherwise .
So where are the “thousands of machete deaths “ taking place yearly , bet you cannot answer ?
I was stating how gangs in locations that do not have access to guns operate.
Machete gangs ? You really are an idiot , ok name the countries that has machete gangs .....bet you cannot answer ?
If I was your English teacher you'd get a very low score for reading comprehension.
But you wouldn’t even make it into a junior school here such is your level of stupidity......
Regarding your own comprehension your teacher should have told you that’s meant to be were not was you dummy
I can't believe you can literally read and respond to logic and just ignore it.
But you don’t do logic , you make stuff up because of your embarrassment at the appalling gun stats for the U S , now you claim there are thousands of machete deaths in the U S yearly .....
Astonishing.
I agree your ignorance is truly astonishing
Sigh, you miss the point entirely.
Sigh , you still won’t admit a gun is a weapon
Let's say we have 100,000 Homicides a year.
Let's say 70% of these involved a gun. So we have 70,000 Gun Homicides.
Then we waive a magic wand and all guns are gone from Society. And we look at next year.
We have 100,000 Homicides again.
But 0% involve a gun because they no longer exist! How Wonderful we stopped gun violence.
Never-mind that we actually made 0 progress. We can use words in ways that make us sound smart. "We stopped all gun violence in 1 year by eliminating all guns!"
Guns are not the problem.
Guns are a problem especially for Americans , so here’s the deal guns are the problem otherwise they wouldn’t call them gun deaths /accidents ....... Tricky stuff but hey you may work it out yet
If people are committing suicide and you don't like it. Don't take away the gun, find out why they are committing suicide and resolve that.
Ah right you do like it ? Find out why but let them have their guns in the meantime ?
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
If you have constant gang wars, yes that is a problem that needs to be solved, but I can easily pull up thousands of videos of people being hacked to death with Machetes in places where guns are hard to get.
Really , thousands of machete deaths in the U S yearly wow !
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
Well maybe get rid of machetes as well ?
If you have school shootings, taking away the gun does not stop bombings, or stabbings, or help the actual issue that we have people that want to commit such acts.
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
That was my point.
Thank you for confirming you Americans would kill and maim each other’s with just about anything
Weapons are Tools.
Using American speak yes , but the rest of us call guns weapons
I'm also tired of people stating "Gun Deaths" as if these exist on their own.
Who said they exist on their own ? They don’t happen in civilized countries mostly can you guess why ? Because we don’t have guns
you should never compare "Gun Deaths" in one country to another country.
I know because your country is more violent than most
You should compare "Homicides". Who cares what item was used to kill the other person, the bad thing is that a person was murdered.
Well Americans don’t care if you had no guns you would have no gun deaths , why are you not mentioning the 70,000 accidents a year and school shootings?
It is your opinion that we have an embarrassing amount of gun death.
Most non Americans agree with me , it’s your opinion there’s no problem
If you eliminate suicides and gangs we have an incredibly small amount.
If , If ........
As always, control fanatics like you do not care about saving lives, you just want to take our guns.
I know terrible isn’t it “fanatics “ like me think 30,000 to 40,000 gun deaths a year are appalling add on 70,000 odd gun accidents , schools shootings etc, etc, and Americans think it’s something to be proud off , sure idiots like you go to church and console yourself that “ Hey Jesus would have carried a gun “ ....... How are you so fucked in the head ?
Spoken like a true American, yous are the only people who call a gun a “tool “ such is your desperation and embarrassment at the staggering gun death /accident numbers yearly .....
I wonder what you definition of a gun is ? Let me help ......
gun
ɡʌn/Submit
noun
1.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
synonyms: firearm, weapon;
Ouch 🙀
Oh do shut up you idiotic brute , a gun is designed to kill you fucking half - wit a car is designed to transport people , goods etc car deaths are accidental gun deaths are mostly not .
The hilarious thing is you claim to be a “Christian “ and idiots like you actually think if Jesus roamed the earth today he would carry a gun ...... Ignore
This is exactly why I am an ignorant robotic mechanism of stupidity rather than a fully developed human being. Jacque Fresco is demonstrably less intelligent than a pot plant . I would like to see a list of inventions and ideas he ever had about how to change society . For him to be less retarded, no one can show me something good so none of his words might have any merit. But as far as I can see he was a mindless robot promoting the same bullshit system I was programmed to believe in from a young age.
Glad you got that off your chest mate. I totally agree 👌☺️
The whole world has gone fucking crazy as everyone bends over backwards to appear P C correct , what you expierienced is shows how ridiculous it’s gone and you had every right to give as good as you got
What a cowardly shower of bastards snitching on you
Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise.
Yes
That's not the same thing as stating a fact
Yes
. To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective.
My statement regarding a fetus is that it’s a potential human
Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus.
As in your definition and mine may differ but even if I accept your definition most keep missing my point and thus the whole thrust of my argument
If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder.
It’s matters to me that a fetus seems to be given a right as in a right to life which takes precedence over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy , why should that be ?
Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy.
Why do you use the term “ murder “ when applied to a fetus ?
To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well.
Good that signifies you’re open to a dialogue that may be fruitful
If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it)
No , I don’t agree that a pregnancy is violating a woman’s rights nor did I state that , again why the term “ murder “?
. If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed.
“Compelling “ to you no , to me yes , I don’t understand what you mean by “good willed “ as in to who ?
The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters.
Yes , I agree
If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer,
But why would hope for that ? Why is what you define as “ truth “ on the matter the be all and end all ?
or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one.
You see again you seem to be claiming anyone that disagree with your position is “ close minded “ hardly fair is it ?
The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box.
Well at least that is a more balanced observation
Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else?
Ok I’ve read that and I find it not really worth commenting on as it’s just another’s opinion on the matter which fails to address my basic argument which everyone totally ignores in favour of addressing what I’ve repeated ad nauseum........
A fetus is reliant on a mother for sustenance , a fetus has zero rights to sustenance from a woman , a fetus is granted this sustenance by permission of the woman , this permission can be withdrawn at any time
Why do people assume that they can tell a woman she cannot abort and thus deny a woman a right over her own body in favour of an assumed right a fetus should have ?
If a fetus had a right to life why should it’s right supercede that of the woman ?
I did say potential human life and you knew exactly what I meant as your failure to address what I actually said is again typical of you , maybe you should try debating gun rights again as in your swimming pool v gun deaths argument as that argument demonstrates your irrationality beautifully also
I’m always impressed when you make good arguments because I never expect much from you. One cannot expect much from a person who doubts that they experience doubt but is certain that they cannot be certain. I’ll throw this argument in with your growing list of childish, irrational positions.
A typical childish outburst from you who gets into a temper tantrum at the thoughts of women having the right to choice , I dismissed the rest of your gibberish as typical of your usual rants
By this logic, the government has no right to require parents to attend to the needs of their children as this compels parents to do certain things with their body.
What you're basically saying is you couldn't give a damn what I say on the topic , you continuously try to tell me what I'm saying by actually ignoring what I'm saying and re _ stating my case to fit your narritive
I told you and others several times a fetus is where it is by permission which is given by the mother , this permission can be withdrawn at any time , a woman is perfectly entitled to bodily Autonomy/ integrety which is a right you and others feel perfectly acceptable to deny her , why have you a " right " to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ?
Why should any supposed " rights " of a fetus trump those of a woman ?
Your logic would serve to eliminate laws against neglect.
No , that's actually your attempt to re-frame my position and far from logical , your position is you think the denial of a right for a woman is perfectly fair and reasonable
It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it.
So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make , remarkable you cannot just admit your error
A fetus is living.
What do you mean by " living "when does life begin ?
A fetus has human DNA It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you.
There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable.
Abortion being one
I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to simply clearly state that a fetus is a potential human life that it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate
I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill
Let's just for argument's sake say I agreed with this position as you put it I would still say yes abortion is perfectly acceptable even you want to call a fetus a baby as many do , abort away or don't
No , I don’t , I’ve made my position perfectly clear your contention was ,
You claimed I said , .......that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born.....
I asked ....
I’m still asking please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ?
So maybe you can post the proof where I actually said this ?
This implies that a human life is not alive until born
Everything is “ alive “ sperm is alive a flake of dandruff is alive , do you call a fetus a human ?
insofar as you won’t answer my question,
I did answer it as in a fetus is a potential human life and if aborted well it’s no longer “ potential “ is it ?
To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question.
Incorrect , they do not make it a human life as it’s still a potential human life
If you want to say that it is a potential
But then you must articulate what is potential about it.
Is it the DNA or the life?
When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition
If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable
The fetus has zero rights to sustenance from the mother and if you think otherwise , why would you assume this ?
. If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why.
My argument from day one on the issue is simple and plainly put but everyone attempts to re - state it or find a “ gotcha “ so here it is one more time ......
I believe the choice is purely a woman’s and no one else’s I couldn’t give a fuck if she aborts or not , it’s not my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do regarding the issue , her body , her choice
Saying that she simply does is begging the question
I never said that
But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters.
I haven’t avoided it , the answer I gave from the off suffices
Ok , read that last part again as you're still begging the question.....
There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.
Either way I have been through this argument 100's of times on here and do not wish to keep reapeatng myself , I do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body
The Christian answer no doubt is " you're taking the word good out of context one has to understand the Herbrew meaning of the word etc, etc 😴😴😴
The other explanation is possibly that Christians get to guzzle Easter eggs , beer , watch plenty of tv , and laze about all the time trying to convince each other they're " holier "than anyone else
potential life of the unborn?
Yes
That's like telling someone, "You have a potentially long life to live..." just before you blow their brains out ;)
Well no it’s not , that’s why one is deemed murder and the other is not , now which one is deemed murder do you think ?
You could be defending women's rights at the expense of a fetus' life.
Not could be , I am protecting the woman’s rights taking precedence over the potential life of the unborn
Your approach is sensible but its a debate forum and I love to battle
And you’re entitled to it , I’m passionate about women’s rights as in women deciding regarding a choice over what they wish to do with their bodies , it’s because of my background brought up in a Catholic dominated society where women were treated like dogs
Name calling: "abusive language or insults".
Facts regarding your idiocy are well .... facts
I'm simply using your logic, in that you say that because I believed that a fetus was a baby, I must've thought that a baby was a fetus and so on.
Again your re-invention of what was said is part of your genetic idiocy as in an inherited trait
It was a reference to your profile picture.
Oh yes I forgot you’re a young earth creationist
And you don't know how to spell evolution.
Well I do it’s just you’re boring and I thought I might amuse myself by letting you “ pounce “ on a typo ..... bless your little heart
That was you, idiot.
That’s a bit rich coming from a retard like you
No, I'm against people calling evolution a definite fact, at least right now.
Yes I know facts upset you the real truths are in answers in genesis aren’t they
why don't you actually support your claims,
Like I keep doing you mean ?
instead of telling me to research your claim?
I asked you to get a basic education but hey you’re a “ conservative “
Another typical bit of stupidity from you
Yes I know acceptance of fact as in Evolution is stupidity according to young earthers like youn
Funny how everything you can't argue against is "stupidity" or "gibberish".
You really mean funny how easily I de -bunk your bullshit
No, we don't.
So I was right
We have front lawns and backyards
Oh , now you do like all your arguments as in you say one thing and then contradict your own nonsense
, maybe you should escape from your liberal safe space and explore more then your "garden lawn".
Maybe you should leave your trailer and get a job you lazy sod
From the off?
Apologies I forgot you’re a “ conservative “ and terms in common usage are alien to you
My defense is the fetus is alive.
That’s it ?
Now, for your rebuttal?
The fetus is reliant on “ life “ from the mother and either way so what ?
So what
So, you say the fetus isn't alive. How is it not alive if it needs nutrients?
It’s reliant on the mother for life and it gets nutrients from the mother it’s not entitled to
And, if you do think it's alive, what makes abortion different from infanticide? Other then, of course, infanticide occurring after the birth.
Infanticide is the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth you idiot , what do you mean “after birth “ you fool ?
I admit it's immoral to kill a human/potential human. Not whatever you just said.
So now the game is “ whatever you just said “ what a cop out by the work shy “ conservative “ , what I said as well you know if you admit it’s immoral to prevent a like been born but yet you support contraception because you’re a hypocrite
but it's fine to prevent a potential
How is the fetus created if the contraception works?
How is the baby born if the abortion works same principle both are as you admitted preventing a potential life being born .... checkmate again
Here's the line of progression, in case you needed a diagram:
Use of contraception: Saucy stuff > Contraception > Mother doesn't become pregnant > fetus isn't created.
Use of abortion: Saucy stuff > mother becomes pregnant > fetus is created > fetus is aborted; life ended.
Here’s the line of reasoning exposing your hypocrisy again theworkshy said ....it’s immoral to prevent a potential human life to be born but it’s moral to prevent a human life being born by contraception
says Dermot. That's irony.
Yes if you accept your “ alternative narrative “
Abortion = termination of pregnancy
Contraception = prevention of pregnancy
Abortion = Prevention of a potential life being born
Contraception = Prevention of a potential life being born
Can you see your hypocrisy now
I haven't denied anything, except for having denied anything.
You have but its ok you’re a “ conservative “
No, that's just not true. You need arguments based on facts. I don't care about how you feel, I care about the stats to use to prove your arguments.
All my arguments are factual your are appeals to emotion
The individual's woman's?
Surprisingly over here women are individuals
To whom does the woman belong?
What that gibberish means is beyond me
I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal choice on the matter.
Nonsense, the woman’s choice takes precedence you caveman
I'm fine with both of them making a choice, as long as their choices have equal consideration.
No , woman’s choice takes precedence and your opinion is worthless because the law supports the woman’s choice
Both parties should get an equal choice on the matter.
They shouldn’t that’s why they don’t
I didn't say it was.
You did you liar then you changed to manslaughter
no one is charged with murder for aborting
What's your point? A lot of guys aren't charged with rape, that doesn't mean they didn't rape the girl.
But you just admitted it’s not murder you idiot so what do you want them charged with ?
Newsflash .... it’s legal to abort get over it
your government murders people " legally "
The death penalty is legal in several states.
Yes that’s why I mentioned it you fool
no, you aren't.
Oh yes I am
Humanists "emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively" by definition,
I know thanks for the lecture
and when fetuses have the cells needed to define them as humans, you still think it's okay to kill them.
Yes of course like you I believe in the right to prevent a potential life being born you agree as in contraception
Again , saying something is "gibberish" isn't a defense.
I don’t need a “ defence “ I’m merely pointing out your continual posting of gibberish
Then why did you criticize me for using the term "bodily rights"?
I corrected you on useage of terminology you were unaware of
No, it isn't.
Oh yes it is
I'm a conservative, so you're wrong again.
You forgot to mention a workshy conservative
Funny how you bring up Roe v. Wade.
Yes it Hilarious
You know, all nine justices on that court were men
So what ?
. And yet, you say you don't think men should be able to decide the fate of women.
I never said that you liar
Also , did you know that in that case, something called substantive due process was used?
Oh stop it you crybaby
where some rights can't be taken away, even through due process, and that was the reason for the ruling in Roe v. Wade.
This is what happens when Luigi tries to take down an American with our own laws and court cases.
Abortion is legal you crybaby
What gives you bodily integrity?
It’s a basic human right you dunce
I asked you a question, and you didn't answer.
I did several times you dunce
Oh, did I get a promotion?
No , your workshy .... remember ?
Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal.
If something isn’t “ illegal “ that mean it’s legal you idiot , talk about alternative facts
It wasn't illegal for Hitler to conquer Europe,
It was you fucking cabbage under international law
but that didn't make it legal
If something isn’t illegal then it must be legal you clown
What sort of nonsense is this ?
If something is legal it’s not illegal you prize idiot
Says the one calling names on a debate website.
That's not name calling that's merely an apt description of you as in you're an idiot
So, people who disagree with you are fish and fish are people who disagree with you?
I never that , I said you have the intellect of a fish which you've demonstrated yet again with this latest piece of gibberish
Says the man/fish/Darwinist that believes women can kill their children as long as they haven't been born yet.
Man Fish ??? Oh yes I forgot you don't understand Evoultion either and now a fetus is a child , you are getting desperate aren't you ?
Where do you get that anti-abortion advocates do this?
you are anti abortion , are you ?
What are you babbling on about ?
Yes, I'm anti-abortion. I'm also anti-Dermot, but that's irrelevant.
You're anti Evolution also so you're consistent in your stupidity
Since you say a baby is different from a fetus biologically, what cells change?
Why not consult a medical textbook ?
Well not my own.
Yes I know
I use your logic.
As in me denying Evolution is fact. , interesting
You're right, I shouldn't be given credit for your faulty logic.
Another typical bit of stupidity from you
What's a garden lawn?
Oh I forgot you don't have them in trailer parks
Also, this doesn't seem to be helping your argument.
The argument is over from the off you've yet to offer a defence
Potential human. It's living. Otherwise, why would it need to rely on the mother for nutrients?
So what ?
No, I admit it's immoral to kill a potential human that also happens to be your child,
Yes you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human being born ,but it's fine to prevent a potential human being born by using contraception , you're a two faced hypocrite
but I'm pro-contraception.
Yes you're pro abortion
Where have I lied?
Denial now as well , you agreed when I originally corrected you by stating " A potential human " then denied you agreed now to agree agsin making you a liar
How's that? Your only consistent argument is "Her body , her choice".
That's the only argument needed ,
What gives you that choice?
It's not my choice it's the individual's woman's choice , I don't care either way abort or don't , your body your choice
There's no law or amendment giving women "bodily rights", so where do they get them from?
Your ignorance is appalling why not do a bit of research into Roe V Wade in your own country and see what the findings were , you truly are an idiot
Bodily integrity you idiot
Why aren't their choices equal?
It's not his body
Yes, the baby is in the mother, but the baby wouldn't be there without the father.
Amazing , thank you for that
Where do you get this from? You continue to say "Her body, her choice" but the baby isn't solely hers.
So you're saying the man should have a choice but why should his. choice be given equal consideration ?
So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion?
???
You seem to want the man to have a choice but only if it's anti abortion
No one gets the choice to murder legally.
It's not murder you clown and no one is charged with murder for aborting so your stupidity is exposed again , and another correction your government murders people " legally " in prisons and bombing campaigns
You're a liberal.
I'm a humanist you fool
It's only babbling to you because you can't comprehend the words I'm typing.
Incorrect , I cannot comprehend the gibberish you type
Then why have you called it bodily rights in the past?
Same thing you idiot
You act like the terms are interchangeable,
They are you idiot
like sex and gender.
No , that's merely your obsession and Americans in general with gender don't you guys invent a new gender every day ?
I don't need to do research, you're providing me with all the information I need.
I know as in Roe v Wade you're another dense American who gets schooled in American law by a European
I've looked it up, and I still don't understand where they get "bodily integrity" from.
I know your stupidity isn't helping you is it ?
It's not given as a right by the United States government, and ethicality is not a replacement for the law.
But abortion is legal in the states you prize clown as your courts and legislators agree with me as in there is no accepted consensus on when life begins making me right again
If it were, abortion would be illegal.
Prove it
Pro-choice = Pro-abortion, idiot.
Pro choice , idiot
You argued that the facts of Evution may be incorrect like you do on most facts as in above until corrected by your superiors as in me
Trump would most possibly get the shit beaten out of him in the first round , the towel would get thrown in but this would immediately turn into a “ super “ light footed display of boxing brilliance by the Trumpster
The alternative facts of the fight would be tweeted by sycophantic fans , lackies and good old Trumpster himself and everyone presented with strawberry cheesecake and mini American flags
I would argue a fetus ( and even a fertilized egg ) is a human life
Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.
It's not a potential human, it is a human.
It’s not , you’ve already admitted as much you idiot in your last post
Here you go ... ..It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making
Fair point.
Your exact words when I said it was a potential human in the making , so why are you lying ?
Already. Women can't give birth to fish.
I’m starting to doubt that as you’re displaying the intellect of a fish
I'm fully aware of your immorality.
You’re a judgemental hypocrite
Where's your evidence?
So you’re now asking me for evidence of what you claim , you are anti abortion are you ?
Also, what makes a fetus' cells different from a newborn's cells?
What this is meant to be getting at I’ve no idea
There was no jump to begin with.
Yes you don’t do logic , my mistake for giving you credit you’re not due
No, you simply don't enjoy it when others use your view and put into any other circumstance.
You mean like your ridiculous garden lawn argument ?
Let me ask, how is it different? Killing an adult and killing a baby?
But a fetus is not a baby it’s a potential life in the making you agreed with this already
How is it that you admit it’s immoral to prevent a potential human to be born yet hypocritically defend abortion which does exactly this ?
I don't assume they're correct because I say they are,
You do until corrected then you resort to lying like your first post on this thread or failing that hypocrisy as in your defence of contraception
It doesn't upset me, but I wish you'd make an argument excluding feelings.
But I’ve destroyed every one of your “ arguments “ so now you’re lying in an attempt to save face
What?
Woman’s body , woman’s choice
And why's that? If not for him, how did the baby get there in the first place?
I said he gets a choice but the woman’s choice takes precedence
No, it's not right.
So you don’t care if the man wishes to abort but you do if it’s the woman ?
See, this is gibberish. What are you saying?
I just told you read above
Then let him make that choice.
So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion?
I can't tell anyone what to do,
But yet people like you if they could would deny them a choice
and neither can you.
That’s why I don’t , I leave it up to the individual woman
Back to being petty, are we?
No , just correcting you again
Well, in that case, what about the 63 other genders some of your liberal friends propose exist ?
My “ liberal friends “ what are you talking about you idiot ?
so she wouldn't be making the choice in the first place.
What are you babbling about ?
Let me ask you this: Who/what gives you "bodily rights"?
It’s actually called bodily integrity why not do some research instead of just shooting your fool mouth off ?
Certainly not the government, there isn't an abortion section of the First Amendment.
Your stupidity is spectacular bodily integrity look it up
, where does she get her bodily rights from?
As above
You stand for abortion, so you clearly aren't being fair to the human you're killing.
I stand for choice so you’re wrong yet again
I can't read the rest of your argument, which is most likely due to you placing your asterisks incorrectly and not proof-reading. I'll be glad to address those when you fix it.
Because to site crashed earlier and I never had the chance to check , anyway it was only me having a laugh at your “ Evolution is not a fact nonsense “ on the other thread
