Dermot's Waterfall
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
So you would allow a woman to kill a human being that relies on her?
You mean a potential human in the making ?
Yes I would allow her to abort is this not clear to you yet ?
. Anti-abortion advocates make the jump from these cells being capable of later on forming a person to the conclusion that these cells are the equivalent of a person. I fail to see how that jump in logic is valid.
Let's take away all factors, except for that their's a human and the woman wants to kill it.
What you mean is “ let’s insert your particular view”” and attempt to force the issue
Is that not murder/manslaughter?
No , it’s merely you asserting it is and being wrong again , why is a woman not jailed for this “crime “ if that’s not the case ?
You make statements that are incorrect and assume they’re correct because you say so , why’s that ?
Why?
Her body , her choice
Excluding "her body, her choice",
Why does that upset you ?
because that response is based on nothing other than the response itself.
What a bizarre statement the response explains perfectly the woman’s position in the matters
What about the father?
What about him ?
Doesn't he get a say?
He does but his wishes are secondary to the woman’s , also I bet he only gets a say if he’s anti abortion isn’t that right ?
Or do you believe he also can only make 1 choice ?
What if he doesn't want an abortion?
What if he does ?
It's his son too,
Potential son /daughter actually
and the mother wouldn't be a mother if not for him.
So what ?
When did I say women shouldn't have any rights over their bodies?
Well you wish to deny the woman a right to abort so that’s a denial of her bodily rights ,are you now denying this ?
I’ve yet to “ get angry “ I’m amused actually , so tell me is this projection on your part ?
You get angry
And that makes you immoral,
Incorrect , I’m perfectly will to allow a woman to carry a child to pregnancy or abort making me a paragon of fairness and morality
saying women can kill their children
It’s children now , no longer a “ fetus “ or even a “baby “ your appeal to emotion is “ touching “ but Victorian melodrama does not work with me
without input from the father.
Again what if the father wants to abort is that “ input “ equally valid ?
Nothing, other than the law considering with abortion you're still killing a potential human.
The law does not say that and if your killing a human being why aren’t you jailed for it ?
But I see at last you agree with me as you’re now also saying “ a potential human “
So it’s not “ children “ or “babies “ anymore but a “ potential human “
By contraception you mean things like birth control pills, correct?
Well done Sherlock
We'll assume that's the focus here.
The giveaway was in the term “ contraception “
Contraception is different than abortion
Quiet similar actually as both are preventative measures
because it stops the potential life from existing in the first place
Exactly what abortion does as in stops a potential life from existing
. In other words, the fetus doesn't exist.
Because you’ve prevented it existing like abortion
With abortion, you're ending the fetus' life.
You’re preventing it from being born the exact function of contraception, making you a ......hypocrite
No, I actually encourage contraception for teens and those who think they don't have the money to raise a child, the same goes for adoption.
So you encourage the prevention of a birth because teens and others may not have the money to raise a child , so if a teen gets pregnant why not encourage abortion or does your hypocrisy not allow this either
No, I'm against terminating a life.
But you’re for preventing a potential child life
No, I'm pro-contraception.
Yes your hypocrisy noted
It is, read this
fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/Submit
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby
Nonsense
A fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken
Tell that to Mississippi*
I did say “ primitive “ Mississippi “ and it’s inhabitants are not exactly renowned for being “ intellectual powerhouses “ are they ?
Are you a native ?
I ask this because of your views also on Evolution , it is a typical knee jerk Bible Belt retort by American religious nuts to the Evolution is fact statement , this seems to drive a fair amount of mainly Americans insane while the rest of the world know it as fact
A fetus is an unborn human being. Let's get that straight.
It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making , don’t take my word on it consult a medical text
Even if I allow for your assertion that its a “ human being “ so what ?
Yes, I do. I use your reasoning.
Another typically childish response
So, because it's inside another human being, that human being has zero rights?
Correct
and it's a woman's choice whether to abort or not
Again correct
Why does she get to choose whether or not to kill another human being?
Her body , her choice
You've yet to answer.
I keep telling you but for some reason you fail to complain smile statement , let’s try for to 50 th time ...... ready .....listen
Her body, her choice
What gives her the right, other than your faulty logic?
My logic is fine your being childish yet again , so you’re saying a woman should have no rights over her body , that makes you a bully and a tyrant
you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset
Will I repeat it again for the 51st time ?
What question did you ask? Restate the question and I'll answer it.
I asked you several questions most which you avoided by remaining mute , let’s try one of them again as in ......
What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body regarding abortion ?
should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not
No.
But contraception is used to prevent a life being born so you disagree with contraception ?
Tripped up on your own logic again , you’ve admitted you’re against preventing a life to be born so therefore to be consistent you have to be against contraception , well ?
The fetus is a human it’s not go consult wiki
and a living human at that.
It’s alive but not as yet a human
I've answered your question,
You avoided mind
now answer mine
I have several times
Again, because I think that abortion is manslaughter
Merely your opinion based on your own view of the situation and thankfully lawmakers and legislators disagree with your primitive viewpoint
and more often than not abortions are impulsive.
What do you base that ridiculous reply on ?
You are
I don’t even know what this is meant to mean at this stage
Well you don't know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby
Considering you spent the whole thread saying a fetus was a baby at last you’re starting to get it that a fetus is not a “ baby “ ,
Why you’re blaming me for what you have only eventually grasped is beyond me .
So when you use your logic to fit your narrative, it's cool, but then somehow it doesn't work when I use the same reasoning to fit my narrative?
You don’t use “ reasoning “ I’ve said from the start a fetus has zero rights to sustenance or useage of a womans body and it’s a woman’s choice whether to abort or not , you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset as you continue to do a ridiculous dance around terms , why’s that ?
Let’s cut to the chase in an attempt to avoid your childish attempts to avoid actually answering what I keep asking , should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not , if not why not ?
Would you like me to use a different argument? Fine. Let me set the scene:
You're a slaveowner. Your slaves try to revolt. You kill some of them because they're on your land and rely on you to survive, so it's your choice on whether or not to kill them. Doesn't that seem immoral?
Why theses ridiculous analogies ? Is this another avoidance tactic by you ?
Why do you assume you have the right to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ?
And yet you fail to realize your own...
What a “ superb “ reply
It is
It's not
more false logic from Dermot.
You do not understand the first thing about logic
I'm not.
You are
intellect is above the bar for normality, but not by very much.
With this I agree
No "dumbing down" required, just a bit of sense from your side.
Well you don’t know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby so blaming me on your stupidity is hardly fair
It’s only faultless when it works in your favour
Which is relatively easy when used against your “ arguments “
I’m pretty self aware , though I can’t say the same for you considering the “ arguments you’ve typed so far
Maybe I need a “ front lawn “ argument as common sense eludes you
How’m I the clown
There’s that lack of self awareness again
Your last statement is nonsense and void of implication .... what a surprise
And you say I'm petty?
Yes and pedantic also
A fetus is a human clump of cells with human features.
A fetus is a clump of cells ...... yes
I'd say it's a pretty good analogy,
It's not but if it makes you feel good that's fine
I'm not babbling,
You are
unless you consider arguing like a normal person
If your intellect is the bar for normality , I will attempt to dumb it down for you
I'm also not saying any gibberish unless you consider your own logic gibberish.
No I consider your babble gibberish , my logic is faultless
Also, how'm I the clown?
Self awareness is not one of your strengths is it ?
Also what's how'm mean ?
You're the one running in circles.
Yes , attempting to flee your front lawn gibberish
How is a fetus not a baby?
So a baby is now a fetus and every new baby you see you call a fetus , interesting
An unborn baby is still a baby.
So there's no such thing as a fetus now ?
Maybe a dog fetus isn't a human, but a human fetus is a human.
So you go around calling fellow humans a fetus
That's on you, Derm *^
Says you the pedant
You said "defending your attacks. Why would you defend my attacks?
You're making no sense again
I have been this whole argument.
No , you're still not
I meant strict.
I know just pointing it out as I know how important it is to you
Because abortion isn't legally defined as murder as of 2018.
Yes , so a woman who aborts is not as you falsely claim a murderer
I didn't say you said it, I said what your logic entails.
No , that's what your faulty " reasoning " assumes
But I don't,
You do and I'm not the first to point it out
I'm copying your logic.
You're not and you need to stop stating you use logic when the concept is alien to you
So, an unborn baby is a nonhuman clump of cells? This makes no sense.
A fetus is a clump of cells , yes a lot of things make no sense to you it seems , maybe if you run off and get your " book "and crayons we can draw you a couple of diagrams ?
Analogy, Derm
Poor Analogy at that
I accept different points of view from people who actually argue instead of spewing the same 3 sentences.
Says the clown who keeps babbling on about front lawns and contradicting his own gibberish
There is no difference, a fetus = a baby.
Incorrect
An unborn baby, at that, but a baby nonetheless.
A clump of cells
Are you not a clump of cells?
I'm a human being and all that entails a fetus is not
I have a problem with your hypocritical statements, but that's it.
Back to insults I see , back that statement up or withdraw it
But I'm making perfect sense.
Yes! You finally realised
Back to being pedantic , oh dear
Why would you defend my attacks
What the hell are you talking about ?
The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".
Yes you should try it some time
I'm using your reasoning
You're not , you're using your faulty reasoning to force a point
assessed according to strick principles of validity to prove my point.
What does the term strick mean ?
And I'm saying that one, abortion is murder
It's not , why then are women who abort not doing life for murder?
and two, that it's okay for you to do anything to anyone on anything you own.
I never said that so stop telling me what I didn't say
It also fits your logic.
It doesn't , you need to work on your logic
Oh dear you just denied you said it
I didn't deny I said it, I denied that you said it. I know I said it.
They're both humans.
They're not unless one attributes new meanings to the term fetus and human
Do my rights as an adult Trump those of a child
No
That's because a fetus is not a child
I'm just saying the fetus shouldn't be treated the same as an inmate would be.
I know what you're saying , I disagree , in your world do you not accept different points of view ?
So, why does the fetus have zero rights "regarding usage of the woman's body"
The woman's rights should always trump any rights real or imagined the fetus actually has
^As you said, it takes two to make a fetus
Don't tell me you disagree with that statement as well ?
so if they took the risk,
Yes unprotected sex is a risk
why doesn't the fetus have any rights?*
As I stated it's a woman's individual choice not mine if she wishes to carry to term fine , if she wants to abort fine as that's her choice not mine or yours
How is that? How did two humans make a non-human?
A fetus
How do you not know the difference between a fetus and a viable baby ?
A human fetus, correct?
A clump of cells
I didn't say a human is a fetus
You did , read above
. Actually, I didn't even say anything about a fetus being a human.
You did read above
But I did comprehend the statement.
You keep saying things then denying you said them as in above , which you will now deny saying no doubt
Also, you are still insulting me.
My rule on here is if you throw the first insult you will get it back , if you play fair so will I
I don't have a problem with it, but it seems hypocritical.
Because it is
But you do have a problem with it otherwise why bring it up ?
Try using Grammarly to prove my point.
You're making no sense
and neither is yours.
It is
1, you still need to work on it.
Stop being pedantic
2, stop being petty, please.
As in pointing out I missed .... spaces , irony or what
It doesn't help your argument.
It's me merely defending your attacks , my argument is sound
By that logic, it's fine to kill anyone on my property because it's my property, my choice.
Again you're using the opposite of logic to attempt to force your point ,
According to your logic, it's fine to kill anything on your property.
I never said that , what I'm saying is it's sbsolutely fine for a woman to abort
I called your opinion on the matter as such
Right, but my opinion is still an opinion about abortion.
We have different opinions yes
it's your exact logic
It's not , your term " exact " is amusing to say the least
. insert noun 1's insert noun 2, insert noun 1's choice.
Still being petty are you ?
No, I meant what I said.
I know it fits your narrative
No one mentioned morality.
Really why are you saying you brought into the discussion then as in .......
I brought it into the discussion.
Oh dear you just denied you said it , no doubt you will deny this
Now is it human or is it not human?
Non human , unless in your world a human is a fetus , well is it ?
If not, what is it?
A fetus , this seems very difficult for you to grasp, why’s that ?
No, actually, you were the one to start the insults when you said "do you not know what that means ?".
That was not an insult as it was merely pointing out your failure to comprehend a simple statement , your incomprehension informed my opinion
As for your grammar, I don't know how you can call yours perfect,
Because it is
regarding the fact
Your “ opinion “ is not factual
you insert spaces before and after commas, question marks,
Get the space police .....quickly
and exclamation marks.
I never use them
You said her body, her choice,
Yes I did
proving my point
Ehhh no
that according to you, it's fine to kill anything on your property.
I never said that , stop lying
First, do you mean puerile?
I did , but I decided to test your pedantry
Second, I wouldn't call any talk about abortion childish.
I didn’t , I called your opinion on the matter as such
No,
Yes
it's your exact logic
It’s not
put into a different circumstance.
You mean to fit your narrative
See how it's now immoral?
Who mentioned immortal except you ? Are you on a different topic ?
Right, I know what you said. But you aren't answering my question. Is it or is it not alive?
Of course it’s alive
do you not know what that means ?
Ah , now you’re resorting to insult I see , my logic is sound you’re the one who does not know what unborn means , regarding grammar yours definitely leaves room for .... vast improvement
think you just proved my point.
You’ve yet to make one
According to you,
No higher authority needed
it's a fine comparison.
It’s not , it’s typically pureile nonsense from you
their land their choice
Their land, their choice.
More puerile nonsense from you
So is it not alive?
I said it's unborn do you not know what that means ?
If so, why does a woman get to kill a living thing just because it's inside her?
Her body , her choice
That's like saying you get to kill any children that are on your lawn.
No it's not , that's a ridiculous comparison
Tell me in law where that " special right " isn't.
Oh ok , you’ve invented new rights that are called special rights that are applicable to a fetus ?
I’m not saying she doesn't have a choice, but I have the right to call her a murderer.
Well yes you would say that but she’s still not a murederer except in your mind
A baby's been born and a fetus hasn't
Yes a fetus is still in a woman’s body , what’s your point ?
.
Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born
Correct
So what gives the baby the right to live?
It’s now a separate entity and granted human rights like the rest of us , do you really not know this ?
If a woman chooses to take the risk of having a child, the fetus has "the special right".
Really ? Really tell me in law where that “ special right “ is ?
What parents
You haven’t parents ? Interesting
They took the risk, they should live with the consequences.
They had sex got pregnant their body their choice , why should a woman carry a fetus to term her choice not yours
How's a baby a separate entity but a fetus isn't?
I think you really need to look up the difference in a dictionary because you don’t seem to think there’s any difference
How about you try letting it be born?
I couldn’t care less either way have the child or abort it’s the woman’s choice not mine
Is there something that gives the baby the right to have been born that the fetus doesn't have?
Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born
Why doesn't it have the right?
Does anyone have the right to life and sustenance from your body ? why should a fetus have this “ special right “ ?
You said it isn't a parasite,
Yes I said that
so why doesn't it have the right to live there while I live in my home?
You’ve been granted that right by your parents , why should a woman who wants an abortion be told what to do by a stranger like you ?
What gives you the right to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do with her body ?
A baby as a separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not
Why's that?
Because it’s a separate entity
Does being born give you those rights?
Yes
Well, you said I was incorrect by saying babies rely on their mothers' bodies.
I said a fetus relies on its mother’s body for sustenance over which it has no right it also “ resides “ in the mother’s body which it has no rights to either
Can babies feed themselves? Can babies dress themselves? Change themselves?
A baby as separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not
Well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same words
Thank you for agreeing ...... at last
, but the only differences between a fetus and a baby are 1, a baby has been/is being born while a fetus is unborn and 2, a fetus is typically smaller than a baby.
I know you just agreed there’s a difference after saying the opposite
I can,
But yet you didn’t
but I didn't see the need to since you didn't either, when you said "Incorrect".
I did , I said a fetus was reliant on a mother’s body , you said a baby was also , making you incorrect yet again
Ok , leave textbooks out and maybe consult a dictionary or your nearest medic for clarification
You did say A fetus is still a separate entity
That’s absolute nonsense and you know it
Ok , so you don’t see the difference between the terms fetus and baby why’s that ?
I know the definition of a fetus do you know the definition of a baby ?
Incorrect ? But you cannot Back your objection up
I’m not using books to help my points I’m pointing out what you’re blissfully unaware of medically ,the rest of your point makes no sense at all
They aren’t different
They are thus the terms fetus and baby
A baby is a fetus, a fetus is a baby
Read above
. Size doesn't matter here.
Ok , so is an adult a fetus and if not why not ?
A newborn is reliant on a mother
I know but it’s not reliant on her body to live
Again, a newborn is reliant on a woman
I know it’s also in most cases reliant on a man as well
and by extension their body) as well.
Incorrect
And yet again, yes, a fetus is separate to a mother.
Medical textbooks disagree with your assessment as do I
They are different if not what are you arguing about ?
Regarding a baby it’s not reliant on a woman’s body to have life is it ?
A fetus if it was a “ separate entity “ then how come it’s reliant on a woman’s body ?
I never used the term “ parasite “ did I ? Yet again a fetus is not separate to a mother
So it's magically not okay to kill as it's being born?
What are you talking about ?
How's that?
???
Babies are reliant on the mother until they aren't infants, and they still have no right over her or her body,
Yes a baby has no right over a woman’s body as it’s now a separate entity
so why isn't it okay to kill a newborn?
Read above
Yes I do ; nearly every day one hears yet another account from the U S about how unfairly blacks are treated and the accounts always come from some group with a vested interest in constantly pushing this agenda ; any attempted debate on the topic leaves one open to the lame knee jerk reaction of being branded a racist
Recently I watched a very intersting documentary which clearly showed that worldwide universities and colleges are the ones who push the whole over the top P C bullshit which discourages debate of any sort on these controversial topics , it’s the new form of censorship of which I will not be a part off
Hi Marcus , neither do I , they're merely a demonstration of the typical names used in name calling in this particular case .
Offence is not given but taken , agreed , but many blacks do in fact find these terms deeply offensive .
When I was a kid we had Golliwogs and my parents used to watch the black and white minstrel show , one never saw a black man or women in Ireland unless it was a tourist ; Dubliners used to joke about the late Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy fame being the only black man in Ireland
This is so true we are the bestest name callers ever , here ya go courtesy of Wiki ....... 🙀🙀🙀
Af
(Rhodesia) African to a white Rhodesian (Rhodie).[1]
Ape
(U.S.) a black person.[2]
Béni-oui-oui
Mostly used during the French colonization of Algeria as a derogatory term to describe Algerian Muslims.[3]
Bluegum
An offensive slur used by some United States white Southerners for an African-American perceived as being lazy and who refuses to work.[4]
Boogie
a black person (film noire) "The boogies lowered the boom on Beaver Canal".[5]
Buck
a black person, also used to describe Native Americans.
Buffie
a black person.[6]
Burrhead / Burr-head / Burr head
(U.S.) a black person (referencing stereotypical hair type).[7]
Colored
(U.S.) a Black person. Once generally accepted as inoffensive, this word is now considered disrespectful by some. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People continues to use its full name unapologetically. Some black Americans have reclaimed this word and softened it in the expression "a person of color".
Coon
(U.S. & U.K) a black person. Possibly from Portuguese barracoos, a building constructed to hold slaves for sale. (1837).[8]
Crow
a black person,[9] spec. a black woman.
Eggplant
(U.S.) A black person. Notable for appearing in the 1979 film, The Jerk.[10]
Fuzzies
(U.K.) A black person. In the 1964 film classic, "Zulu", the British officer played by Michael Caine refers to the Zulus as "fuzzies".[11]
Gable
a black person.[6]
Golliwogg
(UK Commonwealth) a dark-skinned person, after Florence Kate Upton's children's book character [12]
Jigaboo, jiggabo, jijjiboo, zigabo, jig, jigg, jiggy, jigga
(U.S. & UK) a black person (JB) with stereotypical black features (dark skin, wide nose, etc.) Used to refer to mannerisms that resemble dancing.
Jim Crow
(U.S.) a black person; also the name for the segregation laws prevalent in much of the United States until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.[13]
Jim Fish
(South Africa) a black person[14]
Jungle bunny
(US and UK) a black person.[15]
Kaffir, kaffer, kaffir, kafir, kaffre
(South Africa) a. a black person. Considered very offensive.
Macaca, same as "macaque"
a person of black African descent, originally used in languages of colonial powers in Africa[16]
Mammy
Domestic servant of black African descent, generally good-natured, often overweight, and loud.[17]
Monkey
a person of black African descent.[16] See also Macaca (slur). It also gave rise to the racist "monkey chants" in sports.
Mosshead
a black person.[6]
Munt
(among whites in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia) a black person from muntu, the singular of Bantu[18]
Nig-nog
(UK & U.S.) a black person.[19]
Nigger / nigra / nigga / niggah / nigguh
(U.S., UK) An offensive term for a black person. From the word negro which means the color black in numerous languages. Diminutive appellations include "Nigg" and "Nigz". Over time, the terms "Nigga" and "Niggaz" (plural) have come to be frequently used between some African-Americans without the negative associations of "Nigger".
Niglet / nigglet
a black child
Nigra / negra / niggra / nigrah / nigruh
(U.S.) offensive for a black person [first used in the early 1900s][20]
Pickaninny
a term – generally considered derogatory – that in English usage refers to black children, or a caricature of them which is widely considered racist.
Porch monkey
a black person,[21]
Powder burn
a black person.[6]
Quashie
a black person.[6]
Sambo
(U.S.) a derogatory term for an African American, Black, or sometimes a South Asian person.[17][22]
Smoked Irish / smoked Irishman
(U.S.) 19th century term for Blacks (intended to insult both Blacks and Irish).[6]
Sooty
a black person [originated in the U.S. in the 1950s][23]
Spade
A black person.[24] recorded since 1928 (OED), from the playing cards suit.
Spook
a black person.
Tar baby
(UK; U.S.; and N.Z.) a black child.[25]
Teapot
(British) a black person. [1800s][26]
Thicklips
a black person
