arming them with guns

No one wants kids to get shot, and no one is arming depressed 15-year-olds while knowing what they'd do with the weapons.

irrelevant

No, not if you're saying that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result in fewer gun murders. Gangs will always be able to obtain firearms one way or another, so those numbers wouldn't fluctuate just by repealing the 2nd Amendment.

from all the guns

Who's going to take the gun from the maniac shooting up his school? A security guard with pepper spray and a walkie-talkie?

In Britain

Yes, your gun laws are extremely strict. I understand. Now, would you like to comment on the rampant knife crime and acid attacks?

school children

I never said you should give guns to kids. You said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

automatic weapons

You're not able to legally own an automatic weapon without a gun license that is very* difficult to obtain.

little old ladies and pre-pubescent school children

I never said any of that. Where did you get this?

taking the gun away

And how would you take away a gun from a "gun-wielding maniac"?

which isn't selling guns

Legality would only harm the ability of good Samaritans to protect themselves from gang members and other criminals who own guns illegally.

bad guys don't have guns

Unless they buy guns illegally. That's a bit of a spanner in the works.

fucking retarded

Good word choice in a debate in which I'm attempting to be civil.

fallacious NRA bullshit

I don't believe I've read anything from the NRA in my life.

if indeed you even do

Good to know that when you've run out of arguments, you resort to insulting your opponent.

stop kids gettings shot

If a kid really wants to kill his classmates, he's going to do it regardless of restrictions. And, when that kid obtains a gun, legally or otherwise, and shoots up his school, who's going to take him down if no citizen can legally own a gun? I hope you see what I'm getting at.

makes you a hypocrite

I didn't belive I needed to make that clear, as I assumed both people knew that already. So, no, I'm not a hypocrite.

yes they did

Not without the help of German scientists. And the Americans also didn't get into space all by themselves. I said that.

beat you into space

But America won the Space Race, for one, and also, I never tried to assert that they didn't. I simply pointed out that communism made no contributions.

comprehension issue

He used the fact that Russians made it to space first as a point for why communism works.

mean anything

Not better at, better than. Words can be used in different contexts. America is the best country compared to other countries for the most part. There are some things that other countries do better, but it's never a large list.

global standard of living index

First off, the article you linked goes by the level of social progress made by each country. That doesn't make it invalid, but I wouldn't say that social progress means a good standard of living. I feel like that would be more associated with quality of living, but I'm not an expert in the field. Second, Finland and Denmark are also countries that have some of the highest personal income tax rates in the world.

Finland - 51.60

Denmark - 55.80

For context, Denmark's average personal income is $28,950 and Finland's is $29,374. So, as an average citizen of either of those countries, you're giving the government half of what you're earning for publically-funded healthcare among other things. I wouldn't say those two countries are better places to live than the United States, personally.

got to the Moon.

I'm not suggesting that the Americans got into space all by themselves, either. I was pointing out that the Russians didn't get into space first all by themselves as the other guy said.

questions whether capitalism has been responsible for any of America's achievements

I doubt very seriously that capitalism has helped America achieve anything that it has. I'm not saying that America got to the Moon first because of capitalism. I'm disproving the other guy's claim that communism helped the Russians get the first man into space.

judging other nations for faults which your own is equally, if not more guilty of

Yes, I judge other nations for their shortcomings just as I judge my own country of its shortcomings. If you can show me one country better than the United States, go ahead. I doubt you'll find one.

like Kennedy and Johnson

Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon among others wanted to end the war in Vietnam, not continue it. They wanted to stop fighting communism by extent. Also, of course they hated commies. Everyone did, and a lot of people still do.

liberal capitalist party

The Democratic party is a political party with views on the left side of the political spectrum. Communism and socialism are both ideals on the left side of the political spectrum. The Democratic party is, for the most part, what is pushing for universal healthcare. Also, if you look at the 2016 presidential election, you'll find that Bernie Sanders (noted Democratic Socialist) moved to the Democratic party with all of his Bernie bros because he knew that running as an independent wouldn't do him any favors.

further right than Hitler

Wouldn't Hitler be considered alt-Right? Also, Hitler was a part of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialism is a less extreme version of communism, which is a leftist ideology.

As did the US in 2007

The United States has never collapsed in its history. We've had economic depressions, but we've pulled through every time. Unless of course, you want to count restructuring the country by taking out the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with the Constitution. That, I can get behind.

worked for 70 years

It worked exactly how it was supposed to work if how it was meant to work was to make everyone poor and create massive food shortages.

invented satellite technology

With the help of German scientists. Also, communism is not the reason for the USSR getting the first man into space.

Batman

I'd rather you answer my question than you be a smartass, but do whatever works for you I suppose.

which

I couldn't care less about semantics.

neo-Nazi bullshit

By Democrats, he's referencing leftist "democratic" socialists. Not all Democrats are commies, but there are many.

you didn't defeat Communism

You're right, the U.S. didn't defeat communism. The USSR collapsed in on itself because of terrible leadership. That doesn't mean that communism works, if that's what you're saying.

by your own system

What system are you referencing here?

Saying "we should add a EULA to gun purchases" is like saying "we should outlaw crime".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent doesn't matter when one is much more deadly than the other.

There's no point in implementing pointless policies. The agreement wouldn't matter in the first place.

When you provide statistics, it's your job to source those claims. It isn't my job to search around to source your claims.

No one that you think hates Jews actually hates Jews. They just hate the fact that you keep on bringing up the fact that you're a self-proclaimed Jewish warrior.

HATE Jews

I don't hate Jews, I just said it would be a good idea to take a couple of other tests to solidify your Jew-ness. If you don't, you're just proving their point to them.

Weapons in general are murder weapons. Forks can kill, but they're legal. Why is that?

Right, so when America's military starts fighting who it's supposed to protect, civilians won't even have to defend themselves.

liberal definition

I have no clue what the liberal definition is. Please elaborate.

Agreements are worthless when people will disobey them regardless. You act like everyone wants to kill someone and we need to put into place laws preventing them from doing so. Fact of the matter is that normal, everyday people don't want to murder their wife and kids.

Where did you get any of these numbers? You haven't sourced anything.

The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements, which may borrow elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, anti-communism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, antisemitism, up to initiating the Fourth Reich.

See that? Borrowing elements from Nazi doctrine. Neo-Nazism seeks to revive aspects of Nazi Germany, not everything about it.

disproved

By what? I suggest that excon gets two more DNA tests to completely prove he's Jewish, if he is.

I don't think it's fake. I don't see why a testing lab would fake a DNA test at all, honestly.

I worded myself wrong. I mean that by being against the 2nd Amendment, you are against the human right to self-preservation granted by the Second Amendment.

about it

Sorry, I forgot that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Good point

The mere fact that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment is enough evidence for myself to prove that you are anti-Constitution and anti-America.

science denied and Jew hater

Are you a religious Jew or an ethnic Jew? Either way, him disagreeing with you doesn't mean that he denies science or hates Jews. Also, how is he a science denier?

I'd very much like to see your DNA test.

I'm a Jewish warrior

No, you're a regular person if not a tiny bit insane. I wouldn't be surprised if you went to jail for 13 assault charges. You have a right to your opinion, and so do neo-Nazis.

It literally says "neo-Nazi" in the link.

------------------------------------------

not Trump voters

Nazi regalia

Nazis died out in the 1940s, and the people who were formerly Nazis are in their 90s and don't hold the same ideals they did back then. You're looking for the term "neo-Nazi".

preventable

And how would you prevent those thirty thousand gun deaths? By the way, most of those are suicides by people who were able to legally obtain the firearm they used.

You haven't kicked any "right wing ass" on this website, and I doubt you have the balls to assault someone wearing a MAGA hat in public.

But I thought you were talking about lowering the murder rate?

--

It seems, Joe, that you're living in a fantasy world. Guns aren't the only thing used in murders, for one, so I doubt that it would drop as significantly as you think. If it dropped at all, that is. Second, how are license agreement violation charges going to dissuade people from killing each other?

Truth is objective, and there's one type: verified truth.

Being verifiable has nothing to do with it. There are truths, which are verified. That's it.

What's your point? Free will exists, doesn't it?

----------------------------------------------------

Yes, but not 36,000 points made over a sports career. 36,000 points on a low-traffic debate website. Again, I wouldn't openly brag about it.

TO do that, you'd need something of substance to actually brag about. Here, it seems, you have nothing.

I'm afraid that'll be quite a while because internet service isn't free in America, so I'll need to leave my nuclear fallout bunker.

Considering you joined ten goddamn years ago, I don't think you have many bragging rights.

Okay, so why is a small ball of cells different from a larger ball of cells? They're the same if you go down to the cell level.

It doesn't move except by instinct? So you mean, it moves?

Yes, it is an individual. The fetus may be connected physically, but it's a different being entirely.

Where did you get that from? The ear is a part of the fetus, not meant to separate. The fetus, on the other hand, is supposed to separate and therefore receives nutrients directly, as opposed to all the different appendages receiving nutrients and combining into a Power Ranger Megazord-esque organism.

is an INDIVIDUAL, in-dividual.

Is a fetus not an individual?

but that it is not YET a stage of human life.

I disagree. Before being a full on human, you have to start from scratch, just like a bug.

I can even argue that it is not immoral to kill a fetus because it has no feelings.

Fetuses begin to develop pain receptors 8 weeks into a pregnancy. 20+ weeks and you've got a fetus that can feel. As for being immoral, I disagree there as well. Killing is immoral, no?

It doesn't move, the fluids move a fetus.

What's your point?

it becomes a human life?

No. Women are different than men, obviously. Food can't evolve into a life, much less a human one.

I'm not upset at all, I'm just waiting for you to start an intelligent discussion.

"lazy sod"? It's the weekend, Luigi. Unlike you and your Italian buddies, our unemployment rate isn't almost 11 percent and I don't need to work on the weekend to survive.

Any luck on the job front buddy ?

Yeah, and it's pretty easy. All I have to do is debunk this Italian guy on a debate website.

If you approve of abortion I have some excellent advice for you ...... get one

How would I get an abortion?.............................

I'm going to argue my point right here based on the question.

A fetus is just a phase of a human's life, just as old age is.

That's not name calling

Name calling: "abusive language or insults".

I never that

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.

Man Fish ???

It was a reference to your profile picture.

Oh yes I forgot you don't understand Evoultion

And you don't know how to spell evolution.

What are you babbling on about ?

That was you, idiot.

You're anti Evolution

No, I'm against people calling evolution a definite fact, at least right now.

Why not consult a medical textbook ?

Why don't you actually support your claims, instead of telling me to research your claim?

As in me denying Evolution is fact.

??

Another typical bit of stupidity from you

Funny how everything you can't argue against is "stupidity" or "gibberish".

Oh I forgot you don't have them in trailer parks

No, we don't. We have front lawns and backyards, maybe you should escape from your liberal safe space and explore more then your "garden lawn".

The argument is over from the off

From the off?

My defense is the fetus is alive. Now, for your rebuttal?

So what ?

So, you say the fetus isn't alive. How is it not alive if it needs nutrients? And, if you do think it's alive, what makes abortion different from infanticide? Other then, of course, infanticide occurring after the birth.

Yes you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human being born

I admit it's immoral to kill a human/potential human. Not whatever you just said.

but it's fine to prevent a potential human being born by using contraception

How is the fetus created if the contraception works? 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.

you're a two faced hypocrite

Says Dermot. That's irony.

Yes you're pro abortion

Abortion = termination of pregnancy

Contraception = prevention of pregnancy

How can you not see the difference here?

Denial now as well

I haven't denied anything, except for having denied anything.

That's the only argument needed

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.

It's not my choice

Okay.

it's the individual's woman's choice

The individual's woman's? To whom does the woman belong?

Amazing , thank you for that

Okay, what's your point?

So you're saying the man should have a choice but why should his choice be given equal consideration ?

I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal choice on the matter.

So you're fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she's anti abortion?

When did I say this? I'm fine with both of them making a choice, as long as their choices have equal consideration.

You seem to want the man to have a choice but only if it's anti abortion

Wrong, yet again. Both parties should get an equal choice on the matter.

It's not murder you clown

I didn't say it was.

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.

your government murders people " legally "

The death penalty is legal in several states.

I'm a humanist you fool

No, you aren't. Humanists "emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively" by definition, and when fetuses have the cells needed to define them as humans, you still think it's okay to kill them.

I cannot comprehend the gibberish you type

Again, saying something is "gibberish" isn't a defense.

Same thing you idiot

Then why did you criticize me for using the term "bodily rights"?

that's merely your obsession

No, it isn't.

don't you guys invent a new gender every day ?

I'm a conservative, so you're wrong again.

who gets schooled in American law by a European

Funny how you bring up Roe v. Wade. You know, all nine justices on that court were men. And yet, you say you don't think men should be able to decide the fate of women. Also, did you know that in that case, something called substantive due process was used? 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.

I know your stupidity isn't helping you is it ?

What gives you bodily integrity? I asked you a question, and you didn't answer.

But abortion is legal in the states you prize clown

Oh, did I get a promotion?

Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal. It wasn't illegal for Hitler to conquer Europe, but that didn't make it legal and he still did it.

Potential human life, but still a life, yes. And, if it really is just an "extra body part" like so many pro-choicers say, then why can't people get prosthetic fetuses? And, if the mother gets to kill the fetus simply because it relies on her, why can't hospitals murder patients living off of machines/in a coma?

but rather a part of the mother

If it's part of the mother, then why does it have separate cells? Yes, it gets nutrients from the mother, but it isn't the same as an eye or an ear, as you claim.

you cannot move your ear freely, just like you cannot move a fetus freely

Right, but an ear doesn't float around your head like a fetus does the womb.

Death is a phase of life, just as being a fetus is a phase of life.

you idiot

Says the one calling names on a debate website.

I'm starting to doubt that as you're displaying the intellect of a fish

So, people who disagree with you are fish and fish are people who disagree with you? Interesting.

You're a judgemental hypocrite

Says the man/fish/Darwinist that believes women can kill their children as long as they haven't been born yet.

So you're now asking me for evidence of what you claim

No, I'm asking for your evidence of your claim being true. Where do you get that anti-abortion advocates do this?

you are anti abortion , are you ?

Yes, I'm anti-abortion. I'm also anti-Dermot, but that's irrelevant.

What this is meant to be getting at I've no idea

Since you say a baby is different from a fetus biologically, what cells change?

Yes you don't do logic ,

Well not my own. I use your logic.

my mistake for giving you credit you're not due

You're right, I shouldn't be given credit for your faulty logic.

You mean like your ridiculous garden lawn argument ?

What's a garden lawn? Also, this doesn't seem to be helping your argument.

But a fetus is not a baby it's a potential life

Potential human. It's living. Otherwise, why would it need to rely on the mother for nutrients?

How is it that you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human to be born

No, I admit it's immoral to kill a potential human that also happens to be your child, but I'm pro-contraception.

You do until corrected then you resort to lying

Where have I lied?

But I've destroyed every one of your " arguments "

How's that? Your only consistent argument is "Her body , her choice".

Woman's body , woman's choice

What gives you that choice? There's no law or amendment giving women "bodily rights", so where do they get them from?

I said he gets a choice but the woman’s choice takes precedence

Why aren't their choices equal? Yes, the baby is in the mother, but the baby wouldn't be there without the father.

So you don’t care if the man wishes to abort but you do if it’s the woman ?

Where do you get this from? You continue to say "Her body, her choice" but the baby isn't solely hers.

So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion?

???

But yet people like you if they could would deny them a choice

No one gets the choice to murder legally.

what are you talking about you idiot

You're a liberal.

What are you babbling about ?

It's only babbling to you because you can't comprehend the words I'm typing.

It’s actually called bodily integrity

Then why have you called it bodily rights in the past? You act like the terms are interchangeable, like sex and gender.

why not do some research instead of just shooting your fool mouth off ?

I don't need to do research, you're providing me with all the information I need.

Your stupidity is spectacular bodily integrity look it up

I've looked it up, and I still don't understand where they get "bodily integrity" from. It's not given as a right by the United States government, and ethicality is not a replacement for the law. If it were, abortion would be illegal.

I stand for choice so you're wrong yet again

Pro-choice = Pro-abortion, idiot.

Because to site crashed earlier and I never had the chance to check

Fair enough

anyway it was only me having a laugh at your " Evolution is not a fact nonsense "

I believe your quotes are placed incorrectly, I never said that the evolution isn't a fact argument was nonsense.

I'd just like to know where the mother gets the morally protected right to terminate, since the United States Constitution doesn't provide these rights and neither do its amendments.

You mean a potential human in the making?

It's not a potential human, it is a human. Already. Women can't give birth to fish.

Yes I would allow her to abort is this not clear to you yet ?

I'm fully aware of your immorality.

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

Where's your evidence? Also, what makes a fetus' cells different from a newborn's cells?

I fail to see how that jump in logic is valid

There was no jump to begin with.

What you mean is " let's insert your particular view"" and attempt to force the issue

No, you simply don't enjoy it when others use your view and put into any other circumstance. Let me ask, how is it different? Killing an adult and killing a baby?

why's that?

I don't assume they're correct because I say they are, that's you.

Why does that upset you ?

It doesn't upset me, but I wish you'd make an argument excluding feelings.

What a bizarre statement the presonse explains perfectly the woman's positions in the matters

What?

He does but his wishes are secondary to the woman's

And why's that? If not for him, how did the baby get there in the first place?

also I bet he only gets a say if he's anti abortion isn't that right ?

No, it's not right. I don't care what your stance is as long as you make a choice.

Or do you believe he also can only make 1 choice ?

See, this is gibberish. What are you saying?

What if he does?

Then let him make that choice. I can't tell anyone what to do, and neither can you.

Potential son /daughter actually

Back to being petty, are we? Well, in that case, what about the 63 other genders some of your liberal friends propose exist?

So what?

So she wouldn't be making the choice in the first place.

Well you wish to deny the woman a right to abort so that’s a denial of her bodily rights

Let me ask you this: Who/what gives you "bodily rights"? Certainly not the government, there isn't an abortion section of the First Amendment. So, where does she get her bodily rights from?

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

You stand for abortion, so you clearly aren't being fair to the human you're killing.

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.

It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making

Fair point.

Even if I allow for your assertion that its a " human being " so what ?

So you would allow a woman to kill a human being that relies on her? Let's take away all factors, except for that their's a human and the woman wants to kill it. Is that not murder/manslaughter?

Correct

Why?

Again correct

Again, why? Excluding "her body, her choice", because that response is based on nothing other than the response itself.

Her body , her choice

What about the father? Doesn't he get a say? What if he doesn't want an abortion? It's his son too, and the mother wouldn't be a mother if not for him.

so you’re saying a woman should have no rights over her body

When did I say women shouldn't have any rights over their bodies? You get angry when I do that, but then you turn around and do the same thing.

that makes you a bully and a tyrant

And that makes you immoral, saying women can kill their children without input from the father.

you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset

You typed that, not me. I addressed that in my last response.

What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body regarding abortion ?

Nothing, other than the law considering with abortion you're still killing a potential human.

But contraception is used to prevent a life being born

By contraception you mean things like birth control pills, correct? We'll assume that's the focus here. Contraception is different than abortion because it stops the potential life from existing in the first place. In other words, the fetus doesn't exist. With abortion, you're ending the fetus' life.

so you disagree with contraception ?

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.

you’re against preventing a life to be born

No, I'm against terminating a life.

you have to be against contraception

No, I'm pro-contraception.

it's not go consult wiki

It is, read this

fe·tus

ˈfēdəs/Submit

noun

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby

lawmakers and legislators disagree with your primitive viewpoint

Tell that to Mississippi.

Considering you spent the whole thread saying a fetus was a baby

A fetus is an unborn human being. Let's get that straight.

You don’t use “ reasoning “

Yes, I do. I use your reasoning.

I've said from the start a fetus has zero rights to sustenance

So, because it's inside another human being, that human being has zero rights?

and it's a woman's choice whether to abort or not

Why does she get to choose whether or not to kill another human being? You've yet to answer. What gives her the right, other than your faulty logic?

you have never attempted to address or answer what I asked from the outset

What question did you ask? Restate the question and I'll answer it.

why’s that ?

Because I haven't seen any form of a question that wasn't meant to make me dig myself into the ground. Again, just ask a question and I'll answer.

should a woman have a choice to prevent a life been born or not

No.

if not why not ?

The fetus is a human and a living human at that.

Why theses ridiculous analogies ? Is this another avoidance tactic by you ?

Because I want you to answer my question. I've answered your question, now answer mine.

Why do you assume you have the right to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ?

Again, because I think that abortion is manslaughter, not murder because murder is defined as being premeditated, and more often than not abortions are impulsive.

What a " superb " reply

I'm just telling you the truth.

Now, let's be civil, yeah?

It's not

We'll agree to disagree.

You do not understand the first thing about logic.

And what would the first thing be? The definition? I think I explained the definition of logic to you in a previous reply.

You are

Proof, please?

With this I agree

We'll just take that at face value.

Well you don't know the difference between a fetus an adult and a baby

Do you need dumbing down? You can't seem to comprehend my argument. An adult isn't a fetus or a baby. A baby isn't an adult, and neither is a fetus. A fetus is an unborn human being, a baby is a very young human being, meaning it's been born. I'm not blaming you for my "stupidity", I'm blaming you for your stupidity.

Which is relatively easy

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?

when used against your " arguments "

Again, why doesn't it work when I use it for my narrative?

Maybe I need a “ front lawn “ argument

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?

There’s that lack of self awareness again

And yet you fail to realize your own...

Yes and pedantic also

Ah, okay.

It's not

It is.

but if it makes you feel good that's fine

More false logic from Dermot.

You are

I'm not.

If your intellect is the bar for normality

My intellect is above the bar for normality, but not by very much.

I will attempt to dumb it down for you

No "dumbing down" required, just a bit of sense from your side.

No I consider your babble gibberish

And that's your opinion, which we do not share.

my logic is faultless

It's only faultless when it works in your favor.

Self awareness is not one of your strengths is it ?

I'm pretty self-aware, though I can't say the same for you considering the "arguments" you've typed out so far.

Also, what's how'm mean ?

How'm = How am

ex. How'm I the clown?

Yes , attempting to flee your front lawn gibberish

Is that so? Why don't you just climb over your "bar of intellect" nonsense? Does your "faultless logic" have something to do with it?

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 ?

And you say I'm petty? A fetus is a human clump of cells with human features.

Poor Analogy at that

I'd say it's a pretty good analogy, but that's my opinion.

Says the clown who keeps babbling on about front lawns and contradicting his own gibberish

I'm not babbling, unless you consider arguing like a normal person as babbling. I'm also not saying any gibberish unless you consider your own logic gibberish. Also, how'm I the clown? You're the one running in circles.

Incorrect

How is a fetus not a baby? An unborn baby is still a baby.

A clump of cells

Like you, like your parents, like your pet, like any living thing.

I'm a human being and all that entails a fetus is not

Maybe a dog fetus isn't a human, but a human fetus is a human.

Back to being pedantic , oh dear

That's on you, Derm.

What the hell are you talking about ?

You said "defending your attacks. Why would you defend my attacks?

Yes you should try it some time

I have been this whole argument.

You're not , you're using your faulty reasoning

Explain how my reasoning is faulty, please.

What does the term strick mean ?

I meant strict.

It's not , why then are women who abort not doing life for murder?

Because abortion isn't legally defined as murder as of 2018.

I never said that so stop telling me what I didn't say

I didn't say you said it, I said what your logic entails.

It doesn't , you need to work on your logic*

But I don't, I'm copying your logic.

They're not

So, an unborn baby is a nonhuman clump of cells? This makes no sense.

That's because a fetus is not a child

Analogy, Derm.

I know what you're saying , I disagree

Okay, disagreement is healthy.

in your world do you not accept different points of view ?

I accept different points of view from people who actually argue instead of spewing the same 3 sentences.

The woman's rights should always trump any rights real or imagined the fetus actually has

They're both humans. Do my rights as an adult trump the rights of a child? No.

Don't tell me you disagree with that statement as well ?

I don't disagree with that statement.

if she wants to abort fine as that's her choice not mine or yours

I'm not saying it's my choice, I'm just saying the fetus shouldn't be treated the same as an inmate would be.

How do you not know the difference between a foetus and a viable baby ?

There is no difference, a fetus = a baby. An unborn baby, at that, but a baby nonetheless.

A clump of cells

Are you not a clump of cells?

You did , read above

No, I said a fetus is a human, not the reverse.

You did read above

Fair enough. I retract that statement.

if you play fair so will I

Okay, I'll stop throwing insults and so will you.

But you do have a problem with it otherwise why bring it up ?

I have a problem with your hypocritical statements, but that's it.

You're making no sense

But I'm making perfect sense.

Stop being pedantic

Okay.

As in pointing out I missed .... spaces , irony or what

Yes! You finally realized.

It's me merely defending your attacks , my argument is sound

Why would you defend my attacks?

Again you're using the opposite of logic

The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". I'm using your reasoning assessed according to strick principles of validity to prove my point.

I never said that , what I'm saying is it's sbsolutely fine for a woman to abort

And I'm saying that one, abortion is murder and two, that it's okay for you to do anything to anyone on anything you own.

t's not , your term " exact " is amusing to say the least

How's that?

Still being petty are you ?

I assume so, yes.

I know it fits your narrative

It also fits 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.

So, why does the fetus have zero rights "regarding usage of the woman's body"? As you said, it takes two to make a fetus, so if they took the risk, why doesn't the fetus have any rights?

Non human

How is that? How did two humans make a non-human?

A fetus

A human fetus, correct?

unless in your world a human is a fetus

I didn't say a human is a fetus. Actually, I didn't even say anything about a fetus being a human.

That was not an insult as it was merely pointing out your failure to comprehend a simple statement

But I did comprehend the statement. Also, you are still insulting me. I don't have a problem with it, but it seems hypocritical.

Because it is

Try using Grammarly to prove my point.

Your " opinion " is not factual

I didn't say it was, and neither is yours.

Get the space police .....quickly

1, you still need to work on it. 2, stop being petty, please. It doesn't help your argument.

I never use them

I didn't say you do.

Ehhh no

You did, though, in saying her body, her choice. By that logic, it's fine to kill anyone on my property because it's my property, my choice.

I never said that, stop lying

Sorry, let me rephrase. According to your logic, it's fine to kill anything on your property.

I called your opinion on the matter as such

Right, but my opinion is still an opinion about abortion.

Yes

No,

It's not

it's your exact logic. insert noun 1's insert noun 2, insert noun 1's choice.

You mean to fit your narrative

No, I meant what I said.

Who mentioned immortal except you ? Are you on a different topic ?

No one mentioned morality. I brought it into the discussion.

Of course it’s alive

Okay, so we've found some common ground. Now, is it human or is it not human? If not, what is it?

Ah , now you’re resorting to insult I see

No, actually, you were the one to start the insults when you said "do you not know what that means ?". As for your grammar, I don't know how you can call yours perfect, regarding the fact that you insert spaces before and after commas, question marks, and exclamation marks.

You’ve yet to make one

You said her body, her choice, proving my point that according to you, it's fine to kill anything on your property.

It’s not , it’s typically pureile nonsense from you

First, do you mean puerile? Second, I wouldn't call any talk about abortion childish.

More puerile nonsense from you

No, it's your exact logic put into a different circumstance. See how it's now immoral?

I said it's unborn

Right, I know what you said. But you aren't answering my question. Is it or is it not alive?

do you not know what that means ?

I do know the word means, and I'm surprised you do since your grammar is worse than your logic.

Her body , her choice

I think you just proved my point.

No it's not , that's a ridiculous comparison

According to you, it's a fine comparison. Their land, their choice.

Because it's unborn that's why it's called a fetus .

So is it not alive? If so, why does a woman get to kill a living thing just because it's inside her? That's like saying you get to kill any children that are on your lawn.

That’s seems strange to you , unless in your world where people refer to a fetus as human

How is a fetus not a human?

So the fetus isn't a human? That seems odd, considering it was created by two humans.

Really ? Really tell me in law where that “ special right “ is ?

Tell me in law where that " special right " isn't.

why should a woman carry a fetus to term her choice not yours

I'm not saying she doesn't have a choice, but I have the right to call her a murderer.

I think you really need to look up the difference in a dictionary because you don’t seem to think there’s any difference

A baby's been born and a fetus hasn't. That's the difference.

Nothing gives the fetus a right to be born

So what gives the baby the right to live?

Does anyone have the right to life and sustenance from your body ? why should a fetus have this “ special right “ ?

If a woman chooses to take the risk of having a child, the fetus has "the special right".

You've been granted that right by your parents

What parents

why should a woman who wants an abortion be told what to do by a stranger like you?

They took the risk, they should live with the consequences. Why can't a woman put up their child for adoption? No one wants to make that illegal.

Because it’s a separate entity

How's a baby a separate entity but a fetus isn't? You may not be explaining it correctly.

Yes

How about you try letting it be born? Is there something that gives the baby the right to have been born that the fetus doesn't have?

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

Why doesn't it have the right? You said it isn't a parasite, so why doesn't it have the right to live there while I live in my home?

A baby as a separate entity to a mother has rights which a fetus does not

Why's that? Does being born give you those rights?

Well, it just seems odd that Bill cheated on her and they're still together, that's all.

Also, who's Matt Drudge?

Trump's policies are good, but he isn't the morally best human. To be fair, he is a dirt monster so nothing can affect him, but there's that thing with the pornstar, the Trump University thing, and the Russia thing which I think is BS. Point is, he's a bit of a con IMO.

Funny how everyone insults Trump, but no one ever talks about Bernie Sanders, or Marco Rubio, or Hillary Clinton. Especially Clinton, considering she's only still married to Bill Clinton to stay relevant.

I don't think Trump is the worst Republican politically. I don't like Trump as a person, but his policies aren't terrible.

My only problem with Gerald Ford is he wasn't elected to office. That's it. He ended the Vietnam War, and he helped the U.S. recover after Watergate. I don't think of him as a good Republican president, though, since he wasn't ever elected to the office.

Again, Trump is a con artist and a generally bad person, but he's a very liberal Republican, if that makes sense. He never really should've ran with the Republican party, and he didn't the first time. The first time he ran for president, in the early 2000s, he ran as a Democrat.

Yes, it's true that they lost Christian Democrats. But, you did gain a bunch of socialists because of Sanders.

I'll agree that the election cycle was terrible, but that was because they had a socialist mixed in with the Democratic party when it really he should've been independent, and because the candidates for the 2016 election were two of the most disliked in history.

I don't think Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to the Republican party, considering we had Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon (an actual criminal), and Gerald Ford.

Maybe there will be a big turnover, although I don't believe any Democratic or left-leaning candidates in general will be very well-liked.

Where did I say say a newborn is self sufficient ?

Well, you said I was incorrect by saying babies rely on their mothers' bodies. Can babies feed themselves? Can babies dress themselves? Change themselves?

Then why is the Democratic party around? Gay marriage was used extensively by the left to get votes, and then it was made legal.

I assume Republicans fill all three houses because Republicans were tired of how terrible the Democratic reps were.

Besides, the GOP has plenty of other issues to address like taxes, terrorism, gun control, etc.

I know you just agreed there’s a difference after saying the opposite

I said there wasn't a difference between the words, I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the organisms themselves.

making you incorrect yet again

So is a newborn self-sufficient right out of the womb?

Fortunately, the Republican Party will never allow abortion to be made illegal.

Yes, we will allow abortion to be made illegal. Republicans, and conservatives in general, are pro-life.

That’s right, the REPUBLICAN party.

Whoa, really?

Ok , so you don’t see the difference between the terms fetus and baby why’s that ?

Well, there's a difference between the terms because they aren't the same words, 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 the definition of a fetus do you know the definition of a baby ?

ba·by

ˈbābē/Submit

noun

1. a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

Incorrect ? But you cannot Back your objection up

I can, but I didn't see the need to since you didn't either, when you said "Incorrect".

I’m not using books to help my points

But you were, seeing as you said "medical textbooks" and textbooks are books.

They are thus the terms fetus and baby

???

Read above

???

Ok , so is an adult a fetus and if not why not ?

Is an adult a baby? No. An adult is defined as "a person who is fully grown and developed", while fetus is defined as "an unborn offspring of a mammal".

Incorrect

Incorrect

Medical textbooks disagree with your assessment as do I

If we can use books to help our points, than look up "The Ethics of Abortion" by Christopher Kaczor.

They are different if not what are you arguing about ?

They aren't different. A baby is a fetus, a fetus is a baby. Size doesn't matter here. That's what I'm arguing about.

Regarding a baby it’s not reliant on a woman’s body to have life is it ?

A newborn is reliant on a mother, in that it can't do anything, just like a fetus.

A fetus if it was a “ separate entity “ then how come it’s reliant on a woman’s body ?

Again, a newborn is reliant on a woman (and by extension their body) as well.

I never used the term “ parasite “ did I ? Yet again a fetus is not separate to a mother

I never said you did use the term parasite. And yet again, yes, a fetus is separate to a mother.

What are you talking about?

You said fetus. A baby, according to you, and a fetus are different. So, why isn't it okay to kill a baby, but not a fetus? They're both living.

Yes a baby has no right over a woman’s body as it’s now a separate entity

A fetus is still a separate entity. Even if, like some say, a fetus is just a parasite, a parasite is still an entity separate to the mother.

A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate

So it's magically not okay to kill as it's being born? 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, so why isn't it okay to kill a newborn?

I agree. If a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and that makes it okay to kill it, then technically everyone is a clump of cells and effectively, murder is legal.

#5. Don’t drive.

No, I think it's #5. Don't run towards police officers.

This argument is pretty contradictory when you think about it.

So, abortions are banned because killing is immoral and terrible and whatever. Since guns are fine to carry around, more crazy people, megalomaniacs, and people who want to be famous shoot up more schools and colleges. This results in more child deaths, which is somehow okay since they're a bit older and there are a few more? Killing is killing, no matter the race, age, or amount.