Ted Cruz Calls Birth Control 'Abortifacients' MOD ALERT

I was not talking about making a Human Being...I was stating that LIFE EXISTS PRIOR TO FERTILIZATION....just to show both you and others just how uninformed you are upon this topic.

By the way....at this point a Man is no longer required to have a Baby as Geneticists can use only cells from a single woman and engineer them to do the same thing as a Sperm Cell does.


AboveAlpha

 

So much for the moral high ground.

 

If you believe that there are "high level" and "high class" individuals among racial minorities, I suppose you also must believe there are (at least comparatively) "low level" and "low class" individuals as well. Let's explore that thought.

Unless you believe that there are ONLY extremes (which is irrational), this means there is a huge diversity of individuals among those minority groups.
This would imply a whole spectrum of physical, social and intellectual specimens.

In fact, given that every racial group would have examples from all points on the spectrum, it makes more sense to classify people by their physical, social and intellectual strengths (or lack thereof) than it does to classify them on the basis of something as superficial and fleeting as physical appearance.

So, other than the entertainment value of flame-baiting, why do you make hasty generalizations in relation to race?

Would you not, for example, concur that the "low class" of "European Americans" would have as hard a time crawling out of their trailers to properly ascend to leadership as the "low class" of any minority group?

 

Actually, once a sperm and ovum have met, there is still no guarantee of life. Given miscarriage chances; God, it seems, is the greatest abortionist of them all.
http://www.pregnancycharts.org/miscarriage.php

 

Actually your still off.

Life may occurs or he fetus might die or be a miscarriage or be still born.

There is only a chance for life after fertilization.

 

There is only a possible chance of the beginnings of the development of a Human Being that starts to occur once Fertilization happens but the Egg and the Sperm are INDIVIDUAL AND INDEPENDENT LIFE FORMS UNTO THEMSELVES prior to Fertilization.

But even though LIFE already exists it is no more important than the living cells of a Carrot, Potato, Cabbage...etc.

AboveAlpha

 

The sperm and egg are no more independent than a fetus. Neither can live without being in the very regulated environments of the individual sexes body.

 

Every single independent life form needs a specific environment to survive....we need air at 80% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen and have a Temp between -10 degrees F to 130 degrees F.

We also need a specific atmospheric pressure or our Blood will BOIL.

It is the same for the Egg and Sperm Cells....both are living independent life forms and need the environment of our bodies or close to our bodies as we can freeze both and as long as we properly thaw them in certain conditions they remain living.

AboveAlpha

 

Point being that sperm and egg cells being living cells is pointless.

Neither do anything without the other and the right environmental conditions. Birth control denies them the conditions needed to form another being.

End of story.

 

**sigh** You would've had such a good post too, if only you didn't say "the entertainment value of flame-baiting"(assuming that I flamed anyone for number one or number two that I wanted a flame-bait to begin with. Why would I chastise Ms.Emotional then?) Well, let's address it then.

1) Of course there are low level and low class individuals.

2) I assume when you say "Unless I believe there are only extremes", you're referring to my not identifying the Middle-Class? See, I view being Middle Class as relatively successful. Not everyone can rise up the high ladder. In fact, I myself haven't risen there. I'm little more than a social philosopher espousing social political viewpoints that may or may not be correct. In fact, the theory's "correctness" is only proven or "disproven" by its acceptance among its peers. I feel like if a person can support him or herself, and conduct himself in society relative to his or her class level, that person's a success.

However, where we begin to lose sight of a common truth is where you say "Classify them on the basis of something as superficial and fleeting as physical appearance"

1) I've never done so
2)The Social-Stratosphere of the Social Groups is not superficial or fleeting, but very real and in fact a part of our physical and mental makeup.

A Social Group is like a larger family out of a family. Indeed, the families themselves often espouse the same beliefs(all the way down to the celebrated holidays) of the origins of the people. Do you see the Native Indians recognizing Christmas(A "Christian" Holiday)? or how about Hanukkah? Some might falsely equate Thanksgiving, except it has a non-religious background to it(IE: The recognition of the European Settlers in peace with the native Pilgrims)

As much as we'd like to try to delude ourselves otherwise, our families, our peers and the social beliefs we share are all interconnected. Viewing it as a "race" is an incorrect model. Viewing it as a Social Group(which I've always done, as above) is not only the correct model of viewing the world, it is the optimal one.

And so, not only are these not hasty generalizations, but I think I've proven the facts at every turn. And so, let us continue to review the facts.

http://chronicle.com/article/Reports-Highlight-Disparities/123857/

All of the Graduates are certainly intellectuals, they've made it this far and the gap shouldn't be significant and yet, it is. Why is that? As you said, any generalization in relation to "race" is hasty(in fact, I've always stated it's nonexistent).

In much the same way, I denounce "White Privilege" as complete and utter garbage. There is no privilege that specifically enabled European-Americans to get ahead, even as far back as 40 years ago, the KKK's lynching didn't help the average American family get ahead. So let's REALLY boil this down.

As one of the commenters mentioned in that article, no mention was made of Asian-American graduates who obviously aren't counted amongst the "White-European population", and henceforth that gives a negative presumptive viewpoint. I theorize that it's more the emphasis on education(and economics) that discerns the difference between the various social groups(as well as family).


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/

It's this Socio-Factor BTW, that I would say is a "privilege"(actually, more of a belief system and even then, we're not as good at it as the Asians) to European-Americans.

Even amongst the "low class" of "European Americans", there's a determination and a drive to succeed. They certainly don't see the world against them(or at least, not in the same perception. They may complain about their job or their boss or their spouse. But all of those things can be relatively changed in peaceful methods)

I'd even go so far as to say that it's easier for the African-American to throw off their burden than vice-versa. Their burden is a mental burden(one increasingly being taken by the nation) that there's this delusion of a "racial difference"(and even in fact, of a racial existence).

But this is a delusion, not reality. You'd think those who espouse "a common humanity" would take their own words to heart. But often they don't, because they're still fighting the delusion.

A delusion cannot be fought, a delusion cannot be defeated. It can only be forgotten. This is why my words "seem racist"(or even identifying race) to people like Ms.Emotional and yourself.

You're deluded into the mindset that there's a "race", that humanity is governed by sects of race, rather than by social classes.

We are NOT animals. Even if we're technically listed as a mammal(Homo Sapien), we exist so far outside of the animal kingdom that to even compare us is laughable.

 

Great, I am happy that you have an opinion that you feel is right. I can fully understand why someone would agree with their own opinion.

 

Tell that to the Rightwingers on this site when it was announced that we were sending advisors into Uganda.

But not so according to international laws at the time. We had a right to trade with whoever we wished and the Germans launched a war of aggression against us.

Does not change the fact that we were fired on first.

 

I know that not what you were talking about, but it is what you should be talking about because killing innocent human beings is what abortion, birth control, etc, etc. is about. Incidious cold blooded merciless murder. Acyive sperm and active ovum do not amount to anything until they have met and fertilize and creates life. Without that specific coupleing no life occurs.

 

Oh, OK, that makes infanticide OK then. Got it. Leftists Christophobic MaO'Bama voting leftist losers, it seems, have no cogent points of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not off, I am right. Specious what ifs and coulda, shoulda, woulda, are as meaningless as leftist loserism itself.

 

Your reply consists of nothing more than logical fallacies (ie: straw man, hasty generalizations, ad hominem) and yet you claim others have no pertinant points?

 

As to the original topic.........No one has banned "Plan B." It can theoretically be an abortifacient. It can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg by altering the environment of the endometrium (lining of the uterus). So, if you believe in life beginning at conception............Some even feel conventional birth control pills sometimes do this. With the much lower doses of oral contraceptives now, some believe ovulation and conception can take place. However, they alter the hormonal environment enough to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. No one has banned these drugs and they are readily available. Those who strongly oppose any form of abortion feel these are potentially just that. So, they will oppose funding it. Although I may believe otherwise on this issue, I can see their points. However, they remain available for anyone who pays for them.

Clarabel

 

Your subjective opinion has nothing to do with the quality of my post.
Clearly, by choosing to make hasty generalizations about people on the basis of race - while admitting that these generalizations do not apply universally - your posts serve little purpose in debate other than to illicit emotional reactions from those offended by racial profiling.

If the ability to be "successful" in "rising up the high ladder" is the measure of "class", and there are varying degrees of success, then there are varying degrees of "class" in all racial groups. A person who rises from "step 1" of this ladder to "step 5" could be considered more "successful" than someone born on "step10" and manages only to hold that position. This means that hasty generalizations about class and racial profile are inherently flawed.

1) You're now claiming that you haven't made generalizations about race?
2a) Argumentum verbosium
2b) Artificially creating social groups on the basis of racial makeup alone, and then defending the principle of social groups (rather than the way those groups are improperly defined) is a good example of "moving the goalposts".

How many people of Italian descent currently worship the Olympian gods?

You've made a number of sweeping statements about "European-Americans", "African-Americans" and "Asian-Americans". You attempt to define these racial groups as social groups, and then use defend your statements by calling on the credibility of the social group principle. My point is that you cannot classify a race as a social group, as social groups transcend race by involving numerous additional factors.

Here's another example of you making a hasty generalization about individuals on the basis of their racial background... By saying that "European Americans" (ie: white folks) are hard workers with personal accountability, you're implying that people of other racial groups aren't.

How can you simultaneously claim that "it's easier for the African-American to throw off their burden..." in the same breath as "there's this delusion of a "racial difference"(and even in fact, of a racial existence)"? You've totally contradicted yourself by saying that people of a given race have a "mental burden" while saying that there is no difference between races.

Only when you go out of your way - as you've illustrated in this thesis - to define social classes in terms of race.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic we're discussing. That being said, our social structures are no more different from those of other herd animals than mosquitoes are removed from the social structures of bees.

 

This is one of the weirdest tautologies I've ever seen.

That pill is used to prevent a pregnancy. Whether it already exists or not is an existential question that you'll have to figure out for yourself.

 

Science and logic are not your strong suit, are they?

One takes the "day after" pill to PREVENT a potential pregnancy to begin.

Maybe you should just go read some factual information?

 

And that makes murdering a baby by other means OK? Do not want to be pregnant? Do not have sex. Have sex and get prenant, guess what, you are a parent.

 

So you are so extreme that you support the illegalization of all birth control?

 

Not as long as there is no pregnany. But when pregancy occurs that zygote is a human being and deserves diginty and protection from injustice and life.

 

You do know that birth control pills don't always prevent conception, but can instead cause a fertilized egg to be flushed from a woman's body, yes?

 

Are you trying to make variations in levels of degrees of morality? If it does not prevent a pregnancy, then the person who becomes pregnant is going to be a mommy. Unless she has an abortion, then she is a murderer.

 

Ted Cruz seems to be pretty stupid.