thanks for clarifying that cotton can become something other then a dress. a chicken egg is a chicken in an unborn state, an acorn is a tree in an unborn state and an unborn human is very much a human.
It was a silly response to your silly post about how from the moment of conception there's a fully formed Gerber baby that looks like it's 6-7 months old....and has all the rights of a person WITH NONE OF THE RESTRICTIONS, a being with SUPER rights...
Please quote where I say anything about looks, development and no restrictions. Now stick to facts. I'm not speaking in code.
Perhaps you have not searched GOOG or other secondary search for Arkansas Act 301 or Beck v Edwards, et al? My entire argument is not just here in this forum. My entire argument is before the United States Supreme Court. The ACLU did argue "viability" is the earliest SCOTUS may prohibit "gestation" regulation in the response requested already. This was admission it is time to graduate or evolve U.S. law to finally be more honorable and less like China.
The issue is so hotly contested, because the lines are so perfectly drawn. At issue are the core elements of the Principles that define America... and the malevolence that defines evil. You have on the side of Good... those who recognize that Human Life is sacred, endowed by God... which comes with inalienable rights, and the irrepressible responsibilities that sustain the means to exercise those rights. These people are AKA: Americans. And on the side of Wrong, you have those who reject the sanctity of Human Life, Reject God, inalienable rights and all sense of individual responsibility. These people are AKA: Leftists, Liberals, Progs, socialists, communists; which is to say the lowly Humanists. They are entirely animated by Evil. This issue defines the front lines in the battle of those two polar issues... it is the point where the brightest light, meets insatiable darkness... Such is recognized in Physics as "The Event Horizon"... it's a busy place when all existence is broken down to its quantum components. And it's that which you find to be most offensive, because the argument being advanced by Wrong, is a terribly shallow argument which fails upon the slightest scrutiny... and can only exist in a universe other than this one, where natural law requires that such notions can in practice only produce chaos, which leads to calamity, which leads ,inevitably, to catastrophe. Any questions? Would ya like to stretch first, maybe take some time to gather some supporters.. (Feel free to get as many as you can fit onto this board. They won't help your advocacy, but it may bring you some comfort). Just let me know, whenever you're ready.
You're very welcome. Now, is that you abandoning your would-be point? Or did you care to defend the feckless nature of the implication intrinsic to such? Understand, it ends the same whether you admit it or not. The outcome will be the same if you fight, run or just lay down. The only distinction in the three alternatives, is the time it takes to get to the inevitable conclusion. So, please be so kind as to pick one and let's get on with wrapping this up.
Very well...especially since you just personified the basic premise again. Those who wish limit the freedoms of half our population based on their own personal opinions are at a minimum living within an ego-centric world...and more likely so full of themselves they have no room for anyone else. You have also made clear the reasoning behind this condition is due to both a God psychosis and ignorance of biological science.
I see... so 'Freedom' to you, is defined by your means to do anything you want, without regard to how, whatever it is that you do, effects others? This Thesis, is quite common among the Prog, and in reality is unsustainable and it is recognized as such, because the premise only works where the Universe revolves around YOU, who YOUR ARGUMENT establishes as God; and given the indisputable nature of your NOT-GODness... , we can readily deduce then, that the argument is symptomatic of an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder; OKA: Delusion. You see, the infanticide advocacy holds that the woman, existing at a stage of development superior in terms of power well beyond that possessed by her pre-born child, entitles her to take the life of that child. You will certainly disagree as is typical of your advocacy, where the collective weeps and gnashes it collective tooth, hysterically searching for newly indifferent ways to rationalize a sound justification for such, but at the end of each and every day, your argument is left with only that... your power is greater than that of the defenseless... thus, the defenseless have no rights equal to your own; entitling you to destroy it. The problem you have there is that you aren't prepared to recognize that would-be 'principle', as principle... because, the moment you do, then you must accept that those of superior power to your own, are entitled to destroy you. And in so doing you establish that you equation is INVALID... as what is valid in the positive expression must be valid in the negative expression... see: Goose-v-Gander. Which as I promised at the outset, your argument is one which advocates for an unsustainable condition... and an unsustainable condition is one which can only lead to failure... and an unsustainable condition set into fundamental cultural mores, can only lead to cultural catastrophe. NOW... of the two forces of nature; Good and Evil. Which is it that you would guess, is designed around the pursuit of destruction? Go ahead... don't be shy.
I have dealt with this waste of energy too many times to think for one second it is worthwhile often with individuals easier to understand than yourself. I will admit this Good vs. Evil tactic is unique, but requires personal opinion as well and is therefore useless in debate. Have a nice day.
Life must be so simple for those who only see in black and white, but thankfully, most people are able to see some degrees. Even in the case of abortion, even those most opposed to it will usually recognize that there are cases where it is beneficial and desirable. The argument usually revolves about determining which cases can be described as "beneficial and/or desirable", but when it does not, it boils down to blaming women because, after all, those women shouldn't have chosen to have sex.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. Reader, do you see how easy this is? Remember, the key to defeating Left-think... rests in two fundamental elements: 1- Find a Leftist 2- Get them to Speak. I would like to thank the opposition for their time and, consideration.
Well answered? LOL! The answer was entirely refuted... consequently forcing the would-be 'contributor' to yield to the points standing in opposition. How are you defining your terms? I ask because it appears that the argument is a feckless attempt to show solidarity with a failed position. Which is fine, I just like to get the I's dotted and the Ts crossed on these sweet little victories, it makes it that much harder for those advancing deceit, as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant... to do so. You understand of course... .
Oh my! A Relativist! How wonderful. (Right on time!) Let me ask you this... In considering human life; and whether or not such is sacred; and given the premise that those in position of superior power, readily capable of ending the lives of those they find inconvenient... where such have managed to established legalities serving their subjective needs... would you please layout for the reader, the 'degrees' which you would argue, where say a group was able to establish the legal right to kill you, your family and everyone who thinks like you? Understand that, you represent a value... We'll call the value "JEW".... and let's say that a political whirlwind came along and you JEWS were being identified as 'inconvenient' to those who had found fairly incontestable power. So that incontestable power, which we'll call "MOMMY", who has otherwise tasked with defending your interests, simply finds that you existence HAS SCREWED THEIR LIVES UP and THEY AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE! So they pass laws which preclude your means to ... LIVE! Please take a moment to explain to the Reader the "DEGREES" which otherwise justify those new laws, which strip you of any means to exercise ANY RIGHT, particularly the right you may likely claim to your very life. Reader, you'll want to pay attention to this exchange, as it is going to be VERY informative.
What Religious absolutism is that? LOL! That Life is granted by the Creator? That's a fundamental principle on which American principle entirely rests. Now... for the edification of the Reader, are you a person who was born in the US, who comes to advocate for Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle? Or are you a person of foreign national who advocates for Foreign Ideas, hostile to American Principle?
I see that your position is motivated by the so-called "excessive" or "incontestable" power which women wield in making abortion decisions. You seem to think that "excessive" power is granted to women by the law which permits them to make that decision under certain circumstances. Please consider that women have always had that power and exercised it to make abortion decisions as long as 5,000 years ago, whether those women had society's permission to do so or not. That power has never damaged any society so far so there is no reason to believe it will damage any in the future. Attempting to compare aborting a fetus with killing a member of society won't justify interfering with women's rights.
The woman possesses greater power over her child, without regard to the law. You're noting that some woman have chosen to murder their children for 5000 years. And in each and everyone of those instances, those woman were employing their superior power over their defenseless children. Your argument claims that a Fetus is not human life... because it is not a member of society... you must also therefore 'feel' that the State of OHIO has no case, where it has charged a woman with the Murder of her fetus, OKA: her pre-born child? That charge rests entirely upon the principle that there is no right, be it of a woman or otherwise, to take innocent human life, which in this case is a human being in the earliest stages of development, OKA: a Fetus. That you chose to yield from the argument which simply asks you if you would support a LAW TO TAKE YOUR LIFE... informs the Reader that the equation that you have constructed is INVALID... as your claim that the inverse of your equation is not true, while you claim the positive to BE true. This represents the sound refutation of your argument. Your deflection from that argument, represents you having yielded from the standing points of that which contests your argument, thus your concession to those standing points. Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
