Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2016, 12:42 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 12:24 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Here's what you do. You allow yourself to get knocked up.

That ship has sailed. The Titanic

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
22-08-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 12:42 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 12:24 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Here's what you do. You allow yourself to get knocked up.

That ship has sailed. The Titanic

Omg your pregnant??? Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like adey67's post
22-08-2016, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2016 02:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 03:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 06:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Matt Finney,

You don't appear to have read the related thread, posted by Blowjob, called "Open the Pod Bay Doors, Hal", in which he made most of the same arguments he makes here, and we countered them.

The "Open the Pod Bay Doors, Hal" thread was to show that arguments like the "unconscious violinist" are wrong.

My participation in this thread started out as commenting Rubio's position is consistent and you should not fault him for being consistent....and you should not demagogue as Angele did. My participation later morphed into defending the position that a human Zygote is a human being. Which I should not have to defend as it is a commonly accepted a human zygote is an organism unto itself and that it is of the species homo sapiens sapiens therefore it is most certainly a human being.

Sadly I met with a lot of baseless emotional responses.

Wrong. You met with reasoned REFUTATIONS.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8 :
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Too bad, you're 100 % wrong, Blowjob ... not surprising. You're almost never right about anything. Tongue

How about you answer THIS, idiot :
You claim a zygote is A HUMAN BEING.
Some zygotes develop into identical twins, triplets, quadruplets etc.
Are then identical twins ONE human being ? So which is it ?
How many "beings" inhabit a zygote ? When does one being become more than one ?

Take your time.

Then how about you tell us when the "moment" of conception is.
Be VERY exact. Most zygotes don't implant in the uterine wall, but are just expelled. Your god didn't seem to think much of these "zygote beings" of yours. The first sperm cell to reach the oocyte is not the one that does the first DNA replication. Tell us, Blowjob, when EXACTLY in the process of DNA replication/union, your "human being" comes into "being", and in doing so, also account for the LATER development of MORE "beings" in twinning and the formation of identical triplets.

Take your time.

If a zygote was a "baby" or a human being, they would label it as such. They don't. Only Blowme does.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-08-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 01:51 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 12:42 PM)Anjele Wrote:  That ship has sailed. The Titanic

Omg your pregnant??? Shocking

Laughat Not in many years my friend. My baby is 29 years old.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
22-08-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 03:18 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 01:51 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Omg your pregnant??? Shocking

Laughat Not in many years my friend. My baby is 29 years old.

Oops divided by a common language Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
So lets recap so far

1 Biology dose not agree with him and his whole case is based on the arbitrary notion that conception is the starting point. Without giving account for why all other people of different religions insist on all manor of other things as persons or human or both if the two are the same.

2.The law most certainly as shown above

3.He can't make a moral argument (way to many bullets lodged in his feet)

4.He can't make a religious argument

So science, law ,ethics and religion all are against him am i on track?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
22-08-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 04:37 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  So lets recap so far

1 Biology dose not agree with him and his whole case is based on the arbitrary notion that conception is the starting point. Without giving account for why all other people of different religions insist on all manor of other things as persons or human or both if the two are the same.

2.The law most certainly as shown above

3.He can't make a moral argument (way to many bullets lodged in his feet)

4.He can't make a religious argument

So science, law ,ethics and religion all are against him am i on track?

I see you met, and figured out, Blowme. Dodgy

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
23-08-2016, 01:31 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  If your goal is to curtail or stop future abortions from happening, I would recommend finding out from pro-choice people what you can say or do that might motivate them to carry their fetuses to term.

I'd be happy if you just realized you feelings and the whims of politics are not a good basis to form a moral judgement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2016, 01:50 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2016 01:58 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. You met with reasoned REFUTATIONS.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8 :
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Too bad, you're 100 % wrong, Blowjob ... not surprising. You're almost never right about anything. Tongue

Bucky, I normally do not respond to you because you have the intellect of a used tampon. But here you are just spreading misinformation so I think I have a duty to respond. The law you cited comes from the "Born Alive Act". The words "shall include" do not exclude zygotes from being considered human beings under the law. It just means that if you are born and alive you are considered a human being. It does not mean you are not considered a human being if you are not born as mental midgets such as yourself believe.

The Born Alive act also includes something you left out because you are a dishonest ninnymuggins.

‘‘© Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.

The unborn victim of violence act that I cited earlier defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". A human zygote is a member of the species Homo sapiens and this law calls it a "child". A child is a human being. The law recognizes members of the species who are unborn as legal victims. It considers them to be human beings.

Abortion isn't considered murder because murder is a legal definition not a moral one. Murder is the illegal killing of another human being. If you legally kill another human being you have not committed murder.

Whoever said that I said abortion people are murders are wrong. I would not say such an inaccurate thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2016, 01:55 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(22-08-2016 11:23 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 03:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Which I should not have to defend as it is a commonly accepted a human zygote is an organism unto itself and that it is of the species homo sapiens sapiens therefore it is most certainly a human being.

Except of course that is not what you said at all.

"A zygote is an individual self developing organism of the species homo sapien sapien. It is therefore a human being." No mention of "human" zygotes at all from which one can infer that you had no clue that a zygote doesn't have to be human until it was pointed out to you. Not great for your credibility on the matter.

Being that we were discussing human zygotes and not cat zygotes, I figured I did not need to specify "human". I started too now for your benefit because you lack the ability of charitable interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: