This had me laughing out loud. People think that SOCTUS has legitimacy instead of being a place filled with partisan hacks. That's funny.
-
Features
Can Roe v Wade be overturned?
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
This had me laughing out loud. People think that SOCTUS has legitimacy instead of being a place filled with partisan hacks. That's funny.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,800
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
This had me laughing out loud. People think that SOCTUS has legitimacy instead of being a place filled with partisan hacks. That's funny.
I’m talking about their decisions ultimately being ignored.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Half Life, do you think we should ban circumcision?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It is clearly child abuse. Not much different than female clitoral circumcision.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,422
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Google.
It is an elephant embryo. And that's the whole point. The anti-abortion crowd project what they want to see, and tend to demand that you recognise it as a human being - which unmasks the absurdity of their assessment of humanity based on their ability to envisage the pictured fetus as a human baby - when it is neither human, nor a baby.
Whether you call it a fetus, a baby, or a dirtball, the end result will be a HUMAN baby after 9 months. Let me illustrate an analogy. Suppose I have lettuce, tomato, bacon, and bread on my counter. These are ingredients that will become a full sandwich. If someone comes into my house and grabs the lettuce, tomato, bacon, and bread off my counter and brings it outside and steps on it and rolls it all in dirt, they have destroyed my sandwich, even though it was not fully at the "end result" of sandwich yet. I can not make a sandwich now.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,422
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it won't.
If carried to term, the end result would be a baby elephant after about 18 months.
No amount of wishful thinking on your part could ever turn this into a human.
You certainly couldn't have made a cheese and pickle sandwich out of lettuce, tomato, bacon, and bread.
And pretending that you could just makes you look idiotic.
But under the terms of your analogy, they destroyed your ingredients. Those ingredients weren't a sandwich, any more than they were a bacon salad with croutons.
A thing that has the potential to become something else is not that something else.
A pile of bricks isn't a house. An acorn isn't an oak tree. An egg isn't a chicken.
What about miscarriages? I think it's like 20%.Is that god's will?
No. But, God can make good come out of bad things.
No, it won't.
If carried to term, the end result would be a baby elephant after about 18 months.
No amount of wishful thinking on your part could ever turn this into a human.
You certainly couldn't have made a cheese and pickle sandwich out of lettuce, tomato, bacon, and bread.
And pretending that you could just makes you look idiotic.
But under the terms of your analogy, they destroyed your ingredients. Those ingredients weren't a sandwich, any more than they were a bacon salad with croutons.
A thing that has the potential to become something else is not that something else.
A pile of bricks isn't a house. An acorn isn't an oak tree. An egg isn't a chicken.
A thing that will become a human still has human as the end result. There is no chance a woman can get pregnant and then it turns into a chicken or a moose. It's human all the way!
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,422
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it won't.
If carried to term, the end result would be a baby elephant after about 18 months.
No amount of wishful thinking on your part could ever turn this into a human.
You certainly couldn't have made a cheese and pickle sandwich out of lettuce, tomato, bacon, and bread.
And pretending that you could just makes you look idiotic.
But under the terms of your analogy, they destroyed your ingredients. Those ingredients weren't a sandwich, any more than they were a bacon salad with croutons.
A thing that has the potential to become something else is not that something else.
A pile of bricks isn't a house. An acorn isn't an oak tree. An egg isn't a chicken.
A thing that will become a human still has human as the end result. There is no chance a woman can get pregnant and then it turns into a chicken or a moose. It's human all the way!
Unless it's not.
Most conceptions never result in a baby. Abortion is the least of the obstacles between a freshly fertilised ovum and future personhood.
The potential to become a thing is not the thing itself.
If you think it is, then you are a fucking moron.
Most acorns never become oak trees.
That's life.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K2B1pv_8us[/YOUTUBE]
What do you think of this? According to you guys, this was "just a fetus" and could NEVER survive on its own.
Time to rethink the abortion laws, yet?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,096
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
If that is a typical representation of this Knowles fellow you keep promoting, I now see why. You seem to be attracted to lies and misrepresentations.
I'm wondering, do you realize how many millions of dollars it cost to achieve that? Do you also realize that you and I are paying for that? What if the baby now needs food stamps? What if the baby needs further extensive medical care (most likely)? Are you willing to pay for that? I ask because, generally, people of your political bent would not want to pay for any of the above.
What lies? The baby was born at 23 weeks, when leftists insist it's "just a fetus."
I am OK with using tax dollars to help babies like this. What's the alternative? Kill the baby for our convenience? Knowles even pointed out this baby would've been killed in multiple states. The laws need to be rethought, period.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,096
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
And there's the lie.
Here's the fetal viability numbers (Percentage is survival rate outside the womb):
21 weeks or less: 0% chance of survival
22 weeks: 0-3% survival rate
23 weeks: 0-5% survival rate
24 weeks: 40-70% survival rate
25 weeks: 50-80% survival rate
26 weeks: 80-90% survival rate
27 weeks: >90% survival rate
30 weeks: >95% survival rate
34 weeks: >98% survival rate
Based on this, we can conclude allowing abortions up to 28 weeks is insanity. Since you guys love to talk about survival rate outside the womb, would you agree the ban on abortion should start at 22 weeks?
1) An elephant embryo will turn into a human baby??
2) It might become a human baby in 9 months. God is the greatest abortionist ever.
3) So what if it might become a human baby in 9 months? Were she to ovulate it could become a human baby in 9 months, also. Does that mean she's done something wrong by not conceiving?
4) Yes, you can not make a sandwich. You didn't have a sandwich, though, merely the potential to make one.
If he weren't a sadist he could make good come without bad things.
You're committing one of the standard sins of the "pro-life" community--blurring the two definitions of "human".
Given the utter dishonesty of "pro-life" videos I'm not going to bother to watch. However, looking at the title lets consider the facts:
At 23 weeks there is only a 10% chance of survival and a very high chance of major problems. From looking for stats it appears that there was a 23 week birth that turned out well--and became a news thing because it is so rare.
Furthermore, note that abortions at 23 weeks almost certainly mean something went badly wrong--either fetal defects or the woman's health/life is at risk. Despite the propaganda women don't simply choose to have abortions that far along. (Although there are some cases where the woman chose far earlier and it took that long to overcome the roadblocks you put in her way.)