The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to end legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for the melt downs.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kavanagh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to end
> legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for the
> melt downs.


And I can’t fucking wait until your young son gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or your young daughter get pregnant by her high school boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant or worse yet, she is raped by one of those illegal aliens Trump is always talking about. All three of those options have you paying for it all for the rest of your lives. So your child’s life is ruined, you and your spouses lives are ruined.
Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.

Stare decisis. Abortion is going nowhere.

Practially speaking... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stare decisis. Abortion is going nowhere.

Right, just like Plessy v. Ferguson. I'm sure glad separate but equal is equal - it's really maintained the quality of our public schools. Can you imagine if that had been overturned? Good God - the public school system would have been ruined!

You dumbfucks took what would have been a moderate voice and turned him into an absolute mujahideen on the Supreme Court. He is going to make it his life's work to DESTROY every single progressive argument that comes before the Court as payback for this smear you've perpetrated. I wanted the hardcore Catholic woman with seven kids, but she's going to look like Kennedy compared to Brett post-smear.

That's all America needs. 2 million more unwanted dindonuffins born per year.

Cuckservatives better not touch that shit, I don't give a flying fuck about a fetus and I sure as fuck don't want to pay child support for 18 years. Abortions should be encouraged for low income people.

slightly right of center goy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Abortions should be encouraged for low income
> people.


Not abortions. Sterilization is the answer. If you're on public assistance, you should be sterilized. That goes for men and women.


 
Attachments:

so many dindos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's all America needs. 2 million more unwanted
> dindonuffins born per year.

I'm all for abortion, saved my drunk ass, but will be happy to see it outlawed as retribution. Worth it just for the wailing.

Kavanagh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to end
> legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for the
> melt downs.


I can't wait until your daughter gets knocked up by a nigger. That will be a meltdown worth seeing

Practially speaking... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stare decisis. Abortion is going nowhere.

Stare decisis means nothing at the Supreme Court. If it did segregation would still be legal. Face it, the Supreme Court is all about politics, not the constitution.

Perhaps in the ‘minds’ of assholes like you and shitstains like Brett Kavanaugh.

Krama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kavanagh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to
> end
> > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for
> the
> > melt downs.
>
>
> And I can’t fucking wait until your young son
> gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or your
> young daughter get pregnant by her high school
> boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant or
> worse yet, she is raped by one of those illegal
> aliens Trump is always talking about. All three of
> those options have you paying for it all for the
> rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> ruined, you and your spouses lives are ruined.
> Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.

What a despicable, low life way to live! To look at an unborn baby as something which could/can ruin a life!!! Maybe, instead of baby shaming a young mother / father, you should think about celebrating a new LIFE in this world! MAYBE, you should celebrate someone's decision to put that child up for adoption instead of killing it!!!

If this country would put the $$$ into subsidized adoptions instead of baby killing, this country would have another chance of having ANOTHER of it GREATEST GENERATIONS!!!!!

Your thought process opens the door to kill someone if they've lost their job of flunked out of high school or college. If you ruin YOUR life can't we just kill you, too?

Hopefully, changes are coming which allows our society to truly honor LIFE. AND we as a culture & country understand what it means to have HONOR!!!

If we are overtaken by Asian Countries, it will be because we do not teach our children the importance of HONOR!!!

mystery play Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krama Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kavanagh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets
> to
> > end
> > > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for
> > the
> > > melt downs.
> >
> >
> > And I can’t fucking wait until your young son
> > gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or
> your
> > young daughter get pregnant by her high school
> > boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant or
> > worse yet, she is raped by one of those illegal
> > aliens Trump is always talking about. All three
> of
> > those options have you paying for it all for
> the
> > rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> > ruined, you and your spouses lives are ruined.
> > Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.
>
> What a despicable, low life way to live! To look
> at an unborn baby as something which could/can
> ruin a life!!! Maybe, instead of baby shaming a
> young mother / father, you should think about
> celebrating a new LIFE in this world! MAYBE, you
> should celebrate someone's decision to put that
> child up for adoption instead of killing it!!!
>
> If this country would put the $$$ into subsidized
> adoptions instead of baby killing, this country
> would have another chance of having ANOTHER of it
> GREATEST GENERATIONS!!!!!
>
> Your thought process opens the door to kill
> someone if they've lost their job of flunked out
> of high school or college. If you ruin YOUR life
> can't we just kill you, too?
>
> Hopefully, changes are coming which allows our
> society to truly honor LIFE. AND we as a culture &
> country understand what it means to have HONOR!!!
>
> If we are overtaken by Asian Countries, it will be
> because we do not teach our children the
> importance of HONOR!!!

It's a fetus, you dope. Not a BABY! My girlfriends have had several abortions and I've never thought twice about it. Saved me a butt load of money too!

And the racists on here wonder why their race is dying out. Stop killing so many babies and raise them right instead of acting like teenagers until 35. Two more justices for Trump and this country will finally be back on the right track.

Whether one chooses to abort or not isn’t relevant. The facts are that there is nowhere from which a fetus can derive rights that are a priori superior to those of a grown woman. All of that is a product not of fact and reason, but of baseless religious jumbo-jumbo. We as a nation are pledged to turn away from such foolishness as that.

Let’s be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether one chooses to abort or not isn’t
> relevant. The facts are that there is nowhere from
> which a fetus can derive rights that are a priori
> superior to those of a grown woman. All of that
> is a product not of fact and reason, but of
> baseless religious jumbo-jumbo. We as a nation
> are pledged to turn away from such foolishness as
> that.

If I get to the intersection before you I have priority right off way, so I can kill you if I want. Great argument.

In any case, who cares? The only thing that matters is the Derangement Syndrome levels hitting the moon.

Let’s be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether one chooses to abort or not isn’t
> relevant. The facts are that there is nowhere from
> which a fetus can derive rights that are a priori
> superior to those of a grown woman. All of that
> is a product not of fact and reason, but of
> baseless religious jumbo-jumbo. We as a nation
> are pledged to turn away from such foolishness as
> that.

How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like "penumbras?" Do you know when life begins? If you do, you're the only person on the planet who does, because scientists don't. They keep moving back the date, though. Babies are now often delivered prematurely inside the second trimester and surviving. Under the current framework, those babies could have been aborted. So what's the difference between a viable baby and a "fetus?" Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't survive on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that apply to paraplegics that need machines to breath? Can we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby left in a field will die - can it "survive on its own?"

The logic that underpins abortion is plainly fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based on a weekend of studying fetal biology and the invention of rights not enumerated in the Constitution but existing in the "penumbra" of it. If you want to murder babies, just say that, but don't be intellectually dishonest about it by deploying specious, legalistic arguments that are totally subjective and devoid of any scientific theory.

I want to murder babies.

Oh please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like
> "penumbras?" Do you know when life begins? If
> you do, you're the only person on the planet who
> does, because scientists don't. They keep moving
> back the date, though. Babies are now often
> delivered prematurely inside the second trimester
> and surviving. Under the current framework, those
> babies could have been aborted. So what's the
> difference between a viable baby and a "fetus?"
> Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't survive
> on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that apply
> to paraplegics that need machines to breath? Can
> we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby left in
> a field will die - can it "survive on its own?"
>
> The logic that underpins abortion is plainly
> fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based on a
> weekend of studying fetal biology and the
> invention of rights not enumerated in the
> Constitution but existing in the "penumbra" of it.
> If you want to murder babies, just say that, but
> don't be intellectually dishonest about it by
> deploying specious, legalistic arguments that are
> totally subjective and devoid of any scientific
> theory.

Of course it's subjective. And it's been decided. An unborn fetus can be aborted under certain defined conditions. Nothing tricky to understand about that. The Court could have chosen any other point, from birth of the mother to age 90. Stare decisis. Without compelling new data, there's no reason SCOTUS will change that.

And try not to forget that this is not a "Christian" country: separation of Church and State, remember? (not that you mentioned this, just pointing it out before somebody tries to invoke their favorite invisible man in the sky as justification).

Since you asked so nicely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh please Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like
> > "penumbras?" Do you know when life begins? If
> > you do, you're the only person on the planet
> who
> > does, because scientists don't. They keep
> moving
> > back the date, though. Babies are now often
> > delivered prematurely inside the second
> trimester
> > and surviving. Under the current framework,
> those
> > babies could have been aborted. So what's the
> > difference between a viable baby and a "fetus?"
>
> > Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't
> survive
> > on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that
> apply
> > to paraplegics that need machines to breath?
> Can
> > we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby left
> in
> > a field will die - can it "survive on its own?"
>
> >
> > The logic that underpins abortion is plainly
> > fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based on
> a
> > weekend of studying fetal biology and the
> > invention of rights not enumerated in the
> > Constitution but existing in the "penumbra" of
> it.
> > If you want to murder babies, just say that,
> but
> > don't be intellectually dishonest about it by
> > deploying specious, legalistic arguments that
> are
> > totally subjective and devoid of any scientific
> > theory.
>
> Of course it's subjective. And it's been decided.
> An unborn fetus can be aborted under certain
> defined conditions. Nothing tricky to understand
> about that. The Court could have chosen any other
> point, from birth of the mother to age 90. Stare
> decisis. Without compelling new data, there's no
> reason SCOTUS will change that.

Then why do you fear so much that it will be overturned?

In fact there is quite a bit more data now and far more scientific bases than was used at the time. But the science part of it is easy. Virtually nobody objective about would question that it is human life. The question isn't one of science but rather one of morals around terminating it. Science is only used in an attempt to justify it. Just as it's used in other various other cases which involve justifying ending human life. Doesn't change that you are though, just makes it seem a little less "messy.'


> And try not to forget that this is not a
> "Christian" country: separation of Church and
> State, remember? (not that you mentioned this,
> just pointing it out before somebody tries to
> invoke their favorite invisible man in the sky as
> justification).

Which of course you just did. Fucking evangelical atheists are more annoying than evangelical Christians. lol

Jimmy Abort It Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mystery play Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Krama Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Kavanagh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> a fetus is a baby, asshole
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets
> > to
> > > end
> > > > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait
> for
> > > the
> > > > melt downs.
> > >
> > >
> > > And I can’t fucking wait until your young
> son
> > > gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or
> > your
> > > young daughter get pregnant by her high
> school
> > > boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant
> or
> > > worse yet, she is raped by one of those
> illegal
> > > aliens Trump is always talking about. All
> three
> > of
> > > those options have you paying for it all for
> > the
> > > rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> > > ruined, you and your spouses lives are
> ruined.
> > > Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.
> >
> > What a despicable, low life way to live! To
> look
> > at an unborn baby as something which could/can
> > ruin a life!!! Maybe, instead of baby shaming a
> > young mother / father, you should think about
> > celebrating a new LIFE in this world! MAYBE,
> you
> > should celebrate someone's decision to put that
> > child up for adoption instead of killing it!!!
> >
> > If this country would put the $$$ into
> subsidized
> > adoptions instead of baby killing, this country
> > would have another chance of having ANOTHER of
> it
> > GREATEST GENERATIONS!!!!!
> >
> > Your thought process opens the door to kill
> > someone if they've lost their job of flunked
> out
> > of high school or college. If you ruin YOUR
> life
> > can't we just kill you, too?
> >
> > Hopefully, changes are coming which allows our
> > society to truly honor LIFE. AND we as a culture
> &
> > country understand what it means to have
> HONOR!!!
> >
> > If we are overtaken by Asian Countries, it will
> be
> > because we do not teach our children the
> > importance of HONOR!!!
>
> It's a fetus, you dope. Not a BABY! My
> girlfriends have had several abortions and I've
> never thought twice about it. Saved me a butt
> load of money too!

4hjmc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact there is quite a bit more data now and far
> more scientific bases than was used at the time.
> But the science part of it is easy. Virtually
> nobody objective about would question that it is
> human life. The question isn't one of science but
> rather one of morals around terminating it.
> Science is only used in an attempt to justify it.
> Just as it's used in other various other cases
> which involve justifying ending human life.
> Doesn't change that you are though, just makes it
> seem a little less "messy.'

Again, you're missing the point. Look up "arbitrary".

> > And try not to forget that this is not a
> > "Christian" country: separation of Church and
> > State, remember? (not that you mentioned this,
> > just pointing it out before somebody tries to
> > invoke their favorite invisible man in the sky
> as
> > justification).
>
> Which of course you just did. Fucking evangelical
> atheists are more annoying than evangelical
> Christians. lol

Who's an atheist? Some of us understand what "separation" means.

Perhaps you just need a dictionary?

See, it's started already, nothing in this world scares the left more than the thought that they can't kill their babies anymore. So sweet this is finally happening.

Bzzzt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4hjmc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In fact there is quite a bit more data now and
> far
> > more scientific bases than was used at the time.
>
> > But the science part of it is easy. Virtually
> > nobody objective about would question that it
> is
> > human life. The question isn't one of science
> but
> > rather one of morals around terminating it.
> > Science is only used in an attempt to justify
> it.
> > Just as it's used in other various other cases
> > which involve justifying ending human life.
> > Doesn't change that you are though, just makes
> it
> > seem a little less "messy.'
>
> Again, you're missing the point. Look up
> "arbitrary".

Not the point being addressed. Yes, it is arbitrary. You were the one earlier stating that someone believing that a fetus is human life with whatever rights that may convey being a "product not of fact and reason..." Remember?

Quote

> The facts are that there is nowhere from
> which a fetus can derive rights that are a priori
> superior to those of a grown woman. All of that
> is a product not of fact and reason, but of
> baseless religious jumbo-jumbo.

Fact is that's it's difficult for me as someone with a hard biology background mostly centered on genetics/molecular biology (and basically not being religious at all) by "fact and reason" to see how it is not considered human life. What's not of "fact and reason" is the arbitrary determination made around when it's acceptable to terminate it. You can justify that in any way that you like, but don't try to play like there's any more "fact and reason" involved on that side. There is not. In fact. largely the opposite.


> > > And try not to forget that this is not a
> > > "Christian" country: separation of Church and
> > > State, remember? (not that you mentioned
> this,
> > > just pointing it out before somebody tries to
> > > invoke their favorite invisible man in the
> sky
> > as
> > > justification).
> >
> > Which of course you just did. Fucking
> evangelical
> > atheists are more annoying than evangelical
> > Christians. lol
>
> Who's an atheist? Some of us understand what
> "separation" means.
>
> Perhaps you just need a dictionary?


Sorry, your snarky "invisible man in the sky" line gave you away.

And some of us understand it's the establishment of religion not a necessary and absolute separation.

Perhaps you just need a copy of the Constitution?

You're confusing posters, quite reasonably. I said "arbitrary", not "fact and reason". Arbitrary is arbitrary, hard to argue with.

.
Attachments:

,
Attachments:

Jimmy Abort It Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mystery play Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Krama Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Kavanagh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets
> > to
> > > end
> > > > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait
> for
> > > the
> > > > melt downs.
> > >
> > >
> > > And I can’t fucking wait until your young
> son
> > > gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or
> > your
> > > young daughter get pregnant by her high
> school
> > > boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant
> or
> > > worse yet, she is raped by one of those
> illegal
> > > aliens Trump is always talking about. All
> three
> > of
> > > those options have you paying for it all for
> > the
> > > rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> > > ruined, you and your spouses lives are
> ruined.
> > > Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.
> >
> > What a despicable, low life way to live! To
> look
> > at an unborn baby as something which could/can
> > ruin a life!!! Maybe, instead of baby shaming a
> > young mother / father, you should think about
> > celebrating a new LIFE in this world! MAYBE,
> you
> > should celebrate someone's decision to put that
> > child up for adoption instead of killing it!!!
> >
> > If this country would put the $$$ into
> subsidized
> > adoptions instead of baby killing, this country
> > would have another chance of having ANOTHER of
> it
> > GREATEST GENERATIONS!!!!!
> >
> > Your thought process opens the door to kill
> > someone if they've lost their job of flunked
> out
> > of high school or college. If you ruin YOUR
> life
> > can't we just kill you, too?
> >
> > Hopefully, changes are coming which allows our
> > society to truly honor LIFE. AND we as a culture
> &
> > country understand what it means to have
> HONOR!!!
> >
> > If we are overtaken by Asian Countries, it will
> be
> > because we do not teach our children the
> > importance of HONOR!!!
>
> It's a fetus, you dope. Not a BABY! My
> girlfriends have had several abortions and I've
> never thought twice about it. Saved me a butt
> load of money too!


She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no-one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace
Body I'm not an animal
Mummy I'm not an abortion
Dragged on a table in a factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming
Body screaming fucking bloody mess
It's not an animal it's an abortion
Body I'm not an animal
Body I'm not an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
I'm not a discharge I'm not a loss in
Protein I'm not a throbbing squirm Ah!
Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all and fuck the fucking brat
She don't want to baby that looks like that
I don't want to baby that looks like that.
Body I'm not an animal
Body I'm not an abortion
Mummy! Ugh!

Oh please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like "penumbras?"

To people of any scientific educations at all, the word 'penumbra' is an ordinary concept. It's just the super-ignorant who can't seem to process it.

Keep in mind by the way that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

> Do you know when life begins? If you do, you're the only
> person on the planet who does, because scientists don't.

Wake up, moron. Life is a continuum. (Or is 'continuum' in the same class as 'penumbra' for you?) The sperm and egg were both examples of life before they ever managed to form a zygote. Nothing changed in their union. It would be well to note also that 'conception' is not a moment, but rather an entirely fallible process.

> They keep moving back the date, though. Babies are now often
> delivered prematurely inside the second trimester and surviving.

They don't move anything, clown-boy. Through technology, they get better at supporting preemies. You should understand of course that there are limits to that.

> Under the current framework, those babies could have been aborted.

But they aren't on any elective basis. Abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare and are typically performed only when serious complications have threatened the life and health of either the fetus or the woman. You God-bots need to understand that the notion of a 'failed pregnancy' exists precisely because it is so common.

> So what's the difference between a viable baby and a "fetus?"

From the standpoint of viability and including the zygote, blastocyst, and embryo stages, a total of about 24 weeks. although survival rates at such an age are very low. Considering the high risks of retardation and severe damage to other physical systems, some cultures indeed consider it unethical even to try to support a delivered fetus at such an early age.

> Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't survive
> on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that apply
> to paraplegics that need machines to breath? Can
> we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby left in
> a field will die - can it "survive on its own?"

Ah, inventing your own straw-men, I see. As with so many of your inexplicably crude beliefs, you are only demonstrating a refusal to discuss these matters in any sort of serious manner at all. Surely you know of assisted suicide, what a DNR order is, and that hospices provide palliative care?

> The logic that underpins abortion is plainly
> fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based on a
> weekend of studying fetal biology and the
> invention of rights not enumerated in the
> Constitution but existing in the "penumbra" of it.

While it may be confusing to members of "The Cult of the Fetus", the logic behind abortion is perfectly simple. We do not have nor do we want a regime of compulsory childbirth in this country. A woman here has instead the right to guide her own reproductive history. This includes the use of birth control methods up to and including abortion when other methods have not worked.

> If you want to murder babies, just say that, but don't
> be intellectually dishonest about it by deploying specious,
> legalistic arguments that are totally subjective and devoid
> of any scientific theory.

No one wants to murder babies, jackass. Some however do oddly wish to use the term 'baby' to apply to things that quite plainly are not babies at all, except by the worst sorts of fantasy-driven distortion and linguistic misconstruction. Shame on such persons for their callous dishonesty.

4hjmc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which of course you just did. Fucking evangelical atheists
> are more annoying than evangelical Christians. lol

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

tvu4v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And some of us understand it's the establishment of religion
> not a necessary and absolute separation. Perhaps you just need
> a copy of the Constitution?

A copy of the actual US Constitution might be helpful. Along with the body of jurisprudence that has emanated from it. Not at all so with any copy of the latter-day Bizarro Constitution that so many right-wingers sing their praises to.

In current practice, the state may not endorse or favor a particular religion over any other, nor religion in general over non-religion.

Well... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tvu4v Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And some of us understand it's the establishment
> of religion
> > not a necessary and absolute separation.
> Perhaps you just need
> > a copy of the Constitution?
>
> A copy of the actual US Constitution might be
> helpful. Along with the body of jurisprudence
> that has emanated from it. Not at all so with any
> copy of the latter-day Bizarro Constitution that
> so many right-wingers sing their praises to.
>
> In current practice, the state may not endorse or
> favor a particular religion over any other, nor
> religion in general over non-religion.


None of which backs up your "separation of church and state" BS. As you now tacitly concede in your gear change to endorsing and favoring vs separation.

Point of order... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4hjmc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which of course you just did. Fucking
> evangelical atheists
> > are more annoying than evangelical Christians.
> lol
>
> Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not
> collecting stamps is a hobby.


If you're evangelical in your hatred of collecting stamps then, yes, it is.

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh please Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like
> "penumbras?"
>
> To people of any scientific educations at all, the
> word 'penumbra' is an ordinary concept. It's just
> the super-ignorant who can't seem to process it.
>

OMG..."penumbra" is a legal term used by Blackman when he wrote Roe. It refers to a right that isn't listed in the Constitution, but can be deduced from the bill of rights. It means "shadow," ie, a right found in the shadow of the Bill of Rights. It's a nonsensical legal concept he made up to justify his decision, and it has never, ever been applied again.

Here's another "ordinary concept" "to people of any scientific educations (sic) at all:" "false in one, false in all" (jk, it also is a legal concept). It means if you lie once, everything you say can assumed to be a lie. You're suck a fucking moron, I'm not going to bother to rebut the rest of your reply because the very first point you made is so imbecilic I can't be bothered to debate someone as stupid as you. You're a know-nothing regurgitating programing you've been fed at a very poor college in a very poor "social science" (oxymoron) class.

> No one wants to murder babies, jackass. Some
> however do oddly wish to use the term 'baby' to
> apply to things that quite plainly are not babies
> at all, except by the worst sorts of
> fantasy-driven distortion and linguistic
> misconstruction. Shame on such persons for their
> callous dishonesty.

Niggah puhleeeeeze!
Shit!
You think LIBs were imploding when Trump was elected, wait until Kavanaugh gets confirmed!!!

Now you Liberals will see what we had to deal with under your messiah Barry Soetero!

This is America!

Buh bye abortion!

Say buh bye to planned parenthood too!

Say buh bye to faggs setting up bakeries, with their bullshit requests.

Say buh bye to the bullshit “emoluments clause” lawsuit!

Justice Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

*remember how Lois @IRS colluded to exclude non LIBERAL non profits????

Payback is a bitch!

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh please Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like
> "penumbras?"
>
> To people of any scientific educations at all, the
> word 'penumbra' is an ordinary concept. It's just
> the super-ignorant who can't seem to process it.
>
>
> Keep in mind by the way that the enumeration in
> the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by
> the people.
>
> > Do you know when life begins? If you do, you're
> the only
> > person on the planet who does, because
> scientists don't.
>
> Wake up, moron. Life is a continuum. (Or is
> 'continuum' in the same class as 'penumbra' for
> you?) The sperm and egg were both examples of
> life before they ever managed to form a zygote.
> Nothing changed in their union. It would be well
> to note also that 'conception' is not a moment,
> but rather an entirely fallible process.

Sperm generally is not considered human life. It can never on its own result in human life. Potentially through some artificial replication process and further intervention to force differentiation but it doesn't hold the other supporting cellular structures on its own to do so. It's basically human pollen.

An egg arguably more so in that it could potentially yield human life independent of other genetic input via parthenogenic activation. Which was demonstrated at a human level back in 2001.

In fact, embryonic human life has been produced from neither sperm or egg. As has been demonstrated in other mammals through full generation of living animals all the way now up though living primates.

But none of the above represent what one typically would deem natural human life as is the question here. In that case in fact there are significant changes as a result of their union (duh). We're not talking about the failures and the potential for failure does not belie the case for actual success.

It's science brah. Did you ever actually take any ?


>
> > They keep moving back the date, though. Babies
> are now often
> > delivered prematurely inside the second
> trimester and surviving.
>
> They don't move anything, clown-boy. Through
> technology, they get better at supporting
> preemies. You should understand of course that
> there are limits to that.


Which virtually nobody would deny is human life even if not completely independently viable. The limits are not so much technical at this point as they are practical, financial, and moral.

>
> > Under the current framework, those babies could
> have been aborted.
>
> But they aren't on any elective basis. Abortions
> after 20 weeks are extremely rare and are
> typically performed only when serious
> complications have threatened the life and health
> of either the fetus or the woman. You God-bots
> need to understand that the notion of a 'failed
> pregnancy' exists precisely because it is so
> common.
>

20 weeks being entirely arbitrary, not based on any real hard scientific basis for what constitutes human life and becoming less of a limit in terms of viability.


> > So what's the difference between a viable baby
> and a "fetus?"
>
> From the standpoint of viability and including the
> zygote, blastocyst, and embryo stages, a total of
> about 24 weeks. although survival rates at such an
> age are very low. Considering the high risks of
> retardation and severe damage to other physical
> systems, some cultures indeed consider it
> unethical even to try to support a delivered fetus
> at such an early age.


And many consider the beginning of life and associated limits to on-demand to be much earlier than in the US. Again, arbitrary legal and moral vs based in science.


> > Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't
> survive
> > on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that
> apply
> > to paraplegics that need machines to breath?
> Can
> > we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby left
> in
> > a field will die - can it "survive on its own?"
>
>
> Ah, inventing your own straw-men, I see. As with
> so many of your inexplicably crude beliefs, you
> are only demonstrating a refusal to discuss these
> matters in any sort of serious manner at all.
> Surely you know of assisted suicide, what a DNR
> order is, and that hospices provide palliative
> care?
>
> > The logic that underpins abortion is plainly
> > fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based on
> a
> > weekend of studying fetal biology and the
> > invention of rights not enumerated in the
> > Constitution but existing in the "penumbra" of
> it.
>
> While it may be confusing to members of "The
> Cult of the Fetus", the logic behind abortion
> is perfectly simple. We do not have nor do we
> want a regime of compulsory childbirth in this
> country. A woman here has instead the right to
> guide her own reproductive history. This includes
> the use of birth control methods up to and
> including abortion when other methods have not
> worked.
>

Which is a practical/moral argument, not one based in science.

> > If you want to murder babies, just say that, but
> don't
> > be intellectually dishonest about it by
> deploying specious,
> > legalistic arguments that are totally subjective
> and devoid
> > of any scientific theory.
>
> No one wants to murder babies, jackass. Some
> however do oddly wish to use the term 'baby' to
> apply to things that quite plainly are not babies
> at all, except by the worst sorts of
> fantasy-driven distortion and linguistic
> misconstruction. Shame on such persons for their
> callous dishonesty.

You mean exactly like you do with the term 'fetus?' Are you denying that a fetus is human life? You're making the same arbitrary judgments and linguistic 'misconstructions' to justify it on your terms. There's absolutely no difference. There's no superior 'science' involved. Stop pretending that there is. You've simply picked an different starting point which doesn't necessarily have any more validity than any other.

Personally, I am what would be called "pro-choice." But I don't try to deny what it is - terminating human life - or try to obscure it with some pseudo-scientific justifications in order to make it seem more socially acceptable and less morally "messy."

https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw

Why does pro-choice have to be so profane?
It’s like liberals want to be proud of murdering babies!

hxpwt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh please Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > How about baseless legal mumbo jumbo like
> > "penumbras?"
> >
> > To people of any scientific educations at all,
> the
> > word 'penumbra' is an ordinary concept. It's
> just
> > the super-ignorant who can't seem to process it.
>
> >
> >
> > Keep in mind by the way that the enumeration in
> > the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
> be
> > construed to deny or disparage others retained
> by
> > the people.
> >
> > > Do you know when life begins? If you do,
> you're
> > the only
> > > person on the planet who does, because
> > scientists don't.
> >
> > Wake up, moron. Life is a continuum. (Or is
> > 'continuum' in the same class as 'penumbra' for
> > you?) The sperm and egg were both examples of
> > life before they ever managed to form a zygote.
>
> > Nothing changed in their union. It would be
> well
> > to note also that 'conception' is not a moment,
> > but rather an entirely fallible process.
>
> Sperm generally is not considered human life. It
> can never on its own result in human life.
> Potentially through some artificial replication
> process and further intervention to force
> differentiation but it doesn't hold the other
> supporting cellular structures on its own to do
> so. It's basically human pollen.
>
> An egg arguably more so in that it could
> potentially yield human life independent of other
> genetic input via parthenogenic activation. Which
> was demonstrated at a human level back in 2001.
>
> In fact, embryonic human life has been produced
> from neither sperm or egg. As has been
> demonstrated in other mammals through full
> generation of living animals all the way now up
> though living primates.
>
> But none of the above represent what one typically
> would deem natural human life as is the question
> here. In that case in fact there are significant
> changes as a result of their union (duh). We're
> not talking about the failures and the potential
> for failure does not belie the case for actual
> success.
>
> It's science brah. Did you ever actually take any
> ?
>
>
> >
> > > They keep moving back the date, though.
> Babies
> > are now often
> > > delivered prematurely inside the second
> > trimester and surviving.
> >
> > They don't move anything, clown-boy. Through
> > technology, they get better at supporting
> > preemies. You should understand of course that
> > there are limits to that.
>
>
> Which virtually nobody would deny is human life
> even if not completely independently viable. The
> limits are not so much technical at this point as
> they are practical, financial, and moral.
>
> >
> > > Under the current framework, those babies
> could
> > have been aborted.
> >
> > But they aren't on any elective basis.
> Abortions
> > after 20 weeks are extremely rare and are
> > typically performed only when serious
> > complications have threatened the life and
> health
> > of either the fetus or the woman. You God-bots
> > need to understand that the notion of a 'failed
> > pregnancy' exists precisely because it is so
> > common.
> >
>
> 20 weeks being entirely arbitrary, not based on
> any real hard scientific basis for what
> constitutes human life and becoming less of a
> limit in terms of viability.
>
>
> > > So what's the difference between a viable
> baby
> > and a "fetus?"
> >
> > From the standpoint of viability and including
> the
> > zygote, blastocyst, and embryo stages, a total
> of
> > about 24 weeks. although survival rates at such
> an
> > age are very low. Considering the high risks
> of
> > retardation and severe damage to other physical
> > systems, some cultures indeed consider it
> > unethical even to try to support a delivered
> fetus
> > at such an early age.
>
>
> And many consider the beginning of life and
> associated limits to on-demand to be much earlier
> than in the US. Again, arbitrary legal and moral
> vs based in science.
>
>
> > > Whether or not it's wanted? "If it can't
> > survive
> > > on it's own blah blah blah" - so does that
> > apply
> > > to paraplegics that need machines to breath?
> > Can
> > > we murder them? A perfectly healthy baby
> left
> > in
> > > a field will die - can it "survive on its
> own?"
> >
> >
> > Ah, inventing your own straw-men, I see. As
> with
> > so many of your inexplicably crude beliefs, you
> > are only demonstrating a refusal to discuss
> these
> > matters in any sort of serious manner at all.
> > Surely you know of assisted suicide, what a DNR
> > order is, and that hospices provide palliative
> > care?
> >
> > > The logic that underpins abortion is plainly
> > > fallacious; it was made up by Blackmun based
> on
> > a
> > > weekend of studying fetal biology and the
> > > invention of rights not enumerated in the
> > > Constitution but existing in the "penumbra"
> of
> > it.
> >
> > While it may be confusing to members of "The
> > Cult of the Fetus", the logic behind
> abortion
> > is perfectly simple. We do not have nor do we
> > want a regime of compulsory childbirth in this
> > country. A woman here has instead the right to
> > guide her own reproductive history. This
> includes
> > the use of birth control methods up to and
> > including abortion when other methods have not
> > worked.
> >
>
> Which is a practical/moral argument, not one based
> in science.
>
> > > If you want to murder babies, just say that,
> but
> > don't
> > > be intellectually dishonest about it by
> > deploying specious,
> > > legalistic arguments that are totally
> subjective
> > and devoid
> > > of any scientific theory.
> >
> > No one wants to murder babies, jackass. Some
> > however do oddly wish to use the term 'baby' to
> > apply to things that quite plainly are not
> babies
> > at all, except by the worst sorts of
> > fantasy-driven distortion and linguistic
> > misconstruction. Shame on such persons for
> their
> > callous dishonesty.
>
> You mean exactly like you do with the term
> 'fetus?' Are you denying that a fetus is human
> life? You're making the same arbitrary judgments
> and linguistic 'misconstructions' to justify it on
> your terms. There's absolutely no difference.
> There's no superior 'science' involved. Stop
> pretending that there is. You've simply picked an
> different starting point which doesn't necessarily
> have any more validity than any other.
>
> Personally, I am what would be called
> "pro-choice." But I don't try to deny what it is
> - terminating human life - or try to obscure it
> with some pseudo-scientific justifications in
> order to make it seem more socially acceptable and
> less morally "messy."

Excellent reply. I am the inverse of you - I am pro life, but not for religious reasons (I am - on my best day - agnostic). I believe in basic human rights, the primary of which is the right to life. Since there is no objective, definitive definition of when life begins, we shouldn’t be practicing procedures that could potentially take it. I am similarly anti-capital punishment. So many pro-choicers are duplicitous and intellectually dishonest - just admit that you want the right to murder babies because they are sometimes inconvenient. Of course that would be a losing argument, so the couch their position in a bunch of subjective pseudoscience. Furthermore, 99% of them have never read Roe (like the buffoon above) or the other cases that informed it, and are wholly ignorant on the subject, simply regurgitating the Third Wave, Planned Parenthood talking points that have been drilled into their brains by progressive educators. They’re just robots - “It’s my body, women’s ‘reproductivewilll rights, blah blah blah.” Of course half of all babies murdered are female, but that factoid never seems to cause them any dissonance.

Let the States decide; places like California and Maryland willlet you cut your two year old up with a butcher knife if you want, and places like Texas will protect the defenseless babies from being root-routered.

The Good Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buh bye abortion!
>
> Say buh bye to planned parenthood too!
>
> Say buh bye to faggs setting up bakeries, with
> their bullshit requests.
>
> Say buh bye to the bullshit “emoluments
> clause” lawsuit!
>
> Justice Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
>
> *remember how Lois @IRS colluded to exclude non
> LIBERAL non profits????
>
> Payback is a bitch!


This is so true, I've always been moderate but the left is so crazed right now that I want them to lose everything.

The big one is abortion though, chicks are freaking cold blooded with that shit, guys would suffer through the nine months and give up the kid for adoption before cutting the baby out.

Very Well said Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Excellent reply. I am the inverse of you - I am
> pro life, but not for religious reasons (I am - on
> my best day - agnostic). I believe in basic human
> rights, the primary of which is the right to life.
> Since there is no objective, definitive
> definition of when life begins, we shouldn’t be
> practicing procedures that could potentially take
> it. I am similarly anti-capital punishment. So
> many pro-choicers are duplicitous and
> intellectually dishonest - just admit that you
> want the right to murder babies because they are
> sometimes inconvenient. Of course that would be a
> losing argument, so the couch their position in a
> bunch of subjective pseudoscience. Furthermore,
> 99% of them have never read Roe (like the buffoon
> above) or the other cases that informed it, and
> are wholly ignorant on the subject, simply
> regurgitating the Third Wave, Planned Parenthood
> talking points that have been drilled into their
> brains by progressive educators. They’re just
> robots - “It’s my body, women’s
> ‘reproductivewilll rights, blah blah blah.”
> Of course half of all babies murdered are female,
> but that factoid never seems to cause them any
> dissonance.
>
> Let the States decide; places like California and
> Maryland willlet you cut your two year old up with
> a butcher knife if you want, and places like Texas
> will protect the defenseless babies from being
> root-routered.


I tend to be a practical, objective person. There are justifications at a practical level for abortion and in the larger scheme of things for terminating human life in other cases. You may disagree with it in whatever case but there is at least a clear legal/moral/medical/other rationale and nobody really tries to pretend otherwise. We do it all the time. War, law enforcement, self defense, defects/disease, end of life, etc. The reasoning may vary but no real difference in end result. We're purposefully terminating human life where we believe that it's justified and the better of alternatives.

The bullshit around abortion bugs me. That's about the only case where some like the knucklehead above try to pretend otherwise. Don't feed me some arbitrary distinctions over what represents human life within it's development. Don't pretend that you have some better 'science' on your side. Don't try to obscure it with the dumb 'women's health clinic' nonsense. Everyone knows what it is. Just own up to what you're doing, don't try to minimize it with more politically acceptable language, and make your argument on a honest basis.

kbnk6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very Well said Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Excellent reply. I am the inverse of you - I
> am
> > pro life, but not for religious reasons (I am -
> on
> > my best day - agnostic). I believe in basic
> human
> > rights, the primary of which is the right to
> life.
> > Since there is no objective, definitive
> > definition of when life begins, we shouldn’t
> be
> > practicing procedures that could potentially
> take
> > it. I am similarly anti-capital punishment.
> So
> > many pro-choicers are duplicitous and
> > intellectually dishonest - just admit that you
> > want the right to murder babies because they
> are
> > sometimes inconvenient. Of course that would be
> a
> > losing argument, so the couch their position in
> a
> > bunch of subjective pseudoscience.
> Furthermore,
> > 99% of them have never read Roe (like the
> buffoon
> > above) or the other cases that informed it, and
> > are wholly ignorant on the subject, simply
> > regurgitating the Third Wave, Planned
> Parenthood
> > talking points that have been drilled into
> their
> > brains by progressive educators. They’re
> just
> > robots - “It’s my body, women’s
> > ‘reproductivewilll rights, blah blah blah.”
>
> > Of course half of all babies murdered are
> female,
> > but that factoid never seems to cause them any
> > dissonance.
> >
> > Let the States decide; places like California
> and
> > Maryland willlet you cut your two year old up
> with
> > a butcher knife if you want, and places like
> Texas
> > will protect the defenseless babies from being
> > root-routered.
>
>
> I tend to be a practical, objective person. There
> are justifications at a practical level for
> abortion and in the larger scheme of things for
> terminating human life in other cases. You may
> disagree with it in whatever case but there is at
> least a clear legal/moral/medical/other rationale
> and nobody really tries to pretend otherwise. We
> do it all the time. War, law enforcement, self
> defense, defects/disease, end of life, etc. The
> reasoning may vary but no real difference in end
> result. We're purposefully terminating human life
> where we believe that it's justified and the
> better of alternatives.
>
> The bullshit around abortion bugs me. That's
> about the only case where some like the
> knucklehead above try to pretend otherwise. Don't
> feed me some arbitrary distinctions over what
> represents human life within it's development.
> Don't pretend that you have some better 'science'
> on your side. Don't try to obscure it with the
> dumb 'women's health clinic' nonsense. Everyone
> knows what it is. Just own up to what you're
> doing, don't try to minimize it with more
> politically acceptable language, and make your
> argument on a honest basis.

I commend you for your intellectual honesty and consistency. You are literally the only pro-choices I have ever come across that made an honest argument for your position. I’m actually kind of stunned to be honest - I don’t know you personally, but on this issue, it is clear that you are a person of exceptional rectitude, even if I disagree with your position.

Only folks against abortion are fugly chicks nobody wants to knock up, fugly dudes not getting any, or folks who bought into a dumb religion that doesn’t let them smash and now they’re jealous of those who can. So which are you, OP?

If you're opposed to abortion, how many unwanted crack-addicted babies can we put you down to raise? Keep in mind that they will have major health and mental problems throughout their lifetimes. So, how many? Seriously, what is the number of unwanted crack-addicted babies that were born prematurely can we drop off at your house for you to raise?

.
Attachments:

H6DPL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're opposed to abortion, how many unwanted
> crack-addicted babies can we put you down to
> raise? Keep in mind that they will have major
> health and mental problems throughout their
> lifetimes. So, how many? Seriously, what is the
> number of unwanted crack-addicted babies that were
> born prematurely can we drop off at your house for
> you to raise?


So you're saying that you're pro black genocide.

Gettin Some Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only folks against abortion are fugly chicks
> nobody wants to knock up, fugly dudes not getting
> any, or folks who bought into a dumb religion that
> doesn’t let them smash and now they’re jealous
> of those who can. So which are you, OP?


Pretty sure I've established in multiple posts that I fall into the category of people who are just into the abortion ban for the wailing from the snow flakes.

Two things for the liberals to think about:

1. Plessey v. Ferguson was once "settled law". Do you want to go back to that?

2. Amy Coney Barrett is likely next in line for appointment as an Associate Justice. Her confirmation hearings should be really interesting.

H6DPL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're opposed to abortion, how many unwanted
> crack-addicted babies can we put you down to
> raise? Keep in mind that they will have major
> health and mental problems throughout their
> lifetimes. So, how many? Seriously, what is the
> number of unwanted crack-addicted babies that were
> born prematurely can we drop off at your house for
> you to raise?

Wow - are you a Nazi? You sound like a Nazi - they genocided people (Jews, gypsies, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded/physically disabled, etc.) they didn't want in their society, just as you're advocating. So that's what you're advocating? The exact same policy executed by the Nazis?

Thas racith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> H6DPL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you're opposed to abortion, how many
> unwanted
> > crack-addicted babies can we put you down to
> > raise? Keep in mind that they will have major
> > health and mental problems throughout their
> > lifetimes. So, how many? Seriously, what is
> the
> > number of unwanted crack-addicted babies that
> were
> > born prematurely can we drop off at your house
> for
> > you to raise?
>
>
> So you're saying that you're pro black genocide.


Ah, so you’re retarded. Got it.

Ladies and gentlemen, big hand for the modern conservative: would gladly hit himself in the head with a hammer if he thought it would trigger “teh libs.” No platform of their own, just STIGGINIT TO TEH LIBS!

H6DPL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're opposed to abortion, how many unwanted
> crack-addicted babies can we put you down to
> raise? Keep in mind that they will have major
> health and mental problems throughout their
> lifetimes. So, how many? Seriously, what is the
> number of unwanted crack-addicted babies that were
> born prematurely can we drop off at your house for
> you to raise?

Not Nazi but eugenecist Margarey Danger said these things about niggers.

She also founded Planned Parenthood.

The real nazis are those that know nothing and accuse others of being “nazis”

e6x6x Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of which backs up your "separation of church and
> state" BS. As you now tacitly concede in your gear
> change to endorsing and favoring vs separation.

You are replying to two different posters. Meanwhile, 'wall of separation' is an oft-cited phrase that Thomas Jefferson chose to use in his January 1, 1802, letter to the Danbury Baptists. That the state may not endorse or favor a particular religion over any other, nor religion in general over non-religion, is a short-form statement of current Establishment Clause jurisprudence. You are plainly traveling at much less than the speed limit here.

..It is a shame anyone has an abortion.. but i understand why some do.. i hope no one near me ever has to make that decision.. it is not good for the Mother either.. If someone must get one.. i hope they can get one as safely as possible... BUT>>I do not want to pay for it.. let them get it.. let them pay for it.. stop these planned parenthoodlums from getting filthy rich off of my tax dollar with a sham scam... Now for the ones that want to end it altogether.. all you have to do is a have a Klan member (the KKK.. not the current clan with a tan.. BLM or Antifa).. sheets and all.. get up and praise and encourage any method of abortion possible.. the more the better.. because people o color are the majority of the women getting them.. a racist started planned parenthood.. the left wants it so no one questions it.. amazes me what upsets people and what they embrace...

hxpwt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sperm generally is not considered human life.

Sperm are indeed living and are of human origin. When has anyone aside from your very odd self ever asserted that sperm are not examples of human life? How else could they be classified? What would it say is we found one on Mars?

> But none of the above represent what one typically
> would deem natural human life as is the question
> here. In that case in fact there are significant
> changes as a result of their union (duh).

Not in the matter of life, no matter how you try to distort the simple facts in service to your baseless opinions. There is no break in the continuum of life involved in the union of two cells any more than there is in simple cell division. That your dogma fails to match up with the facts is the obvious problem here, and the solution to that problem is equally obvious.

> 20 weeks being entirely arbitrary, not based on any real
> hard scientific basis for what constitutes human life and
> becoming less of a limit in terms of viability.

The actual notion of viability is dependent upon the timelines of fetal development. Until the lungs are capable of effective gas exchange, the fetus is not viable. End of story.

> And many consider the beginning of life and associated limits
> to on-demand to be much earlier than in the US. Again, arbitrary
> legal and moral vs based in science.

Science laughs at you and these many other primitives.

> There's no superior 'science' involved. Stop
> pretending that there is. You've simply picked an
> different starting point which doesn't necessarily
> have any more validity than any other.

Again, there is real science, and then there is laughable garbage bag pseudo-science. What real science tells us is that sperm and ova are each examples of human life, and that nothing out of the ordinary happens during the process of conception. Adapt or die.

Very Well said Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since there is no objective, definitive definition of when
> life begins, we shouldn’t be practicing procedures that could
> potentially take it.

You are looking (as many dimbulbs do) for a 'bright line' that does not exist. There is no micro break-point at which what is not life suddenly becomes what is life. This doesn't happen. It is and was all life all the time. Sperm, egg, xygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, elder. They are all life all the time. This is not a puzzle in any way at all. It is nothing but basic biology.

> Let the States decide; places like California and
> Maryland willlet you cut your two year old up with
> a butcher knife if you want, and places like Texas
> will protect the defenseless babies from being
> root-routered.

Would you like the states or other local majorities to decide on free speech as well? Trial by jury? The right to travel or to marry a person of your own choosing? Constitutional rights are in the Constitution in order to affirm that they are inalienable, putting them beyond the reach of such meddling as you foolishly propose.

Jimmy Abort It Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mystery play Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Krama Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Kavanagh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets
> > to
> > > end
> > > > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait
> for
> > > the
> > > > melt downs.
> > >
> > >
> > > And I can’t fucking wait until your young
> son
> > > gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or
> > your
> > > young daughter get pregnant by her high
> school
> > > boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant
> or
> > > worse yet, she is raped by one of those
> illegal
> > > aliens Trump is always talking about. All
> three
> > of
> > > those options have you paying for it all for
> > the
> > > rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> > > ruined, you and your spouses lives are
> ruined.
> > > Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.
> >
> > What a despicable, low life way to live! To
> look
> > at an unborn baby as something which could/can
> > ruin a life!!! Maybe, instead of baby shaming a
> > young mother / father, you should think about
> > celebrating a new LIFE in this world! MAYBE,
> you
> > should celebrate someone's decision to put that
> > child up for adoption instead of killing it!!!
> >
> > If this country would put the $$$ into
> subsidized
> > adoptions instead of baby killing, this country
> > would have another chance of having ANOTHER of
> it
> > GREATEST GENERATIONS!!!!!
> >
> > Your thought process opens the door to kill
> > someone if they've lost their job of flunked
> out
> > of high school or college. If you ruin YOUR
> life
> > can't we just kill you, too?
> >
> > Hopefully, changes are coming which allows our
> > society to truly honor LIFE. AND we as a culture
> &
> > country understand what it means to have
> HONOR!!!
> >
> > If we are overtaken by Asian Countries, it will
> be
> > because we do not teach our children the
> > importance of HONOR!!!
>
> It's a fetus, you dope. Not a BABY! My
> girlfriends have had several abortions and I've
> never thought twice about it. Saved me a butt
> load of money too!


Fetus is latin for "unborn baby".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2018 09:27AM by LetsRock.

Where is the Catholic Church on this? They are more worried about covering up their child molester priests than saving babies.

Thas racith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're saying that you're pro black genocide.

I'd guess more in favor of the notion that blacks should have the same access to birth control as whites and others do when it comes to guiding their own individual reproductive histories. Such sensible people tend to oppose the pretensions of the so-called Mexico City Policy as well, and often for the same reasons.

Human Tripod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plessey v. Ferguson was once "settled law". Do you want
> to go back to that?

You misunderstand the meaning of stare decisis. This would most likely be because you were guided directly into misunderstanding by right-wing fabulists such as those at FOX News and other deliberate disinformation sources.

By the way, it's 'Plessy', not 'Plessey.

LetsRock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fetus is latin for "unborn baby".

No, it isn't, and in its relevant modern usage the term refers to a conceptus after the second month of gestation.

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very Well said Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since there is no objective, definitive
> definition of when
> > life begins, we shouldn’t be practicing
> procedures that could
> > potentially take it.
>
> You are looking (as many dimbulbs do) for a
> 'bright line' that does not exist. There is no
> micro break-point at which what is not life
> suddenly becomes what is life. This doesn't
> happen. It is and was all life all the time.
> Sperm, egg, xygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus,
> infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, elder. They
> are all life all the time. This is not a puzzle
> in any way at all. It is nothing but basic
> biology.
>
> > Let the States decide; places like California
> and
> > Maryland willlet you cut your two year old up
> with
> > a butcher knife if you want, and places like
> Texas
> > will protect the defenseless babies from being
> > root-routered.
>
> Would you like the states or other local
> majorities to decide on free speech as well?
> Trial by jury? The right to travel or to marry a
> person of your own choosing? Constitutional
> rights are in the Constitution in order to affirm
> that they are inalienable, putting them beyond the
> reach of such meddling as you foolishly propose.

Are you the one that thought "penumbra" was a scientific term? LOL. You've never read Roe. You don't know the history of Roe. You couldn't name one case that informed Roe without looking it up, wikilawyer.

Roe is an arbitrary framework. It has nothing to do with science, and it has nothing to do with Constitutionally guaranteed rights. All you can do is throw your tantrum and call people names; its speaks volumes about the soundness of your "argument."

Margaret SANGER!

MShe also founded Planned Parenthood.
>
> The real nazis are those that know nothing and
> accuse others of being “nazis”

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hxpwt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sperm generally is not considered human life.
>
> Sperm are indeed living and are of human origin.
> When has anyone aside from your very odd self ever
> asserted that sperm are not examples of human
> life? How else could they be classified? What
> would it say is we found one on Mars?

Virtually everyone with any understanding of biology. Sperm are specialized living cells produced by a human. They are not 'human life' any more than a hair or any other cell that you shed is 'human life.' They cannot give rise to human life. The cells do not have the requisite cellular structure to do anything much more than to exist for a short time to do what they are designed to do - deliver genetic material. They're basically the rough functional equivalent of a virus with a capsule containing a genetic payload and a simple system for delivery. As I said, effectively human pollen. They are biologically "cheap" in terms of production, structure, and potential in contrast to egg cells (which affects a whole range of associated biology re protecting and preserving the latter). If under your stupid example, a sperm cell was found one on Mars, then it might be considered EVIDENCE of human life but not human life itself. They are not the same thing.

>
> > But none of the above represent what one
> typically
> > would deem natural human life as is the
> question
> > here. In that case in fact there are
> significant
> > changes as a result of their union (duh).
>
> Not in the matter of life, no matter how you try
> to distort the simple facts in service to your
> baseless opinions. There is no break in the
> continuum of life involved in the union of two
> cells any more than there is in simple cell
> division. That your dogma fails to match up with
> the facts is the obvious problem here, and the
> solution to that problem is equally obvious.

You obviously slept through the genetics section of whatever minimal liberal arts version of a biology class you were forced to take. There absolutely are significant, unique events within the scheme of human life and cellular genetics, physiology, biochemistry, etc., which occur upon fertilization. Humans do not develop through simple cellular division. Sperm cells do not divide. Parthenogenesis can be induced in human egg cells and very likely could yield human life but does not result in viable offspring under natural human circumstances. Are you familiar with the terms haploid and diploid? Meiosis vs mitosis? Any of that ringing a distant bell? Obviously not. In contrast to your own, I have no 'dogma' other than the actual science involved. Your easy go-to bullshit along those lines won't work here given that I'm "pro-choice."

>
> > 20 weeks being entirely arbitrary, not based on
> any real
> > hard scientific basis for what constitutes human
> life and
> > becoming less of a limit in terms of viability.
>
> The actual notion of viability is dependent upon
> the timelines of fetal development. Until the
> lungs are capable of effective gas exchange, the
> fetus is not viable. End of story.


Your understanding of 'the story' is limited to a poor translation of an incomplete version. There are any number of other developmental events which could be used in the same way much earlier. Likewise, gas exchange is not all that's necessary for viability and a fetus that meets that simple condition still is not independently viable. It relies on our ability to intervene. If/when our ability to support life at an earlier stage develops, which it likely will, then you'd need to move those goal posts. Shit, for that matter a fully birthed baby is not really viable if independent viability is your threshold. Birth just provides an obvious point for determination of an separate and independent living person. That same person could and generally is considered a living person with rights under the law long prior to that point. See, for example, fetal homicide law.


>
> > And many consider the beginning of life and
> associated limits
> > to on-demand to be much earlier than in the US.
> Again, arbitrary
> > legal and moral vs based in science.
>
> Science laughs at you and these many other
> primitives.


You mean like the relatively secular French and more liberal Norway.


>
> > There's no superior 'science' involved. Stop
> > pretending that there is. You've simply picked
> an
> > different starting point which doesn't
> necessarily
> > have any more validity than any other.
>
> Again, there is real science, and then there is
> laughable garbage bag pseudo-science. What real
> science tells us is that sperm and ova are each
> examples of human life, and that nothing out of
> the ordinary happens during the process of
> conception. Adapt or die.


Which, as above, your very obvious ignorance demonstrates.

Hmmm... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> e6x6x Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of which backs up your "separation of
> church and
> > state" BS. As you now tacitly concede in your
> gear
> > change to endorsing and favoring vs separation.
>
> You are replying to two different posters.
> Meanwhile, 'wall of separation' is an oft-cited
> phrase that Thomas Jefferson chose to use in his
> January 1, 1802, letter to the Danbury Baptists.
> That the state may not endorse or favor a
> particular religion over any other, nor religion
> in general over non-religion, is a short-form
> statement of current Establishment Clause
> jurisprudence. You are plainly traveling at much
> less than the speed limit here.


Which, again, is not some complete and absolute separation as you'd originally suggested.

djujt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sperm are specialized living cells produced by a human.
> They are not 'human life' any more than a hair or any other
> cell that you shed is 'human life.'

Painted into a corner, you've chosen to completely contradict yourself, hoping to hide the fact in the scrub of unrelated bits about keratin. The facts that you refuse to accept here but can't begin to deny are that sperm and ova are each unmistakable examples of human life. You lose.

> You obviously slept through the genetics section
> of whatever minimal liberal arts version of a
> biology class you were forced to take.

I took Biology in the 10th grade. I got all A's. Human biology -- and especially human reproductive biology -- were more or less taboo topics at the time, so my knowledge in those fields results primarily from independent research involving scholarly and other reputable sources. As a professional researcher over many, many years, I am quite good at this sort of thing. You are not.

> There absolutely are significant, unique events
> within the scheme of human life and cellular genetics,
> physiology, biochemistry, etc., which occur upon
> fertilization.

One more time for the weed-prone and hard of hearing: There is nothing unusual about the primitive and ever so fallible PROCESS of conception. There are no 'magic moments' such as any at which something called "ensoulment" could occur.

> Humans do not develop through simple cellular division.

By what process does a human zygote develop into a blastocyst?

> Are you familiar with the terms haploid and diploid? Meiosis
> vs mitosis? Any of that ringing a distant bell?

Yes, those terms are familiar, as are such similarly elementary terms as supply and demand, and inputs and outputs. But such familiarity would hardly qualify one as an economist.

> Your easy go-to bullshit along those lines won't
> work here given that I'm "pro-choice."

Your opinions on the matter of choice have no bearing here at all. The fact that your arguments have so consistently amounted to no more than a tangled ball of confusion does matter however.

> Likewise, gas exchange is not all that's necessary
> for viability and a fetus that meets that simple
> condition still is not independently viable.

I'll try again, but without much hope that you'll be able to take the painfully obvious point --- without lungs that are capable of effective gas exchange, a fetus cannot be what you call "independently viable." Significant medical intervention would be required to create any chance at all of survival outside the uterus.

> It relies on our ability to intervene. If/when our ability
> to support life at an earlier stage develops, which it
> likely will, then you'd need to move those goal posts.

While we wait for an actual arrival of doctors powerful enough to accomplish what you envision, we'll have to concede the limits on viability that the natural stages of fetal development impose upon us.

> Shit, for that matter a fully birthed baby is not really viable if
> independent viability is your threshold.

In most areas, infants born at term have a much higher than 50% rate of survival.

> That same person could and generally is considered
> a living person with rights under the law long prior
> to that point. See, for example, fetal homicide law.

Fetal homicide laws recognize and respect a woman's property interest in her pregnancy. This is why acts of the woman herself or of her duly designated agents are not covered under such laws.

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> djujt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sperm are specialized living cells produced by a
> human.
> > They are not 'human life' any more than a hair
> or any other
> > cell that you shed is 'human life.'
>
> Painted into a corner, you've chosen to completely
> contradict yourself, hoping to hide the fact in
> the scrub of unrelated bits about keratin. The
> facts that you refuse to accept here but can't
> begin to deny are that sperm and ova are each
> unmistakable examples of human life. You lose.


I've not contradicted anything. Your example just sucked and reflects your own ignorance.

Sperm is not human life. Key to the discussion here, on its own it can never give rise to human life. It does not divide so alone it can't give rise to anything. An egg is not human life. Under some circumstances alone potentially at least in theory it could give rise to human life but that's not a natural circumstance. Cellular division can be stimulated but at least at this point on its own it will not result in a viable human life. They are *living cells* but not human life in a biological, legal, or any other sense. There is a significant distinction. A culture of other human cells may readily divide and grow into an undifferentiated mass of cells but it does not ever yield a human life. Nobody would consider it human life. Just as the more complex aggregation of cells into a functioning organ like a spleen does not represent human life. Human life is the totality of a far more complex system which requires the unique union of sperm and egg and a huge range of other events and processes which follow to yield human life.


> > You obviously slept through the genetics
> section
> > of whatever minimal liberal arts version of a
> > biology class you were forced to take.
>
> I took Biology in the 10th grade. I got all A's.
> Human biology -- and especially human reproductive
> biology -- were more or less taboo topics at the
> time, so my knowledge in those fields results
> primarily from independent research involving
> scholarly and other reputable sources. As a
> professional researcher over many, many years, I
> am quite good at this sort of thing. You are not.


I have a dual BS in biology/chemistry and an MS in molecular biology. Mostly involving biochemical genetics. But always entertaining when a liberal arts major with a 10th grade understanding of biology who's a "good researcher" wants to try to school me on "science." There's so much to "learn" from you guys. lmao


>
>
> > There absolutely are significant, unique events
>
> > within the scheme of human life and cellular
> genetics,
> > physiology, biochemistry, etc., which occur
> upon
> > fertilization.
>
> One more time for the weed-prone and hard of
> hearing: There is nothing unusual about the
> primitive and ever so fallible PROCESS of
> conception. There are no 'magic moments' such as
> any at which something called "ensoulment" could
> occur.
>

You very clearly have no understanding of all of the many unique complex processes that happen during and following union of sperm and egg at cellular and genetic levels in the case of humans or otherwise. I suggest that you do a lot more "professional research." There certainly are many modes of failure but failure is not the case being considered and "ensoulment" isn't the question. As I said, your political/ideological nonsense along such lines won't carry you in this case.


> > Humans do not develop through simple cellular
> division.
>
> By what process does a human zygote develop into a
> blastocyst? >
>
> Yes, those terms are familiar, as are such
> similarly elementary terms as supply and demand,
> and inputs and outputs. But such familiarity
> would hardly qualify one as an economist.

>
> > Are you familiar with the terms haploid and
> diploid? Meiosis
> > vs mitosis? Any of that ringing a distant bell?

Obviously there is cellular division within human development and continued existence. But humans do not *reproduce* and generate human life through simple cellular division. And it never gets to that point without the unique union of sperm and egg. Your statement that I was responding to was that there is no difference in the joining of such cells vs any other or simple cellular division. That is entirely wrong on so many levels that it's hard to even begin to correct you. It is not just a joining of two random cells or somatic cellular division. The difference is THE basis for sexual reproduction at a fundamental level. Once again your 10th grade level understanding of biology shows. If you don't understand that much then it's no wonder that you're confused.

>
> > Your easy go-to bullshit along those lines
> won't
> > work here given that I'm "pro-choice."
>
> Your opinions on the matter of choice have no
> bearing here at all. The fact that your arguments
> have so consistently amounted to no more than a
> tangled ball of confusion does matter however.

YOU were the one bringing up "dogma." There is no dogma involved here other than your own. My "opinions" expressed are not opinions. They are well understood scientific fact. It's your own dogma and apparent basic ignorance of the science involved which cause you to not accept those facts and view them as opinion.

>
> > Likewise, gas exchange is not all that's
> necessary
> > for viability and a fetus that meets that
> simple
> > condition still is not independently viable.
>
> I'll try again, but without much hope that you'll
> be able to take the painfully obvious point ---
> without lungs that are capable of effective gas
> exchange, a fetus cannot be what you call
> "independently viable." Significant medical
> intervention would be required to create any
> chance at all of survival outside the uterus.


As is the case for any number of significant developmental milestones before and after.

>
> > It relies on our ability to intervene. If/when
> our ability
> > to support life at an earlier stage develops,
> which it
> > likely will, then you'd need to move those goal
> posts.
>
> While we wait for an actual arrival of doctors
> powerful enough to accomplish what you envision,
> we'll have to concede the limits on viability that
> the natural stages of fetal development impose
> upon us.


Again not the larger question being addressed. Which was/is at what point we consider the result of human sexual reproduction to represent the beginning of human life. There are any number of points which could be argued on a variety of bases. Birth would be an easy one but it's generally accepted that there is in fact human life involved long prior to. Likewise, it's not a matter of simple viability either independent or assisted. The former clearly isn't the case by our standards and the latter is just a matter of current practical medical limitations. Are you really going to try to argue that a day before your 20-week milestone that it's not human life? It may be still-developing human life. It may not be viable human life. But it most certainly is human life.

To be clear, I really don't care at what point someone decides that it's OK to terminate that life. As I said, we justify terminating human life all the time for a variety of reasons. If you want to use 20-weeks as the acceptable limit based on viability, then great. Go for it. But don't try to deny what is happening by saying stupid shit like a fetus is not human life. And then claim that there is some higher "science" on your side to support that. There is not. In fact science much better supports that human life begins at conception. But that is entirely separate from how we deal with it and all of the social and political considerations beyond that. Because that point is earlier than what you'd like to consider because it makes the politics involved more difficult doesn't change that fact.

>
> > Shit, for that matter a fully birthed baby is
> not really viable if
> > independent viability is your threshold.
>
> In most areas, infants born at term have a much
> higher than 50% rate of survival.


>
> > That same person could and generally is
> considered
> > a living person with rights under the law long
> prior
> > to that point. See, for example, fetal homicide
> law.
>
> Fetal homicide laws recognize and respect a
> woman's property interest in her pregnancy. This
> is why acts of the woman herself or of her duly
> designated agents are not covered under such laws.

Yes, they typically do. But as above that wasn't the question. They've simply carved out exceptions for what's considered homicide, not denied that a fetus represents human life. In fact, to the contrary. The law specifically recognizes and grants legal rights to a fetus as a person under the law. For example, in CA by case law at 7-8 months. Which doesn't align with your 20-week threshold.

What's great is that the Dems shot their load, they can't pull this bullshit move on the next two Trump nominees so he's free to go even further to the right. No contraception, porn is gone, prayer in school is back. MAGA

mn6g6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sperm is not human life.

You've disqualified yourself from any further consideration. Sperm are living cells that are of human origin. They are examples of human life no matter what bizarro reactions you may have to the fact.

> I have a dual BS in biology/chemistry and an MS in
> molecular biology. Mostly involving biochemical
> genetics.

Yes, I've seen those reports before as part of your failure to understand the fact that genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race in human beings. Repetition of such boasts merely recalls the fact that you are not remotely so scientifically literate as you would overly boldly wish to claim.

Krama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kavanagh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to
> end
> > legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for
> the
> > melt downs.
>
>
> And I can’t fucking wait until your young son
> gets some girl pregnant and ruins his life or your
> young daughter get pregnant by her high school
> boyfriend and has to graduate while pregnant or
> worse yet, she is raped by one of those illegal
> aliens Trump is always talking about. All three of
> those options have you paying for it all for the
> rest of your lives. So your child’s life is
> ruined, you and your spouses lives are ruined.
> Then we’ll see where you stand on abortion.

I love how people think having kids "ruins" your life.

If a fetus is “just a clump of cells,” why do women get so upset over a miscarriage and still births? They even have funerals and bury the first trimester “fetuses” (I personally know a family that did that) - why go through all that for just a clump if cells?

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mn6g6 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sperm is not human life.
>
> You've disqualified yourself from any further
> consideration. Sperm are living cells that are of
> human origin. They are examples of human life no
> matter what bizarro reactions you may have to the
> fact.
>

The question was not and is not whether sperm or egg are living cells of human origin. I provided that clarification for you which, while being rather brain-dead obvious, seemed necessary to make in your case. Various random individual cells of human origin do not represent 'human life' and there is no "continuum" under any natural circumstances where they alone can ever give rise to human life as is the substantive matter here.



> > I have a dual BS in biology/chemistry and an MS
> in
> > molecular biology. Mostly involving
> biochemical
> > genetics.
>
> Yes, I've seen those reports before as part of
> your failure to understand the fact that
> genetically speaking, there is no such thing as
> race in human beings. Repetition of such boasts
> merely recalls the fact that you are not remotely
> so scientifically literate as you would overly
> boldly wish to claim.


Which is the same type of misleading nonsense that you believe because it supports what you'd like to believe. Stated more accurately, what we call race in humans does not represent distinct species or subspecies. Terms which have very specific meanings within biology with particular requirements for assignment (e.g., inability to interbreed, etc.).

Race very clearly does exist in humans because we have defined it to represent various physical characteristics which we use to aggregate groups of humans for a variety of social purposes. Those racial phenotypes are the expression of specific genetic commonalities/differences within and among those same groups which primarily reflect geographical human ancestry. While not entirely distinct because of intermixing, those same groupings can be made with a very high degree of certainty at an entirely genetic level and independent of any observable physical expression. By keying on specific identified variances unknown samples of genetic material derived from people within these groups can be aggregated in the same way that we define race (or even more precisely if desired). Which should be of no big surprise given that, full circle, physical characteristics have a genetic basis and are transmitted along lines of human ancestry. Any significance one may apply to any of that is entirely independent of the fact that such commonalities/differences do exist both at observable physical and genetic levels.

Meanwhile, a faggot (an actual sodomite) in Toronto, Canada roundhouse kicked a female pro-life demonstrator:

The video of the faggot kicking the woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7SqtIe5rZQ

Article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-who-roundhouse-kicked-pro-life-woman-identified-gets-fired

The faggot's name is Jordan Hunt, and he lives in Toronto, Canada.

An interesting additional takeaway in the article is about police and their motivation to protect you from crime: "As a fellow Life Chain participant dialed 9-1-1, Hunt yanked off the ribbon I’d been wearing on my chest and ran away, heading east on Bloor. A POLICE CAR ARRIVED, FIVE TO TEN MINUTES LATER. THE POLICEMEN ROLLED DOW THEIR WINDOW BUT DID NOT EXIT THEIR VEHICLE. I APPROACHED THEM AND TOLD THEM I WAS JUST ASSAULTED AND EXPLAINED THE SITUATION. I SHOWED THEM THE VIDEO. THEY REPLIED, "WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO ABOUT IT?"

That, right there, is why we have the Second Amendment. When the cops won't/can't/do care to do their job - which they do all the time, as these pigs did by showing up minutes later when seconds counted - at least we can defend ourselves. The same can't be said about the cucks who live in Canuckistan.

Now the nigger population will explode.

pklk4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question was not and is not whether sperm or
> egg are living cells of human origin.

Yes, it was and it still is the question, and you have fucked the matter up very badly right from the beginning, Prof. Disqualified.

> Which is the same type of misleading nonsense that
> you believe because it supports what you'd like to
> believe.

More of the abject ignorance of established science that you have now so vividly displayed in two separate threads. In scientific terms, you are a worthless ASS-FRAUD.

> Stated more accurately, what we call race in humans
> does not represent distinct species or subspecies.

There are three genetically discontinuous populations of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). There is one genetically continuous population of human beings (homo sapiens).

> Race very clearly does exist in humans because we
> have defined it to represent various physical
> characteristics which we use to aggregate groups
> of humans for a variety of social purposes.

You are admitting now that there is actually no genetic foundation for anything that could be called 'race' among human beings, and that in actuality, the whole notion is just a misguided and mistaken social construct. You should have said so earlier.

Abortion is history, sterilization is coming back for violent felonies and other special cases. EU3BF

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pklk4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> You are admitting now that there is actually no
> genetic foundation for anything that could be
> called 'race' among human beings, and that in
> actuality, the whole notion is just a misguided
> and mistaken social construct. You should have
> said so earlier.

If race is a "social construct," why is it possible to determine a person's race from their skeleton? Not their DNA, their SKELETON, from the ratios of their arms to legs to the slope of their face and size of their skulls. You're playing semantic games, trying to conflate "race" with "species." No one is claiming that niggers and spics aren't of the same species as whites and asians, only that their are demonstrably, empirically DIFFERENT, that those differences are rooted in genetics, and that we have chosen to classify those differences as "race." Perhaps "breed" is a better choice of words, as niggers and spics are as different from whites and Asians as chihuahuas are from border collies.

Sorry, nigger, but you ARE different from us, and in very significant and inferior ways. "Disqualified."

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pklk4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The question was not and is not whether sperm
> or
> > egg are living cells of human origin.
>
> Yes, it was and it still is the question, and you
> have fucked the matter up very badly right from
> the beginning, Prof. Disqualified.

No, it wasn't. The question at its core was/is whether a fetus represents human life. You don't know enough to even make the Sagan-esque 'life is a continuum' argument that you're attempting properly. Nobody would argue that a sperm cell is an example of something that meets the basic definition of what is at a fundamental level "alive." Nobody but your dumb ass would confuse that to try to argue that a sperm cell is human life. More significantly, it alone can never give rise to human life. Your statement re "Nothing changed in their union" between sperm and egg very obviously is false.

>
> > Which is the same type of misleading nonsense
> that
> > you believe because it supports what you'd like
> to
> > believe.
>
> More of the abject ignorance of established
> science that you have now so vividly displayed in
> two separate threads. In scientific terms, you
> are a worthless ASS-FRAUD.


You've posted nothing here resembling science established or otherwise. Just your own "dogma."


> > Stated more accurately, what we call race in
> humans
> > does not represent distinct species or
> subspecies.
>
> There are three genetically discontinuous
> populations of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes).
> There is one genetically continuous population of
> human beings (homo sapiens).


Because you found one misleading study which was done with a predetermined conclusion attempting to inappropriately equate race in humans to species/bonobos in chimps doesn't deny genetic commonality/variance among humans. Your second statement is false. There are in fact identifiable sub-populations of humans based on common geographic ancestry which can be identified and traced back based on specific genetic variances. Because there has been greater admixing across these populations vs chimps doesn't mean that identifiable variances among humans don't exist. They very clearly do.


> > Race very clearly does exist in humans because
> we
> > have defined it to represent various physical
> > characteristics which we use to aggregate
> groups
> > of humans for a variety of social purposes.
>
> You are admitting now that there is actually no
> genetic foundation for anything that could be
> called 'race' among human beings, and that in
> actuality, the whole notion is just a misguided
> and mistaken social construct. You should have
> said so earlier.


Except that you cut out all of the rest where I did exactly that. lmao

Want some more? No problem...

Quote

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease
Genome Biol. 2002

Neil Risch
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente

Esteban Burchard
Department of Medicine, University of California

Elad Ziv
Department of Medicine, University of California

Hua Tang
Department of Statistics, Stanford University

Studying 14 indigenous populations from 5 continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered into the five continental groups, as depicted in Figure 1.1. The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians; and the Native American branch included Mayans from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once again provided distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples [12]: "The results confirmed the integrity of the self-described ancestry of these individuals". Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups. A previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: "A tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is remarkable in that most individuals cluster with other members of their regional group" [13]. Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

It's science brah. Don't deny it.

ecpve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pklk4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The question was not and is not whether sperm
> > or
> > > egg are living cells of human origin.
> >
> > Yes, it was and it still is the question, and
> you
> > have fucked the matter up very badly right from
> > the beginning, Prof. Disqualified.
>
> No, it wasn't. The question at its core was/is
> whether a fetus represents human life. You don't
> know enough to even make the Sagan-esque 'life is
> a continuum' argument that you're attempting
> properly. Nobody would argue that a sperm cell is
> an example of something that meets the basic
> definition of what is at a fundamental level
> "alive." Nobody but your dumb ass would confuse
> that to try to argue that a sperm cell is human
> life. More significantly, it alone can never
> give rise to human life. Your statement re
> "Nothing changed in their union" between sperm and
> egg very obviously is false.
>
> >
> > > Which is the same type of misleading nonsense
> > that
> > > you believe because it supports what you'd
> like
> > to
> > > believe.
> >
> > More of the abject ignorance of established
> > science that you have now so vividly displayed
> in
> > two separate threads. In scientific terms, you
> > are a worthless ASS-FRAUD.
>
>
> You've posted nothing here resembling science
> established or otherwise. Just your own "dogma."
>
>
> > > Stated more accurately, what we call race in
> > humans
> > > does not represent distinct species or
> > subspecies.
> >
> > There are three genetically discontinuous
> > populations of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes).
> > There is one genetically continuous population
> of
> > human beings (homo sapiens).
>
>
> Because you found one misleading study which was
> done with a predetermined conclusion attempting to
> inappropriately equate race in humans to
> species/bonobos in chimps doesn't deny genetic
> commonality/variance among humans. Your second
> statement is false. There are in fact
> identifiable sub-populations of humans based on
> common geographic ancestry which can be identified
> and traced back based on specific genetic
> variances. Because there has been greater
> admixing across these populations vs chimps
> doesn't mean that identifiable variances among
> humans don't exist. They very clearly do.
>
>
> > > Race very clearly does exist in humans
> because
> > we
> > > have defined it to represent various physical
> > > characteristics which we use to aggregate
> > groups
> > > of humans for a variety of social purposes.
> >
> > You are admitting now that there is actually no
> > genetic foundation for anything that could be
> > called 'race' among human beings, and that in
> > actuality, the whole notion is just a misguided
> > and mistaken social construct. You should have
> > said so earlier.
>
>
> Except that you cut out all of the rest where I
> did exactly that. lmao
>
> Want some more? No problem...
>
>

Quote

> Categorization of humans in biomedical research:
> genes, race and disease
> Genome Biol. 2002
>
> Neil Risch
> Department of Genetics, Stanford University School
> of Medicine
> Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente
>
> Esteban Burchard
> Department of Medicine, University of California
>
> Elad Ziv
> Department of Medicine, University of California
>
> Hua Tang
> Department of Statistics, Stanford University
>
> Studying 14 indigenous populations from 5
> continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et
> al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered
> into the five continental groups, as depicted in
> Figure 1.1. The African branch included three
> sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire
> pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch
> included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians;
> the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians,
> New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian
> branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians;
> and the Native American branch included Mayans
> from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the
> Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been
> derived by others, using a similar or greater
> number of microsatellite markers and individuals
> [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in
> 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians,
> African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once
> again provided distinct and non-overlapping
> clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and
> Asian samples [12]: "The results confirmed the
> integrity of the self-described ancestry of these
> individuals". Hispanics, who represent a recently
> admixed group between Native American, Caucasian
> and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but
> clustered variously with the other groups. A
> previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller
> number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: "A
> tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups
> of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from
> an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is
> remarkable in that most individuals cluster with
> other members of their regional group" [13].
> Effectively, these population genetic studies have
> recapitulated the classical definition of races
> based on continental ancestry - namely African,
> Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific
> Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and
> Melanesian), and Native American.
>

>
> It's science brah. Don't deny it.

Real scientist vs "social scientist" ^^^

You could have cited 1000 studies, and it wouldn't have changed his mind - these people are literally delusional, and they live in a subjective reality of their own creation. They think that if they say, "race is a social construct," it is, that there is no empirical, objective reality, and anything that demonstrably refutes their made-up world is wrong by virtue of refuting anything they believe.

Who cares? I mean, I almost got my gf pregnant in the 90’s and thank for it was a false alarm. But now I’m past those years so fucking make that shit illegal. Roe gonna win now! We’re all winning again. MAGA!

Dunn Kruger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares? I mean, I almost got my gf pregnant in
> the 90’s and thank for it was a false alarm. But
> now I’m past those years so fucking make that
> shit illegal. Roe gonna win now! We’re all
> winning again. MAGA!

This is exactly right, who cares about the moral issue of women who murder their own babies, this is about revenge. Juwan Howard survived false accusations,end abortion for Kavanaugh, Howard and all mankind.

Party in DC after the vote.

4hjmc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking evangelical
> atheists are more annoying than evangelical
> Christians. lol

That is so fucking true.

At least the Christians give you food and shelter.

The atheists will stone you to death.

Haters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4hjmc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking evangelical
> > atheists are more annoying than evangelical
> > Christians. lol
>
> That is so fucking true.
>
> At least the Christians give you food and
> shelter.
>
> The atheists will stone you to death.


I'll take a Christian over an Atheist any day.

One will plead for mercy; the other will stick me in an oven.

ecpve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's science brah. Don't deny it.

No, clown-boy. It's just another of your sorry-ass copy-and-paste garbage truCk dumps done in hopes of covering up the fact that you can't stand on your own two feet when it comes to such idiotic claims as that sperm and ova are not examples of human life. There is no other way to classify them, bro.

As for your random degree claims, see if some another dose of actual science will disabuse you of some of your goober grade-school notions about race...

-- Genetic diversity among chimpanzees reveals just how closely related humans really are

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are

Have a nice day, loser...

Trump approval is the highest ever, stocks continue to soar, unemployment is way down, NAFTA is fixed. All timed for the mid term elections. We are going to have the votes to stock the courts for a very long time. Every Socialist nightmare is coming true.

Kavanaugh isn't going to end Roe v Wade. Even though I support Kavanaugh I am 100% pro-choice. For one, these pro-life proponents don't give 2 shits about the child once it's born, and who cares if a woman decides to abort a baby. Her decision.

Plus, this world is already overpopulated with stupid people. We don't need more low IQ mongoloids running around, I don't care what race we are talking about.

Actually, it's approval of Bob Mueller that is up. Approval of Trump is trending down from already really low levels. Imagine losing both the House and the Senate next month.

Dark clouds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, it's approval of Bob Mueller that is up.
> Approval of Trump is trending down from already
> really low levels. Imagine losing both the House
> and the Senate next month.

LOL! Whut?! Stooooopid libtard!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_oct05

Personally I like abortion as it is limiting only to the procreation of libs. A God fearing conservative would never murder a fetus. That said, even us Alpha males have a soft spot for the innocent - after all its possible the fetus could have a high IQ and become a Republican.

So back to the alley for the scumbag dem cunts. Im so proud our women who are our chattel, know their place on this earth as vessels for our pleasure and commands. Thank you ladies, also make me a fucking sandwich and brush your teeth as I may need my dick sucked a little later.

Rasmussen? LOL...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-approval-rating-is-down-muellers-is-up-is-there-a-connection/

Dark clouds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rasmussen? LOL...
>
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-approv
> al-rating-is-down-muellers-is-up-is-there-a-connec
> tion/


538 had Hillary with 302 electoral votes and Trump 255, great accuracy there. I'm happy that the Socialists are still watching the polls telling them what they want to hear instead of the hard truth.

nope2-032-0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kavanaugh isn't going to end Roe v Wade.

That has been established, it will take another Justice, probably two. But it's happening. Best part of the Kavanaugh confirmation is that he's clearing the way for even further right wing judges next time. 51 Republican votes and Trump will be able to get the second coming of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell on the court.

Hell yeah

Dark clouds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rasmussen? LOL...
>
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-approv
> al-rating-is-down-muellers-is-up-is-there-a-connec
> tion/

LOL! 538? Fooking stoooopid libtard! LOL!

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ecpve Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's science brah. Don't deny it.
>
> No, clown-boy. It's just another of your
> sorry-ass copy-and-paste garbage truCk dumps done
> in hopes of covering up the fact that you can't
> stand on your own two feet when it comes to such
> idiotic claims as that sperm and ova are not
> examples of human life. There is no other way to
> classify them, bro.


They are not human life. They are living cells and as such they represent "life" at a very basic level just as an algae cell represents life. There is a very large distinction. You're just too stupid to understand that.

One critical difference is that human life requires a complete human genome. Being haploid, sperm or egg fail even that simple test. They do not possess a full genetic complement necessary to ever become human life. They do no replicate/reproduce through division to ever become anything more or other than the individual cells that they are. They don't really even meet the biological requirements to be considered organisms.


>
> As for your random degree claims, see if some
> another dose of actual science will disabuse you
> of some of your goober grade-school notions about
> race...
>
> -- Genetic diversity among chimpanzees reveals
> just how closely related humans really are
>
> https://io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-
> in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-hum
> ans-really-are
>
> Have a nice day, loser...


What don't you understand about the Holy Chimp Study that you're clinging too being irrelevant? Chimps aren't humans. Chimps don't have the same evolutionary/social history as that of humans and as a result their populations have remained more isolated. You can find many other organisms which have much more relative variance vs humans than chimps. That one animal has more distinct populations than another says nothing. On the other side of that relativity equation, we're very "closely related" to chimps. We're not the same as chimps. Being "closely related" says nothing about the VARIANCES which exist, no matter how small they may be, and does not negate that there are in fact specific genetic variances in humans which directly dictate what we define as race.

Your own loser status is sealed by the fact that while I'm posting peer-reviewed biomed journal articles, you're posting irrelevant pop science shit from gizmodo. lmao!

upjpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are not human life. They are living cells
> and as such they represent "life" at a very basic
> level just as an algae cell represents life.

Algae? An actual person of science would have understood that there is no accepted definition for what comprises algae. It is a generic term applicable to many often entirely unrelated life forms. Not so of course with human sperm and ova. These are universally understood as living cells that are definitively of human origin, meaning that they are examples of human life and nothing else.

> One critical difference is that human life requires
> a complete human genome. Being haploid, sperm or egg
> fail even that simple test. They do not possess a full
> genetic complement necessary to ever become human life.
> They do not replicate/reproduce through division to ever
> become anything more or other than the individual cells
> that they are. They don't really even meet the biological
> requirements to be considered organisms.

Male ants are haploid. You attempt to invent distinctions that are scientific nonsense then simply bullshit about them.

> What don't you understand about the Holy Chimp
> Study that you're clinging too being irrelevant?

What?

> Chimps aren't humans.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. What is equally obvious is that the point you so desperately want to run away from here is still that genetically speaking, race clearly does exist in chimpanzees and clearly does not exist in human beings. This even with humans being widely dispersed around the globe while distinct races of chimpanzee live in close proximity to each other, such as on either side of the same river.

> Your own loser status is sealed by the fact that
> while I'm posting peer-reviewed biomed journal
> articles, you're posting irrelevant pop science
> shit from gizmodo. lmao!

You again stain yourself with patent failure. An actual person of science would have recognized the likes of Gizmodo or Plos One as gateways to stores of scientific papers, articles, and studies. As its lead sponsor, the 2012 study of race in chimpanzees may also be found on the website of Oxford University. The one in the UK. The authors of that work were ---

Rory Bowden (Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Tammie S. MacFie (Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom), Simon Myers (Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Garrett Hellenthal (Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Eric Nerrienet (Centre Pasteur du Cameroun, Yaoundé, Cameroon), Ronald E. Bontrop (Biomedical Primate Research Center, Rijswijk, The Netherlands), Colin Freeman (Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Peter Donnelly (Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), and Nicholas I. Mundy (Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom).

The above are all actual persons of science. You are not. You are a FRAUD.

The title accurately alludes to Roe v Wade as being temporal. Since it is a judicial opinion, it can be overturned with a judicial opinion. That leads to proponents using a scorched earth policy to retain it -- including using McCarty-like politics of personal destruction.

If, on the other hand, abortion were a clearly stated Constitutional amendment no such scorched earth policy would be needed.

Perhaps the answer to the problem is using legislators and the constitution to enshrine political gains, rather than judges.

slightly right of center goy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cuckservatives better not touch that shit, I don't
> give a flying fuck about a fetus and I sure as
> fuck don't want to pay child support for 18 years.
> Abortions should be encouraged for low income
> people.


Go back to Reddit, faggot.
Attachments:

Let's be clear here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> upjpm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They are not human life. They are living cells
> > and as such they represent "life" at a very
> basic
> > level just as an algae cell represents life.
>
> Algae? An actual person of science would have
> understood that there is no accepted definition
> for what comprises algae. It is a generic term
> applicable to many often entirely unrelated life
> forms. Not so of course with human sperm and ova.
> These are universally understood as living cells
> that are definitively of human origin, meaning
> that they are examples of human life and nothing
> else.


Stop trying the Google. It isn't going to do anything for you here other than make you look even more confused. What constitutes algae isn't the question and I'm not going off on one of your dumb tangents to have to explain all of that to you. It is in any form an example which meets the definition of "life" at a very basic level. There are many other examples which also could be used. None of which represent human life. Being of human origin =/= human life. Three are many living cells that are produced by the human body that are not "human life" in a biological, legal, or any other sense and none can ever independently give rise to human life.


> > One critical difference is that human life
> requires
> > a complete human genome. Being haploid, sperm or
> egg
> > fail even that simple test. They do not possess
> a full
> > genetic complement necessary to ever become
> human life.
> > They do not replicate/reproduce through division
> to ever
> > become anything more or other than the
> individual cells
> > that they are. They don't really even meet the
> biological
> > requirements to be considered organisms.
>
> Male ants are haploid. You attempt to invent
> distinctions that are scientific nonsense then
> simply bullshit about them.


Male ants aren't human. What works for ants, doesn't work for humans. There are no haploid humans. Unlike an unfertilized ant egg, no haploid human cell alone will ever give rise to human life.


>
> > What don't you understand about the Holy Chimp
> > Study that you're clinging too being irrelevant?
>
>
> What?
>
> > Chimps aren't humans.
>
> Thank you, Captain Obvious. What is equally
> obvious is that the point you so desperately want
> to run away from here is still that genetically
> speaking, race clearly does exist in chimpanzees
> and clearly does not exist in human beings. This
> even with humans being widely dispersed around the
> globe while distinct races of chimpanzee live in
> close proximity to each other, such as on either
> side of the same river.


Race does not exist in chimps because we don't define race to apply to chimps. What the article that you linked to (referencing a separate study) does is to identify at a genetic level separate bonobos/subspecies of chimps and then compares genetic variance in chimps to that of various identified human populations. If you'd actually read the source study, then you'd know that race is not mentioned at all. Not once. Equating subspecies of chimps to race in humans is coming from you and the disingenuous and/or ignorant authors who fed you that inappropriate crap. As I've noted many times, "race" in humans is not directly comparable to or at the level of species/subspecies. Nobody suggests that it is.

This is not a contest of greater variance among two organisms (chimps vs humans). All that is necessary within either is whatever the degree of variance that may exist which is required to permit differentiation. Again had you read the actual study, then you might have noticed that the basis for the comparisons among human populations relies on specific identified genetic variances within human populations of different geographic origin. In other words, what we define in broad terms as "race." And, again had you actually read the source vs the derivative article, then you'd know that while overall human variance was lower, in fact there were several sampling cases where the degree of human variance (more correctly less copying) was found to be GREATER than that found among chimps (3 samples of African Yoruba, YRI vs East-Asian Han Chinese, CHB). Furthermore, the authors state that the basis of the study was limited in order to provide comparable data sets and that "With larger SNP datasets, the power to separate the human populations increases."


> > Your own loser status is sealed by the fact
> that
> > while I'm posting peer-reviewed biomed journal
> > articles, you're posting irrelevant pop science
> > shit from gizmodo. lmao!
>
> You again stain yourself with patent failure. An
> actual person of science would have recognized the
> likes of Gizmodo or Plos One as gateways to stores
> of scientific papers, articles, and studies. As
> its lead sponsor, the 2012 study of race in
> chimpanzees may also be found on the website of
> Oxford University. The one in the UK. The
> authors of that work were ---
>
> Rory Bowden (Department of Statistics, University
> of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Tammie S.
> MacFie (Department of Zoology, University of
> Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom), Simon Myers
> (Department of Statistics, University of Oxford,
> Oxford, United Kingdom), Garrett Hellenthal
> (Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
> University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom),
> Eric Nerrienet (Centre Pasteur du Cameroun,
> Yaoundé, Cameroon), Ronald E. Bontrop (Biomedical
> Primate Research Center, Rijswijk, The
> Netherlands), Colin Freeman (Department of
> Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United
> Kingdom), Peter Donnelly (Department of
> Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United
> Kingdom), and Nicholas I. Mundy (Department of
> Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
> United Kingdom).
>
> The above are all actual persons of science. You
> are not. You are a FRAUD.


As above, the Gizmodo article is not the actual study. It is a derivative article which relies on author's representation of the study. But even it does not mention "race." There is no study of "race" in chimpanzees. The authors who you list do not represent their work as a study of race in chimps (or humans for that matter). That's a misrepresentation which reflects your own "dogma."

Kavanagh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Dems tried to ruin the guy, now he gets to end
> legal baby murders, I can't fucking wait for the
> melt downs.


Pop a top and celebrate, today was a good day. Best thing is that Trump is now free to go far right because there is nothing worse the Dems can do.

djpn3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be clear here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > upjpm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They are not human life. They are living
> cells
> > > and as such they represent "life" at a very
> > basic
> > > level just as an algae cell represents life.
> >
> > Algae? An actual person of science would have
> > understood that there is no accepted definition
> > for what comprises algae. It is a generic term
> > applicable to many often entirely unrelated
> life
> > forms. Not so of course with human sperm and
> ova.
> > These are universally understood as living
> cells
> > that are definitively of human origin, meaning
> > that they are examples of human life and
> nothing
> > else.
>
>
> Stop trying the Google. It isn't going to do
> anything for you here other than make you look
> even more confused. What constitutes algae isn't
> the question and I'm not going off on one of your
> dumb tangents to have to explain all of that to
> you. It is in any form an example which meets the
> definition of "life" at a very basic level. There
> are many other examples which also could be used.
> None of which represent human life. Being of
> human origin =/= human life. Three are many
> living cells that are produced by the human body
> that are not "human life" in a biological, legal,
> or any other sense and none can ever independently
> give rise to human life.
>
>
> > > One critical difference is that human life
> > requires
> > > a complete human genome. Being haploid, sperm
> or
> > egg
> > > fail even that simple test. They do not
> possess
> > a full
> > > genetic complement necessary to ever become
> > human life.
> > > They do not replicate/reproduce through
> division
> > to ever
> > > become anything more or other than the
> > individual cells
> > > that they are. They don't really even meet
> the
> > biological
> > > requirements to be considered organisms.
> >
> > Male ants are haploid. You attempt to invent
> > distinctions that are scientific nonsense then
> > simply bullshit about them.
>
>
> Male ants aren't human. What works for ants,
> doesn't work for humans. There are no haploid
> humans. Unlike an unfertilized ant egg, no
> haploid human cell alone will ever give rise to
> human life.
>
>
> >
> > > What don't you understand about the Holy
> Chimp
> > > Study that you're clinging too being
> irrelevant?
> >
> >
> > What?
> >
> > > Chimps aren't humans.
> >
> > Thank you, Captain Obvious. What is equally
> > obvious is that the point you so desperately
> want
> > to run away from here is still that genetically
> > speaking, race clearly does exist in
> chimpanzees
> > and clearly does not exist in human beings.
> This
> > even with humans being widely dispersed around
> the
> > globe while distinct races of chimpanzee live
> in
> > close proximity to each other, such as on
> either
> > side of the same river.
>
>
> Race does not exist in chimps because we don't
> define race to apply to chimps. What the article
> that you linked to (referencing a separate study)
> does is to identify at a genetic level separate
> bonobos/subspecies of chimps and then compares
> genetic variance in chimps to that of various
> identified human populations. If you'd actually
> read the source study, then you'd know that race
> is not mentioned at all. Not once. Equating
> subspecies of chimps to race in humans is coming
> from you and the disingenuous and/or ignorant
> authors who fed you that inappropriate crap. As
> I've noted many times, "race" in humans is not
> directly comparable to or at the level of
> species/subspecies. Nobody suggests that it is.
>
>
> This is not a contest of greater variance among
> two organisms (chimps vs humans). All that is
> necessary within either is whatever the degree of
> variance that may exist which is required to
> permit differentiation. Again had you read the
> actual study, then you might have noticed that the
> basis for the comparisons among human populations
> relies on specific identified genetic variances
> within human populations of different geographic
> origin. In other words, what we define in broad
> terms as "race." And, again had you actually read
> the source vs the derivative article, then you'd
> know that while overall human variance was lower,
> in fact there were several sampling cases where
> the degree of human variance (more correctly less
> copying) was found to be GREATER than that
> found among chimps (3 samples of African Yoruba,
> YRI vs East-Asian Han Chinese, CHB). Furthermore,
> the authors state that the basis of the study was
> limited in order to provide comparable data sets
> and that "With larger SNP datasets, the power to
> separate the human populations increases."
>
>
> > > Your own loser status is sealed by the fact
> > that
> > > while I'm posting peer-reviewed biomed
> journal
> > > articles, you're posting irrelevant pop
> science
> > > shit from gizmodo. lmao!
> >
> > You again stain yourself with patent failure.
> An
> > actual person of science would have recognized
> the
> > likes of Gizmodo or Plos One as gateways to
> stores
> > of scientific papers, articles, and studies.
> As
> > its lead sponsor, the 2012 study of race in
> > chimpanzees may also be found on the website of
> > Oxford University. The one in the UK. The
> > authors of that work were ---
> >
> > Rory Bowden (Department of Statistics,
> University
> > of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), Tammie S.
> > MacFie (Department of Zoology, University of
> > Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom), Simon
> Myers
> > (Department of Statistics, University of
> Oxford,
> > Oxford, United Kingdom), Garrett Hellenthal
> > (Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,
> > University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom),
> > Eric Nerrienet (Centre Pasteur du Cameroun,
> > Yaoundé, Cameroon), Ronald E. Bontrop
> (Biomedical
> > Primate Research Center, Rijswijk, The
> > Netherlands), Colin Freeman (Department of
> > Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford,
> United
> > Kingdom), Peter Donnelly (Department of
> > Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford,
> United
> > Kingdom), and Nicholas I. Mundy (Department of
> > Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
> > United Kingdom).
> >
> > The above are all actual persons of science.
> You
> > are not. You are a FRAUD.
>
>
> As above, the Gizmodo article is not the actual
> study. It is a derivative article which relies on
> author's representation of the study. But even it
> does not mention "race." There is no study of
> "race" in chimpanzees. The authors who you list
> do not represent their work as a study of race in
> chimps (or humans for that matter). That's a
> misrepresentation which reflects your own "dogma."

You're smashing that other guy - I wonder if any of your empirical truth makes it through all that dissonance his programming has created.