Current Events > Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
ThanksUglyGod 05/28/19 10:10:25 PM #102:	karlpilkington4 posted... Tmaster148 posted... The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite. A living organism that steals from the host without giving back anything positive in return. Now a women might want to host the parasite so it develops into a baby after 9 months, but that is her choice after all. It's not a parasite by definition, or even close. Jesus what a dishonest argument. parasite /perst/ noun 1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense 80%, so it's a B- parasite EDIT: Also, LMFAO at anyone who thinks banning abortion is about protecting life and not disenfranchising women of color. <cite>ThanksUglyGod posted [p:922498558] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite. A living organism that steals from the host without giving back anything positive in return. Now a women might want to host the parasite so it develops into a baby after 9 months, but that is her choice after all.</quote> It's not a parasite by definition, or even close. Jesus what a dishonest argument. parasite /perst/ noun 1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.</quote> an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense 80%, so it's a B- parasite EDIT: Also, LMFAO at anyone who thinks banning abortion is about protecting life and not disenfranchising women of color.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:10:31 PM #103:	@karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... < He did. A fetus is alive. It's irrelevant if its outside a womb or not. Is it breathing? Does it eat? It's alive. For fuck sake. Okay so is that spider you killed earlier. So are the bacteria you just genocided when you brushed your teeth. So are the millions of animals we (I especially) love to eat on a daily basis. So the fuck what if a proto-human undeveloped nugget creature is by book definition alive? The law understands when killing something is actually important or not. I'm talking about humans my man. Hope that clears it up. Do you know why it's bad to kill humans? I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't "just because". If you understand why, you'll understand why killing something that isn't sentient in the slightest is indeed okay. Missouri disagrees. States used to believe blacks werent human. Thats not an argument. "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm. No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922498562] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>@karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>< He did. A fetus is alive. It's irrelevant if its outside a womb or not. Is it breathing? Does it eat? It's alive. For fuck sake.</quote> Okay so is that spider you killed earlier. So are the bacteria you just genocided when you brushed your teeth. So are the millions of animals we (I especially) love to eat on a daily basis. So the fuck what if a proto-human undeveloped nugget creature is by book definition alive? The law understands when killing something is actually important or not.</quote> I'm talking about humans my man. Hope that clears it up.</quote> Do you know why it's bad to kill humans? I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't "just because". If you understand why, you'll understand why killing something that isn't sentient in the slightest is indeed okay.</quote> Missouri disagrees.</quote> States used to believe blacks werent human. Thats not an argument.</quote> "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm.</quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 05/28/19 10:11:40 PM #104:	PrincessCadance posted... These clinics shouldn't be forced to shut down but they shouldn't be publicly funded either. They're already not allowed to use public funds for abortion. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:922498617] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>PrincessCadance posted...</cite> <quote>These clinics shouldn't be forced to shut down but they shouldn't be publicly funded either.</quote> They're already not allowed to use public funds for abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thronedfire2 05/28/19 10:15:58 PM #105:	while this is a bad thing, I guess no one read the second half of the article. --- I could see you, but I couldn't hear you You were holding your hat in the breeze Turning away from me In this moment you were stolen... <cite>thronedfire2 posted [p:922498786] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote>while this is a bad thing, I guess no one read the second half of the article.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:15:58 PM #106:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922498787] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
trappedunderice 05/28/19 10:18:23 PM #107:	Like George Carlin said They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked --- He should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend. <cite>trappedunderice posted [p:922498882] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote>Like George Carlin said They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:19:39 PM #108:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm. Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate". Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired. Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922498931] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>"Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm.</quote> Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate".</quote> Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired.</quote> Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 05/28/19 10:20:04 PM #109:	thronedfire2 posted... while this is a bad thing, I guess no one read the second half of the article. I agree, but was this what you were talking about? s0nicfan posted... Antifar posted... On May 20, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services notified Planned Parenthood of three issues that could impact license renewal, according to documents reviewed by CBS News and provided by Planned Parenthood. On May 22, Planned Parenthood said it would address two of them: adjusting who at the clinic provided the state-mandated counseling and adding an additional pelvic exam for abortion patients. But it said a third request was out of its control. According to Planned Parenthood, the health department said it was investigating "deficient practices," and needed to interview seven physicians who provide care at the clinic. Planned Parenthood said it could offer interviews only with two who are its employees. The other five physicians working at the facility are residents in training and not employed by Planned Parenthood, a spokesperson for the clinic said via email on Tuesday. The state has indicated that the result of those interviews could be "board review" in addition to "criminal proceedings," the spokesperson said. The medical residents declined to be interviewed for the state's investigation. But why? Literally 5 trainees causing this specific mess. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:922498946] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote>while this is a bad thing, I guess no one read the second half of the article.</quote> I agree, but was this what you were talking about? <cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>On May 20, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services notified Planned Parenthood of three issues that could impact license renewal, according to documents reviewed by CBS News and provided by Planned Parenthood. On May 22, Planned Parenthood said it would address two of them: adjusting who at the clinic provided the state-mandated counseling and adding an additional pelvic exam for abortion patients. But it said a third request was out of its control. According to Planned Parenthood, the health department said it was investigating "deficient practices," and needed to interview seven physicians who provide care at the clinic. Planned Parenthood said it could offer interviews only with two who are its employees. The other five physicians working at the facility are residents in training and not employed by Planned Parenthood, a spokesperson for the clinic said via email on Tuesday. The state has indicated that the result of those interviews could be "board review" in addition to "criminal proceedings," the spokesperson said. The medical residents declined to be interviewed for the state's investigation.</quote> But why? Literally 5 trainees causing this specific mess.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:21:06 PM #110:	karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922498990] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:21:47 PM #111:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm. Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate". Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired. Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement? Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly? --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499014] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>"Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm.</quote> Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate".</quote> Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired.</quote> Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement?</quote> Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:23:11 PM #112:	"States rights" apparently means the state's right to ignore the people rather than the federal government doing it. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922499070] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote>"States rights" apparently means the state's right to ignore the people rather than the federal government doing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 05/28/19 10:23:32 PM #113:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... Literally read what you wrote. You only talked about his argument and how it should be addressed. You didn't address it. So let's hear it. Come on. I assume you're addressing me even though you quoted karl? Ok, here you go: Tmaster said, "The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite." Emphasis mine. I reply by pointing out that by no definition is a fetus a parasite, and conclude that "we don't need to lie to justify a woman's bodily autonomy." That's a counter right there. You then come in and, having either ignored or skimmed past Tmaster's "by all definitions" qualifier, comment that words are fluid. Which is entirely irrelevant, given how specific the qualifier was. I reply that lying about facts only serves to give the opposition cause to ignore you and anyone arguing from a pro-choice perspective, rendering the argument counterproductive. There's a counter for you. So to recap, I offered Tmaster a counter. I offered you a counter. I'm glad I could summarize our interaction for you, even though I wouldn't expect you to need it, having participated and all. Let me know if you need help with any other basic reading comprehension. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:922499090] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Literally read what you wrote. You only talked about his argument and how it should be addressed. You didn't address it. So let's hear it. Come on.</quote> I assume you're addressing me even though you quoted karl? Ok, here you go: Tmaster said, "The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite." Emphasis mine. I reply by pointing out that by no definition is a fetus a parasite, and conclude that "we don't need to lie to justify a woman's bodily autonomy." That's a counter right there. You then come in and, having either ignored or skimmed past Tmaster's "by all definitions" qualifier, comment that words are fluid. Which is entirely irrelevant, given how specific the qualifier was. I reply that lying about facts only serves to give the opposition cause to ignore you and anyone arguing from a pro-choice perspective, rendering the argument counterproductive. There's a counter for you. So to recap, I offered Tmaster a counter. I offered you a counter. I'm glad I could summarize our interaction for you, even though I wouldn't expect you to need it, having participated and all. Let me know if you need help with any other basic reading comprehension.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:23:44 PM #114:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you. What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499099] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you.</quote> What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:24:59 PM #115:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm. Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate". Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired. Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement? Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly? You said "Killing innocents is wrong for a reason". I was just wondering what you believe the answer is to that question. Nice of you to ignore the rest of the post tho. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922499160] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>"Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm.</quote> Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate".</quote> Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired.</quote> Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement?</quote> Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly?</quote> You said "Killing innocents is wrong for a reason". I was just wondering what you believe the answer is to that question. Nice of you to ignore the rest of the post tho.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:25:14 PM #116:	TrevorBlack79 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... Literally read what you wrote. You only talked about his argument and how it should be addressed. You didn't address it. So let's hear it. Come on. I assume you're addressing me even though you quoted karl? Ok, here you go: Tmaster said, "The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite." Emphasis mine. I reply by pointing out that by no definition is a fetus a parasite, and conclude that "we don't need to lie to justify a woman's bodily autonomy." That's a counter right there. You then come in and, having either ignored or skimmed past Tmaster's "by all definitions" qualifier, comment that words are fluid. Which is entirely irrelevant, given how specific the qualifier was. I reply that lying about facts only serves to give the opposition cause to ignore you and anyone arguing from a pro-choice perspective, rendering the argument counterproductive. There's a counter for you. So to recap, I offered Tmaster a counter. I offered you a counter. I'm glad I could summarize our interaction for you, even though I wouldn't expect you to need it, having participated and all. Let me know if you need help with any other basic reading comprehension. To get owned twice by Trevor in the same night. LMAO --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499174] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Literally read what you wrote. You only talked about his argument and how it should be addressed. You didn't address it. So let's hear it. Come on.</quote> I assume you're addressing me even though you quoted karl? Ok, here you go: Tmaster said, "The thing inside the mother is by all definition a parasite." Emphasis mine. I reply by pointing out that by no definition is a fetus a parasite, and conclude that "we don't need to lie to justify a woman's bodily autonomy." That's a counter right there. You then come in and, having either ignored or skimmed past Tmaster's "by all definitions" qualifier, comment that words are fluid. Which is entirely irrelevant, given how specific the qualifier was. I reply that lying about facts only serves to give the opposition cause to ignore you and anyone arguing from a pro-choice perspective, rendering the argument counterproductive. There's a counter for you. So to recap, I offered Tmaster a counter. I offered you a counter. I'm glad I could summarize our interaction for you, even though I wouldn't expect you to need it, having participated and all. Let me know if you need help with any other basic reading comprehension.</quote> To get owned twice by Trevor in the same night. LMAO</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:26:11 PM #117:	Tyranthraxus posted... PrincessCadance posted... These clinics shouldn't be forced to shut down but they shouldn't be publicly funded either. They're already not allowed to use public funds for abortion. Which really is a damn shame, but America hates public healthcare. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922499219] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PrincessCadance posted...</cite> <quote>These clinics shouldn't be forced to shut down but they shouldn't be publicly funded either.</quote> They're already not allowed to use public funds for abortion.</quote> Which really is a damn shame, but America hates public healthcare.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:27:44 PM #118:	karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you. What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth. Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922499286] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you.</quote> What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth.</quote> Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:28:41 PM #119:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... "Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm. Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate". Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired. Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement? Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly? You said "Killing innocents is wrong for a reason". I was just wondering what you believe the answer is to that question. Nice of you to ignore the rest of the post tho. To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499330] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>"Missouri disagrees" wasn't an argument. It was a fact. But go ahead and appeal to emotion. It's never worked for you before, but who knows, the 15th time is a charm.</quote> Banning abortion is basically the definition of appealing to emotion. Abortion, or rather it being an option, has tangible benefits to society. What do we gain from hundreds of thousands of children being born to unsuitable parents? That's more poverty, more neglect, more abuse, more orphans. Best to nip it in the bud while the woman still has control. It's logical and I'd even say it's the ethical thing to not force any pregnancy that isn't wanted. You need to look at the big picture. It doesn't help that the same states hellbent on banning abortion clutch their pearls at the thought of sex ed beyond "Don't have sex if you're not a married couple attempting to procreate".</quote> Alot of your premise I disagree with for one. If abortion is illegal, suddenly less people have it as an option. They then take the responsibility which they neglected in the first place, and don't have pregnancies because they took the easy to access precautions (birth control). Adoptions are real, we simply need to make it cheaper (adoption agencies charge thousands of dollars) A life is a life. And killing innocents is wrong for a reason. It has little to do with emotion, it has to do with a society that is based on consistency and evolution to evolve the species. Hopefully that made sense. I'm getting tired.</quote> Then why do more women die and have back alley abortions when abortions are unobtainable. The idea that giving people no choice to do something will force them to do things the way you want has absolutely no basis in reality. A life is a life and killing innocents is wrong for a reason, but what are you arguing then? That abortion is promoting fear and unrest in society like murder does? Is it normalizing murder in a society when murder and violence go down year over year? You ask why murder is wrong, but your answer seems to be simply "because it's bad". It's a public safety hazard. It violates bodily autonomy. It sows fear and distrust in society. Abortion is someone taking a body out of their body because they don't want that responsibility. Is having a children a right or is it a requirement?</quote> Wait, LMAO. When did I ask this, exactly?</quote> You said "Killing innocents is wrong for a reason". I was just wondering what you believe the answer is to that question. Nice of you to ignore the rest of the post tho.</quote> To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:32:48 PM #120:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you. What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth. Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not. LOL, there is literally going to be zero abortion clinics in Missouri, and you seem to think you're right about them supporting abortion? This is a quote from the damned Governor: Missouri's Republican governor, Mike Parson, signed a law criminalizing abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. In a statement upon signing, Parson said the abortion ban sends "a strong signal to the nation that, in Missouri, we stand for life, protect women's health, and advocate for the unborn." --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499480] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you.</quote> What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth.</quote> Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not.</quote> LOL, there is literally going to be zero abortion clinics in Missouri, and you seem to think you're right about them supporting abortion? This is a quote from the damned Governor: Missouri's Republican governor, Mike Parson, signed a law criminalizing abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. In a statement upon signing, Parson said the abortion ban sends "a strong signal to the nation that, in Missouri, we stand for life, protect women's health, and advocate for the unborn."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:33:03 PM #121:	karlpilkington4 posted... . I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922499491] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species</quote> We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:34:33 PM #122:	karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you. What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth. Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not. LOL, there is literally going to be zero abortion clinics in Missouri, and you seem to think you're right about them supporting abortion? This is a quote from the damned Governor: Missouri's Republican governor, Mike Parson, signed a law criminalizing abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. In a statement upon signing, Parson said the abortion ban sends "a strong signal to the nation that, in Missouri, we stand for life, protect women's health, and advocate for the unborn." The government is not representing the people. This is not a new issue by any means. It's a pervasive problem of the two-party system. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922499546] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote> No state in the union is above 25% in support for banning abortion, so no, Missouri by the numbers does not want to ban abortion. Try again. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6kr6a0WsAIPwLk.jpg:large</quote> DId you miss the OP? Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week</quote> Deflecting. You said a lie and I corrected you.</quote> What lie? You brought up Missouri "banning" abortion. I never did. You are putting words in my mouth.</quote> Again, transparently deflecting. You said that Missouri "apparently disagrees". I showed you that they do not.</quote> LOL, there is literally going to be zero abortion clinics in Missouri, and you seem to think you're right about them supporting abortion? This is a quote from the damned Governor: Missouri's Republican governor, Mike Parson, signed a law criminalizing abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. In a statement upon signing, Parson said the abortion ban sends "a strong signal to the nation that, in Missouri, we stand for life, protect women's health, and advocate for the unborn."</quote> The government is not representing the people. This is not a new issue by any means. It's a pervasive problem of the two-party system.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 05/28/19 10:34:45 PM #123:	CyricZ posted... Viability is at the center of the abortion argument as far as the law is concerned, because Roe v. Wade very specifically tried to avoid defining "life" as they felt (and rightly so) that they were not in a place to make that judgment. This is why abortions in the third trimester are not allowed except at the peril of the mother's life. Which is why I'm 100% against abortion once the fetus is viable (because the fetus can actually survive outside the womb). Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. Just surprised (well, not really) that all the "SmAlL gOvErNmEnT" Republicans want to control what women do with their bodies. You'd think they wouldn't want government control like that. --- https://imgur.com/jWVrg9U https://imgur.com/g2efUtT https://imgur.com/5dOwhaP https://imgur.com/LVdqu8J Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:922499558] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>CyricZ posted...</cite> <quote>Viability is at the center of the abortion argument as far as the law is concerned, because Roe v. Wade very specifically tried to avoid defining "life" as they felt (and rightly so) that they were not in a place to make that judgment. This is why abortions in the third trimester are not allowed except at the peril of the mother's life.</quote> Which is why I'm 100% against abortion once the fetus is viable (because the fetus can actually survive outside the womb). Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. Just surprised (well, not really) that all the "SmAlL gOvErNmEnT" Republicans want to control what women do with their bodies. You'd think they wouldn't want government control like that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:34:53 PM #124:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... . I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit. I'm not sure what you're basing "overpopulated" on, but its statistically incorrect, in large part thanks to technology. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499560] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species</quote> We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit.</quote> I'm not sure what you're basing "overpopulated" on, but its statistically incorrect, in large part thanks to technology.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:36:09 PM #125:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499613] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:37:27 PM #126:	karlpilkington4 posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... . I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit. I'm not sure what you're basing "overpopulated" on, but its statistically incorrect, in large part thanks to technology. Climate change, habitat destruction, unsustainable energy sources. In large part thanks to technology. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922499668] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species</quote> We're more than 7 billion strong and currently overpopulated. We can take the hit.</quote> I'm not sure what you're basing "overpopulated" on, but its statistically incorrect, in large part thanks to technology.</quote> Climate change, habitat destruction, unsustainable energy sources. In large part thanks to technology.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 05/28/19 10:38:45 PM #127:	karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:922499718] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:40:47 PM #128:	karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922499787] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:42:03 PM #129:	Tyranthraxus posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god) --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499840] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 05/28/19 10:42:15 PM #130:	If the license is not renewed by May 31, Missouri would become the first state without a functioning abortion clinic since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. I thought Texas did that already. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:922499846] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><quote>If the license is not renewed by May 31, Missouri would become the first state without a functioning abortion clinic since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided.</quote> I thought Texas did that already.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:42:28 PM #131:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499851] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:44:24 PM #132:	karlpilkington4 posted... To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species. Most of the things modern people do are "destructive to the species". That's the best argument you have against murder? Good thing you aren't in charge. Are you a diehard environmentalist because killing the environment is bad for the species? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922499929] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species.</quote> Most of the things modern people do are "destructive to the species". That's the best argument you have against murder? Good thing you aren't in charge. Are you a diehard environmentalist because killing the environment is bad for the species?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThanksUglyGod 05/28/19 10:44:43 PM #133:	karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. Yes, can't forget the desires of someone who has no concept of desires, life, or anything really. <cite>ThanksUglyGod posted [p:922499942] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> Yes, can't forget the desires of someone who has no concept of desires, life, or anything really.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 05/28/19 10:44:43 PM #134:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:922499943] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:46:01 PM #135:	Questionmarktarius posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing. Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing? --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922499987] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing.</quote> Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:47:02 PM #136:	karlpilkington4 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god) If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent? --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922500025] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god)</quote> If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:47:22 PM #137:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species. Most of the things modern people do are "destructive to the species". That's the best argument you have against murder? Good thing you aren't in charge. Are you a diehard environmentalist because killing the environment is bad for the species? You can do better than a red herring. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500040] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>To clarify, I was not ignoring the rest of your post. That particular sentence stuck out as peculiar and I wanted clarity. I already stated why killing is wrong. It is destructive to the species.</quote> Most of the things modern people do are "destructive to the species". That's the best argument you have against murder? Good thing you aren't in charge. Are you a diehard environmentalist because killing the environment is bad for the species?</quote> You can do better than a red herring.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 10:47:55 PM #138:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? Also, men can have their own babies if they want to have a say over whether or not a baby is brought to term. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922500066] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> Also, men can have their own babies if they want to have a say over whether or not a baby is brought to term.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 05/28/19 10:48:23 PM #139:	karlpilkington4 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing. Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing? It's an unwanted tenant. The eviction process isn't pleasant. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:922500082] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing.</quote> Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing?</quote> It's an unwanted tenant. The eviction process isn't pleasant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 05/28/19 10:48:32 PM #140:	karlpilkington4 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing. Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing? She didn't want it. Accidents happen and there needs to be a way out. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:922500088] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing.</quote> Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing?</quote> She didn't want it. Accidents happen and there needs to be a way out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:52:14 PM #141:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god) If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent? It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent? --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500229] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god)</quote> If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent?</quote> It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:53:20 PM #142:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy. Uhh, what? An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing. Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing? She didn't want it. Accidents happen and there needs to be a way out. Adoption --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500271] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> In her body though, requiring her body. The fetus can leave if it wants bodily autonomy.</quote> Uhh, what?</quote> An unwanted pregnancy is essentially trespassing.</quote> Except the mother created the life and put it there? So how the fuck is it trespassing?</quote> She didn't want it. Accidents happen and there needs to be a way out.</quote> Adoption</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 05/28/19 10:54:18 PM #143:	Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:922500308] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote>Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 05/28/19 10:55:23 PM #144:	Why the fuck y'all still feeding him --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:922500356] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote>Why the fuck y'all still feeding him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 10:56:56 PM #145:	Tmaster148 posted... Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her. Bro, I'm trying to eat. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500418] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her.</quote> Bro, I'm trying to eat.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leanaunfurled 05/28/19 10:57:01 PM #146:	UnholyMudcrab posted... Why the fuck y'all still feeding him I don't believe he's trolling, though. Just a standard pro-lifer. <cite>Leanaunfurled posted [p:922500423] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>Why the fuck y'all still feeding him</quote> I don't believe he's trolling, though. Just a standard pro-lifer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 05/28/19 10:59:11 PM #147:	karlpilkington4 posted... Tmaster148 posted... Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her. Bro, I'm trying to eat. That's not my problem you have issue with male bodily fluids, but not a problem about pregnancy. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:922500504] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her.</quote> Bro, I'm trying to eat.</quote> That's not my problem you have issue with male bodily fluids, but not a problem about pregnancy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/28/19 11:01:18 PM #148:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god) If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent? It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont want like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent? I can and I should end it if the life is being created inside me (if I were a woman) and I don't want it to go all the way though. I can say no whenever during sex, but I have no choice for 9 months if the sex makes a baby? In one situation, it's suddenly okay to be forced to keep something inside my body against my will? Should the government really have that control over bodies? This is exactly why I'm against the death penalty too. No government should be able to violate bodies. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:922500578] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god)</quote> If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent?</quote> It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont want like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent?</quote> I can and I should end it if the life is being created inside me (if I were a woman) and I don't want it to go all the way though. I can say no whenever during sex, but I have no choice for 9 months if the sex makes a baby? In one situation, it's suddenly okay to be forced to keep something inside my body against my will? Should the government really have that control over bodies? This is exactly why I'm against the death penalty too. No government should be able to violate bodies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HiddenRoar 05/28/19 11:02:30 PM #149:	CyricZ posted... The typical response is that life begins at fertilization, and my question to that is... why? Who defined that? The answer is "people who wanted to define it that way", which is to say that defining life at fertilization is entirely arbitrary. The fertilized egg is entirely dependent on the mother to nourish it. It absolutely cannot grow on its own. If you want to call it "life", that's your business, but it is absolutely without a doubt not "viable". A non-fertilized egg will not be anything other than an unfertilized egg. A fertilized egg, when left in it's "normal environment" (in utero) will undergo programmed division that'll eventually result in an infant organism. Sure, a fertilized egg may fail to implant, or spontaneous abort/fail to develop past a blastocyte mass, but then these won't be much different from an unfertilized egg in terms of "viable life". Also, a newly born infant won't be able to grow "on its own", nor is independently viable, instead reliant on nourishment from other sources until it does become independent. <cite>HiddenRoar posted [p:922500621] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>CyricZ posted...</cite> <quote>The typical response is that life begins at fertilization, and my question to that is... why? Who defined that? The answer is "people who wanted to define it that way", which is to say that defining life at fertilization is entirely arbitrary. The fertilized egg is entirely dependent on the mother to nourish it. It absolutely cannot grow on its own. If you want to call it "life", that's your business, but it is absolutely without a doubt not "viable".</quote> A non-fertilized egg will not be anything other than an unfertilized egg. A fertilized egg, when left in it's "normal environment" (in utero) will undergo programmed division that'll eventually result in an infant organism. Sure, a fertilized egg may fail to implant, or spontaneous abort/fail to develop past a blastocyte mass, but then these won't be much different from an unfertilized egg in terms of "viable life". Also, a newly born infant won't be able to grow "on its own", nor is independently viable, instead reliant on nourishment from other sources until it does become independent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 11:02:33 PM #150:	Tmaster148 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Tmaster148 posted... Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her. Bro, I'm trying to eat. That's not my problem you have issue with male bodily fluids, but not a problem about pregnancy. She has the responsibility to make sure her partner is wearing protection. She has this option as well. Female condoms are a thing, and not just the weird rubber thing. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500625] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Actually if we want to get technical. A women can't chose to create life. A man has to inject his fluids in her, with or without her consent. It only stands to reason that a women should therefore chose whether or not she wants to keep the pregnancy inflicted upon her.</quote> Bro, I'm trying to eat.</quote> That's not my problem you have issue with male bodily fluids, but not a problem about pregnancy.</quote> She has the responsibility to make sure her partner is wearing protection. She has this option as well. Female condoms are a thing, and not just the weird rubber thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/28/19 11:03:55 PM #151:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... karlpilkington4 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers. I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please. I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god) If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent? It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont want like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent? I can and I should end it if the life is being created inside me (if I were a woman) and I don't want it to go all the way though. I can say no whenever during sex, but I have no choice for 9 months if the sex makes a baby? In one situation, it's suddenly okay to be forced to keep something inside my body against my will? Should the government really have that control over bodies? This is exactly why I'm against the death penalty too. No government should be able to violate bodies. Yes, that's literally how life works. Consequences for your actions. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:922500681] in Missouri's... [t:77746377]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Until then, it should be up to the mother. Her body, her choice. </quote> It's not just her body, there's literally another life that's not hers.</quote> I'm another life that is not yours. I'd like to have unrestricted access to your body please.</quote> I know you think you made some sort of clever point, but you really didn't. The mother decided to take actions which created a life inside of her own. I took no voluntary action for you to be inside of me (thank god)</quote> If you took a voluntary action though, would that mean you can never revoke consent? "I let Tyranthraxus leech off my body, so now I can't stop or I'm a murderer!" On a related note, what are your opinions on sexual consent?</quote> It's a good question, and I want to thank you for being one of the better posters in this topic. When it comes to the survival of a life that was created by said person, no. You can't just create a life and then just end it because its inconvenient. Similar to not being able to throw out a tenant, just because I dont want like them anymore. (This isnt a great example, but I'm referring to laws that protect renters) What do you mean specifically about sexual consent?</quote> I can and I should end it if the life is being created inside me (if I were a woman) and I don't want it to go all the way though. I can say no whenever during sex, but I have no choice for 9 months if the sex makes a baby? In one situation, it's suddenly okay to be forced to keep something inside my body against my will? Should the government really have that control over bodies? This is exactly why I'm against the death penalty too. No government should be able to violate bodies.</quote> Yes, that's literally how life works. Consequences for your actions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Missouri's last abortion clinic may be shut down this week