Ohio House, Senate pass ‘heartbeat’ abortion ban

Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#21
Funny people arguing against a part of their lives that is essential to their current condition.

There is just not much room left anymore for the sad excuses people come up with to kill babies.

Science has taken most of your arguments off the table and now you all just come off as being blood thirsty.
 
Nov 2018
3,154
1,469
Inner Space
#22
Funny people arguing against a part of their lives that is essential to their current condition.

There is just not much room left anymore for the sad excuses people come up with to kill babies.

Science has taken most of your arguments off the table and now you all just come off as being blood thirsty.
You have lost your privileges to use "science" in any sentence.
If you want to claim that human cells are equivalent to viable human beings, I think you "come off" as obsessed by some concept that has nothing to do with science and reality and that sort of reasoning puts you into a category of humans with thought disorders. If you really want to argue that a human cell is a human being, lets discuss that. However, do not try to suggest that fundamentally and intuitively that idea makes any sense whatsoever or is somehow related to "science", because it is not.
 
Likes: leekohler2
Nov 2018
3,154
1,469
Inner Space
#23
Produce a list of those who were pronounced dead while they still had a beating heart.
Most major organ transplants occur from BRAIN dead donors with beating hearts. The heart can remain beating for long after the individual has no functional brain. Certain infants are born anencephalic (look it up). They have, essentially, no brain and do not remain viable after birth. Barney Clark had NO heart and survived for many weeks on the Jarvic artifical heart. The heart does not define life. Viable humans are a complex system that includes many parts and no single one is an absolute determinant of what we call a "human being".
 
Likes: catus felis
May 2018
4,776
2,987
Chicago
#24
Funny people arguing against a part of their lives that is essential to their current condition.

There is just not much room left anymore for the sad excuses people come up with to kill babies.

Science has taken most of your arguments off the table and now you all just come off as being blood thirsty.
A fetus is not a baby. A zygote is not a baby. Those are facts.

You do not use facts in your arguments, you use emotions.
 
Likes: catus felis
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#25
You have lost your privileges to use "science" in any sentence.
If you want to claim that human cells are equivalent to viable human beings, I think you "come off" as obsessed by some concept that has nothing to do with science and reality and that sort of reasoning puts you into a category of humans with thought disorders. If you really want to argue that a human cell is a human being, lets discuss that. However, do not try to suggest that fundamentally and intuitively that idea makes any sense whatsoever or is somehow related to "science", because it is not.
You can not live without a heartbeat. You are a clump of cells. Deal with it.

SCIENCE is not your friend anymore.
 
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#26
A fetus is not a baby. A zygote is not a baby. Those are facts.

You do not use facts in your arguments, you use emotions.
Blood thirsty argument that ignores reality.

You want to claim that some made up definitions define life but that is lacking in reality.

SCIENCE has made the argument for killing babies very moot.

Since there are now morning after pills and a wide variety of contraception the reasons to kill babies do not have any merit in the wide majority of cases.
 
Nov 2018
3,154
1,469
Inner Space
#27
No response. Go figure...
Who could have guessed that... :rolleyes:




Already told you multiple times you're taking that out of context...

A man gives his sperm to a woman.
If that sperm results in a baby growing inside the woman, suddenly he wants to dictate terms?
Nuh-uh...

As I told you in the other thread, if the woman were to leave her egg in the father and he grew the baby there, then it would be his choice.
What is often forgotten in the discussion of pregnancy is that the male contribution is one-half the chromosomes of ONE cell. All other cells, chromosomes, mitochondria, organs, etc. etc. are produced by the metabolic process of the female bearing the pregnancy. Essentially the male has contributed partially to only ONE cell of the 30 trillion cells that make up the human body. Women unquestionably own their pregnancies and the male has no claim beyond 0.5/30 trillionth of that event.
 
Likes: catus felis
Nov 2018
3,154
1,469
Inner Space
#28
You can not live without a heartbeat. You are a clump of cells. Deal with it.

SCIENCE is not your friend anymore.
Once again, you are stumbling into the weeds and demonstrating your determined ignorance of the issue. Contractile cardiac tissue does not define fetal viability. I realize that your entire conservative ethos hangs on certain misconceptions and lies, but I have to be honest with you. You are mistaken about pregnancy and fetal viability.
 
Mar 2019
1,078
247
Texas
#30
Once again, you are stumbling into the weeds and demonstrating your determined ignorance of the issue. Contractile cardiac tissue does not define fetal viability. I realize that your entire conservative ethos hangs on certain misconceptions and lies, but I have to be honest with you. You are mistaken about pregnancy and fetal viability.
AGAIN cause you ignore everything. I am not a conservative.

Reality shows us that you are expressing opinion as fact.
 

Similar Discussions