For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[ll74]

You're better of having this conversation with fellow conservatives, people who identify with your core values. Right now you have a pack of hyenas chasing your ass all over the PB. You're outnumbered 10 to 1 and you're wasting your time. They have secular belief and you ain't going to change their minds. PB leans far left and yes they will persecute you, call you names and have zero respect for your opposing opinions.

He's not attempting to change anyone's mind. He's denigrating other people's position.

 

[JaySecrets]

Yes, you don't support abortions. You've made that clear.

The science and evidence are clear that it is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy.

Murder is not a scientific term.

No murder is not a scientific term. It is a factual term to describe a scientific fact. The taking of an innocent life, Life itself being defined scientifically, we describe as murder. That baby is a living life. That baby has its own lungs. Its own heartbeat its own mind. Its own DNA, its own identity. It is by definition a human life. By every natural normal definition. The only reason you want another definition for life in the womb is because you want to justify the murder of that life... I'm sorry... Taking of that life. No matter how you reframe it, if you take a life that is not yours to take, it is murder.

 

[ll74]

No murder is not a scientific term. It is a factual term to describe a scientific fact.

It's a legal term.

The taking of an innocent life, Life itself being defined scientifically, we describe as murder.

Religiously perhaps.

That baby is a living life.

That baby has its own lungs. Its own heartbeat its own mind. Its own DNA, its own identity. It is by definition a human life. By every natural normal definition. The only reason you want another definition for life in the womb is because you want to justify the murder of that life... I'm sorry... Taking of that life. No matter how you reframe it, if you take a life that is not yours to take, it is murder.

Abortions don't involve babies, scientifically.

Legally, it is not murder unless you change the law. Even in states where abortion is illegal (any of the various laws), no one is charged with murder.

 

[JaySecrets]

It's a legal term.


Religiously perhaps.




Abortions don't involve babies, scientifically.

If a being, any being, has its own mind has a heartbeat has DNA that is living and vital. If that being is responding to stimulus. If that being is responding to music to voices to pain to pleasure. If that being is functioning in its own identity, that is the very essence of the scientific definition of life. To deny that this being then is not a life, Is not a baby, is ludicrous. You have to have motive not to recognize the life or the individual identity of that living being. And in our society we do. We been taking the lives of these babies so long that now we are so invested in defending that crime that we will ignore the facts.

You have not responded to any of the information. The basic information of life that has been laid out here in this simple statement. But you want to claim that it's not a baby but you can't define what it is because you can't call it a life because if you call it a life then by definition it is a baby. The word fetus literally means little one. It was a Latin term of endearment for a baby. Changing words and definitions does not change facts.

 

[JaySecrets]

You know, I can almost respect the ancient cultures, primitive civilizations that would take their babies and put them on altars to kill them in sacrifice to their gods and goddesses of lust. At least they were honest about what they were doing. We take those babies and we put them in clinics in their mother's wombs and we take their lives there. Then we pretend they aren't babies because that would not be civilized to kill a baby. We have to have it to be something else. We change the word baby to the Latin word for baby or little one. Then we pretend that the fact that that heartbeat and that little mind and those tiny hands on those feet and those legs and those ears and those responses and those clear emotions and everything else that proves that baby is alive doesn't exist. Because if we can't pretend this then we can't keep acting irresponsibly and then ignore the consequences. And then you wonder why we value life so little in this country that murder rates skyrocket and everything that is about the valuing of life goes downhill. If we don't value life at its most innocent and fragile and precious, how in the world are we going to value it any other time?

At least those ancient cultures were honest with what they're doing. We spend our time lying to ourselves.

 

[DeluxAuto]

has its own mind has a heartbeat has DNA that is living and vital. If that being is responding to stimulus. If that being is responding to music to voices to pain to pleasure. If that being is functioning in its own identity,

Fetuses cant survive outside the womb so we're glad you agree with the rest of us sane people

 

[butters]

Again, that is a provable fallacy. The biggest and most vocal portion of society who oppose abortion... is women. The most vocal anti-abortionists out there, are women who used to work for Planned Parenthood, were actually valued employees of Planned Parenthood till they could simply not live with themselves for what they were doing to babies. Some of the other most vocal opponents to abortion are women who have had abortions, and know what it did to them. You as a man are sitting there explaining to women who have been through it and who have done it that they are wrong. That somehow their position is chauvinistic against women. But then this is something your side regularly does. You have a position and so you impose your straw men and then ignore the evidence otherwise. It's the only way you can keep up your facade.

your 'fact' that i am a man may come as something of a HUGE shock to my husband.

 

[JaySecrets]

Under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, it is illegal to:

take, molest or disturb, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof of the foregoing eagles.

The law defines “take” as kill or capture.

If a man or woman were caught carrying an egg of a bald eagle without a proper permit to do so, he or she could face up to a $5,000 fine or a year in prison, or both.

Although the eggs of an eagle are protected across America, the life of an unborn child legally may be terminated through all nine months of pregnancy in Vermont, Alaska, Oregon, New Jersey, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Over 1,300 species are protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In California, a similar law specifically protects 250 species, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. One such animal is the southern sea otter.

Southern sea otters are protected under both state and federal law, which make it illegal to kill or harass the animals.

In 2015, a California man was convicted, fined $500, and sentenced to 150 hours of community service plus six months’ probation after he became so annoyed with the cries of a baby sea otter that he fired an air rifle in the animal’s direction.

In 2004, a total of 25,824 abortions occurred in Washington, according to the Washington Department of Health. That same year, a man identified as Bert E. Jenkins was sentenced to six months of home detention and 40 hours of community service, plus two years’ probation, for killing a green sea turtle in Washington. Green sea turtles are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

In Vermont, 53 animals either are endangered or threatened and are protected under Vermont’s law on endangered species. One is the Fowler’s toad, which ranges in length from 2 to 3.5 inches.

An individual who illegally takes a Fowler’s toad from the wild in Vermont could be fined up to $2,000, according to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Vermont law currently permits abortion up to the moment a child is born.


So let me get this straight.... An unborn animal is a life. If I take or harm or kill that unborn animal I am liable for a crime because I took or harmed the life of an unborn animal. But if it's a human baby in the womb, an unborn baby, It's not really a life after all.

 

[JaySecrets]

Fetuses cant survive outside the womb so we're glad you agree with the rest of us sane people

An unborn child can in fact survive out of the womb if it is in an incubator. We do this all the time in hospitals. And if I to go to a hospital and start killing babies in incubators you would call me a mass murderer. You would be very right. But for me to kill that baby when it's in the womb instead of in an incubator even though it's the same age and size and development stage, that's a blob of tissue, a fetus that is okay to kill? That's sick. A baby outside the womb, A newborn baby or even a week old or a 2-week-old baby, that baby can't survive without its mother either. Is it okay to kill that child? How about it 5 years old? They can't cook or do anything that's going to help them survive and in a few days or weeks if you aren't taking care of them they will die. What about teenagers? There are some teenagers that can't survive without their parents help. What about people who are born with handicaps and cannot survive without the assistance of others around them for their entire life? Can we kill them? Ability to survive without another's help is not the basis on which life is governed or determined. Life is defined by the existence of those essential elements that make up life. Those elements exist actively and without possible denial within the earliest stages of a baby's development in the womb. In other words, that baby is a human life, regardless of whether or not it can survive without help from the outside.

 

[JaySecrets]

When an animal, an unborn bird or sea turtle or frog has more rights than an unborn human being, we have gotten things very twisted.

 

[butters]

When an animal, an unborn bird or sea turtle or frog has more rights than an unborn human being, we have gotten things very twisted.

tell it to the eggs i eat

 

[ll74]

If a being, any being, has its own mind has a heartbeat has DNA that is living and vital. If that being is responding to stimulus. If that being is responding to music to voices to pain to pleasure. If that being is functioning in its own identity, that is the very essence of the scientific definition of life. To deny that this being then is not a life, Is not a baby, is ludicrous.

Factually/scientifically, the term baby refers to the human after birth.

You can think that it's ludicrous, that is irrelevant to the terminology.

You have to have motive not to recognize the life or the individual identity of that living being.

It's a pregnancy. It's a living being dependent on the woman. The woman's life.takes precedence during a pregnancy.

And in our society we do. We been taking the lives of these babies so long that now we are so invested in defending that crime that we will ignore the facts.

You thinking that you are correct does not mean that other people are ignoring crimes or facts.

You have not responded to any of the information.

I've responded to everything you've posted. I'm not going to discuss opinions of.doctors who disagree with abortion except to say that I disagree with their opinions as do many doctors.

The basic information of life that has been laid out here in this simple statement. But you want to claim that it's not a baby but you can't define what it is because you can't call it a life because if you call it a life then by definition it is a baby. The word fetus literally means little one. It was a Latin term of endearment for a baby. Changing words and definitions does not change facts.

A baby exists after birth. I have not changed that definition, you have.

Whether you need to use the incorrect terminology or not is not my issue. You're welcome to continue to disagree with definitions as you feel necessary.

 

[JaySecrets]

tell it to the eggs i eat

I assume you're not eating fertilized eagle eggs, or sea turtle eggs. If you did that you would be fined or imprisoned. Any harm to such animals even at the, their version of gestation age, is considered a crime. Yet when you do that to a human being in an abortion clinic, that's perfectly acceptable. It's funny how conveniently we shift our terms and redefine life to our own convenience. It's almost like our feelings and emotions are what's determining what life is in our eyes instead of the science. That's interesting. Because those who are trying to defend life are being accused of being all about emotions when in fact we are quoting the science. You don't quote science you quote emotions and opinions disguised in scientific language when in reality it's just another way to hide what you're doing. Devaluing human life because you don't care about it.

 

[ll74]

You know, I can almost respect the ancient cultures, primitive civilizations that would take their babies and put them on altars to kill them in sacrifice to their gods and goddesses of lust. At least they were honest about what they were doing. We take those babies and we put them in clinics in their mother's wombs and we take their lives there. Then we pretend they aren't babies because that would not be civilized to kill a baby. We have to have it to be something else. We change the word baby to the Latin word for baby or little one. Then we pretend that the fact that that heartbeat and that little mind and those tiny hands on those feet and those legs and those ears and those responses and those clear emotions and everything else that proves that baby is alive doesn't exist. Because if we can't pretend this then we can't keep acting irresponsibly and then ignore the consequences. And then you wonder why we value life so little in this country that murder rates skyrocket and everything that is about the valuing of life goes downhill. If we don't value life at its most innocent and fragile and precious, how in the world are we going to value it any other time?

At least those ancient cultures were honest with what they're doing. We spend our time lying to ourselves.

You are the one who refuses to refer to the fetus and instead use the term baby to evoke the emotional response you're looking for.

I have no issue with the termination of pregnancy for any reason and prefer the codification of roe as federal law.

No matter how many times you give a diatribe on the subject to evoke further emotion, I will still have the same position on the matter. I continue to wish you well in the lobbying for your policies.

 

[icanhelp1]

Apparently you believe presidents can unilaterally suspend the constitution and you’re worried that’s going to happen. Many DJ supporters are worried about the polls. That might explain the alarm bells. What made you think I would claim to not support Trump? I’ve been very transparent about who I’m supporting. DeSantis was my original pick, but he dropped out before my state’s primary. Trump is the GOP candidate and he’s got my support.

Apparently Comshaw didn't read your #47.

When describing the two tier justice system it's quite remarkable that the lit left are incapable of seeing past their hatred for Trump and are quite comfortable with uprooting our justice system in an effort block Trump's candidacy camouflaged as defending democracy. It's hypocritical and laughable on its face.

Lady justice has been stripped of her blindfold by the leftist activist AGs, DAs and certain judges, steeped in self serving partisan political shenanigans. Aspiring AGs and DAs rallying their base with campaign rhetoric unbecoming officers of the court, using campaign slogans that describe future promises of leveraging our judicial system to eliminate the opposition. What's truly alarming is the fact that these aspiring officers of the court have won their coveted positions and are now following through with their campaign promises. It stinks to the high heavens of judicial impropriety. These truly despicable individuals ( Letitia James, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith ) are proudly following in the footsteps of Lavrentiy Beria "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" bastardizing our justice system disguised as saving our democracy. Selective persecution, prosecutorial malfeasance, tyranny by party majority i.e. the mainstay of these corrupt officers of the court. These Court officers abrogated their oath to protect and serve and uphold our constitution

Activist judges failing to adhere to the 5 canons of judicial conduct as described in the code of conduct for US Judges, especially as described in judicial canon #5. which states " a judge should refrain from political activity, shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the *INDEPENDENCE*, *INTEGRITY*. or IMPARTIALITY* of the judiciary"

 

[JaySecrets]

Factually/scientifically, the term baby refers to the human after birth.

You can think that it's ludicrous, that is irrelevant to the terminology.


It's a pregnancy. It's a living being dependent on the woman. The woman's life.takes precedence during a pregnancy.


You thinking that you are correct does not mean that other people are ignoring crimes or facts.


I've responded to everything you've posted. I'm not going to discuss opinions of.doctors who disagree with abortion except to say that I disagree with their opinions as do many doctors.


A baby exists after birth. I have not changed that definition, you have.

Whether you need to use the incorrect terminology or not is not my issue. You're welcome to continue to disagree with definitions as you feel necessary.

You have not responded to any of what I said. You talked past it. You did not address the details in what was said. You did not explain how that is not a life in the womb. Not explain how when a child in the womb is functioning with its own DNA and its own mind and heartbeat and identity and gender and everything else separate from its mother except for It's dependency on its mother for food and protection, how that is not a life. You did not address any of that. You just said, It's not a baby, then said you addressed it. That's not addressing the argument that's talking past it. Look up the definition of life... How life is defined. How life is measured. How life is treated. And then answer the challenge. Don't talk past it. All you did was give me opinion dressed up in the garb of scientific words.

 

[DeluxAuto]

An unborn child

No such thing.

survive out of the womb if it is in an incubator.

Lol. Ruining your own argument in the same sentence

 

[JaySecrets]

In biology, life is generally defined as the ability of an organism to have the following seven characteristics:
Respire, Grow, Excrete, Reproduce, Metabolize, Move, and Respond to the environment.

Short of reproduction, and a 5-year-old can't reproduce either, everything off this list that defines life applies to a baby in the womb.

But you say it's scientifically not a life. Just a blob of tissue. When in fact it meets the definition of life. In other words, a living baby.

 

[JaySecrets]

No such thing.

Lol. Ruining your own argument in the same sentence

I noticed how you selectively took one line of it and then ignored the rest of it. You don't call the baby in the incubator at the hospital a non-baby, just a fetus to be destroyed if so desired. You would say, I hope, that the life of that baby in that incubator should be protected. That we should have power generated to the hospitals so that if power goes down those lives would not be harmed when the power outage is there. In other words, you are recognizing that that is a human life that deserves to be treated with dignity and protection. So how is it any different when that same child at the same stage is in its mother's womb? How is that not even more sacred because it's in its safest place in its most secure place? And how is it not the ultimate betrayal of trust to kill that child in the womb just because that child is inconvenient?

 

[JaySecrets]

You are the one who refuses to refer to the fetus and instead use the term baby to evoke the emotional response you're looking for.

I have no issue with the termination of pregnancy for any reason and prefer the codification of roe as federal law.

No matter how many times you give a diatribe on the subject to evoke further emotion, I will still have the same position on the matter. I continue to wish you well in the lobbying for your policies.

I would like you to answer one question. A simple question. A very easy question if you believe science and scientific definitions and biological definitions... Is a baby in the womb, a fetus if you will (because I don't hate the term fetus. It's literally a word that means little one), is that fetus in the womb a living being? According to the science definition. According to the objective definition of science of what life is. Does it meet the qualifications of life? Yes or no?

 

[ll74]

You have not responded to any of what I said. You talked past it. You did not address the details in what was said. You did not explain how that is not a life in the womb.

I never said it wasn't a life.

Not explain how when a child in the womb is functioning with its own DNA and its own mind and heartbeat and identity and gender and everything else separate from its mother except for It's dependency on its mother for food and protection, how that is not a life.

Never said it wasn't a life.

You did not address any of that. You just said, It's not a baby, then said you addressed it. That's not addressing the argument that's talking past it. Look up the definition of life... How life is defined. How life is measured. How life is treated. And then answer the challenge. Don't talk past it. All you did was give me opinion dressed up in the garb of scientific words.

Yes, it's not a baby. You keep calling it a baby. It's a fetus or a zygote. It is a living thing. The dispute I have is that you are incorrectly using the term "baby" which isn't scientific or factual because of the emotional ties to the word. A fetus does not get the same response and it's obvious that you don't like that

I have never disputed that. You want the fetus or zygote to have additional rights that it does not currently have, which is a perfectly acceptable position. I even told you to lobby your position and wished you well in your efforts.

You continue to argue that my position is wrong. It is not....it is a view that you do not share.

And again, when I give my position, you do everything you can to denigrate that position to the fullest extent, instead of accepting that we disagree.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I noticed how you selectively took one line of it and then ignored the rest of it. You don't call the baby in the incubator at the hospital a non-baby, just a fetus to be destroyed if so desired. You would say, I hope, that the life of that baby in that incubator should be protected. That we should have power generated to the hospitals so that if power goes down those lives would not be harmed when the power outage is there. In other words, you are recognizing that that is a human life that deserves to be treated with dignity and protection. So how is it any different when that same child at the same stage is in its mother's womb? How is that not even more sacred because it's in its safest place in its most secure place? And how is it not the ultimate betrayal of trust to kill that child in the womb just because that child is inconvenient?

So it's not just science that escapes you, it's also common sense that you struggle with.

 

[JaySecrets]

I never said it wasn't a life.


Never said it wasn't a life.


Yes, it's not a baby. You keep calling it a baby. It's a fetus or a zygote. It is a living thing. The dispute I have is that you are incorrectly using the term "baby" which isn't scientific or factual because of the emotional ties to the word. A fetus does not get the same response and it's obvious that you don't like that

I have never disputed that. You want the fetus or zygote to have additional rights that it does not currently have, which is a perfectly acceptable position. I even told you to lobby your position and wished you well in your efforts.

You continue to argue that my position is wrong. It is not....it is a view that you do not share.

And again, when I give my position, you do everything you can to denigrate that position to the fullest extent, instead of accepting that we disagree.

Okay, now that we've established that the fetus in the womb is a living being, what kind of living being is it? Is it a zebra? A unicorn? A monkey? A frog? A dog? A banana? What kind of living being?

 

[icanhelp1]

No murder is not a scientific term. It is a factual term to describe a scientific fact. The taking of an innocent life, Life itself being defined scientifically, we describe as murder. That baby is a living life. That baby has its own lungs. Its own heartbeat its own mind. Its own DNA, its own identity. It is by definition a human life. By every natural normal definition. The only reason you want another definition for life in the womb is because you want to justify the murder of that life... I'm sorry... Taking of that life. No matter how you reframe it, if you take a life that is not yours to take, it is murder.

This was originally directed to you.

You're better of having this conversation with fellow conservatives, people who identify with your core values. Right now you have a pack of hyenas chasing your ass all over the PB. You're outnumbered 10 to 1 and you're wasting your time. They have secular belief and you ain't going to change their minds. PB leans far left and yes they will persecute you, call you names and have zero respect for your opposing opinions.

They don't believe in the mystery of human life, they don't believe that human life begins at conception.

 

[JaySecrets]

Okay, now that we've established that the fetus in the womb is a living being, what kind of living being is it? Is it a zebra? A unicorn? A monkey? A frog? A dog? A banana? What kind of living being?

Actually let me answer that because I know now you're going to deflect the best you can. It is a human life. It is a small, young human life. So let's go to what the definition, whether the proper word for a small young human life is.... Ready?

An infant or baby is a very young human being. Infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning 'baby' or 'child') is a formal or specialised synonym for the common term baby.