So according to rush limbaugh, the republican party stands for...

[richard_daily]

Funny you should mention that the week of the Democratic convention, where it will be evident Nazi economic policies are in harmony with both the Obama and Clinton wings.

That would be Keynesianism.

The economic policies of Hitler, reagan, and bush sr. and jr...

Nice try though.

 

[richard_daily]

That's because you are so lamely uninformed.

Only a man of very low quality would be afraid of a woman with authority...

 

[Slowlane]

This whole discussion is flawed, since it's fetuses, not babies. The terminology of the debate is important because of the attempts to control via words. Murder, homicide, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.

Fetuses = baby. Under developed perhaps, but baby none the less. At the very least it's a potential human being.

It isn't my attempt to control words that is the problem - it's yours.

 

[busybody..]

Hey DICK DAILY

Based your your "definition" of when abortion is OK or MURDER

You must believe that BAM is FOR killing BABIES with his vote, right?

Did you finally figure out Peterson was convicted to

TWO

Murders?

 

[richard_daily]

Fetuses = baby. Under developed perhaps, but baby none the less. At the very least it's a potential human being.

It isn't my attempt to control words that is the problem - it's yours.

Glad you admit it's only a potential human being.

However, aren't sperm and an egg also "potential" human life?

Do you cry each time a tampon is flushed down the toilet?

Have you stopped masturbating?

 

[Slowlane]

Glad you admit it's only a potential human being.

However, aren't sperm and an egg also "potential" human life?

Do you cry each time a tampon is flushed down the toilet?

Have you stopped masturbating?

"At the least it's a potential human being" - "at the least" I'll go further and say "probable" That means that every abortion ends the existence of a probable human being.

Idiot. No, neither an egg or a sperm, by itself will EVER be capable of life on it's own.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Fetuses = baby. Under developed perhaps, but baby none the less. At the very least it's a potential human being.

It isn't my attempt to control words that is the problem - it's yours.

Sperm is potentially a human being, as is an unfertilized egg. Next you'll be calling for the death penalty for men who masturbate and women who waste a "potential human being" by NOT becoming pregnant every month.

Until the fetus can survive outside of the womb it's nothing but a part of the woman's body. A parasitic part of the woman's body and it's completely her decision as to whether she continues to carry it around or not.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Hey DICK DAILY

Based your your "definition" of when abortion is OK or MURDER

You must believe that BAM is FOR killing BABIES with his vote, right?

Did you finally figure out Peterson was convicted to

TWO

Murders?

She was 7 1/2 month's pregnant, a fetus is potentially viable (able to survive ouside of the mother's womb) at that point (actually much earlier, around 26 weeks). Which is why he was charged with two murders.

You're really going to try to use that as an arguing point?

 

[richard_daily]

Idiot. No, neither an egg or a sperm, by itself will EVER be capable of life on it's own.

And neither will a fetus...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fetuses = baby. Under developed perhaps, but baby none the less. At the very least it's a potential human being.

It isn't my attempt to control words that is the problem - it's yours.

By that logic, an acorn is a tree because of it's potential.

Therefore, should someone pick up a handful of acorns while hiking through an old-growth forest, by your logic that person is technically guilty of illegal logging.

 

[Slowlane]

And neither will a fetus...

That, sir, is a completely brainless answer. If you can do no better, well...

 

[richard_daily]

That, sir, is a completely brainless answer. If you can do no better, well...

You know it's the truth.

 

[busybody..]

She was 7 1/2 month's pregnant, a fetus is potentially viable (able to survive ouside of the mother's womb) at that point (actually much earlier, around 26 weeks). Which is why he was charged with two murders.

You're really going to try to use that as an arguing point?

Then if its only POTENTIALLY viable

then a BABY born ALIVE after a botched abortion that is THROWN in a CLOSET and left to die

PER THE BILL VOTED FOR BY THE KENYAN COLORED FOOL IS MURDER

Is it not?

 

[busybody..]

Hey DICK DAILY

Based your your "definition" of when abortion is OK or MURDER

You must believe that BAM is FOR killing BABIES with his vote, right?

Did you finally figure out Peterson was convicted to

TWO

Murders?

 

[richard_daily]

By that logic, an acorn is a tree because of it's potential.

Therefore, should someone pick up a handful of acorns while hiking through an old-growth forest, by your logic that person is technically guilty of illegal logging.

What do we need forests for anyways?

 

[Slowlane]

You know it's the truth.

I know it's complete bullshit. A poor attempt at an answer. An unfertilized egg in the womb will be sloughed of by the body and lost naturally. A fertilized egg on the other hand will probably develop into a human being.

If you don't have any real talking points I will stop responding to you.

 

[Slowlane]

By that logic, an acorn is a tree because of it's potential.

Therefore, should someone pick up a handful of acorns while hiking through an old-growth forest, by your logic that person is technically guilty of illegal logging.

I think an ultra sound of an acorn should handle that for you.

 

[richard_daily]

I know it's complete bullshit. A poor attempt at an answer. An unfertilized egg in the womb will be sloughed of by the body and lost naturally. A fertilized egg on the other hand will probably develop into a human being.

If you don't have any real talking points I will stop responding to you.

Without a mother's body, a fetus will not develop into a baby, not ever... unless you're talking about artificial wombs and such, which we aren't.

It's the truth, and you can't counter it.

 

[busybody..]

Hey DICK DAILY

Scared, aint ya?

How many MURDERS was Peterson convicted of?

Why?

Is BAM condoning BABY KILLING?

You have DOZENS of posts

But are scrared to answer

FAG!

 

[Slowlane]

Without a mother's body, a fetus will not develop into a baby, not ever... unless you're talking about artificial wombs and such, which we aren't.

It's the truth, and you can't counter it.

Why would I counter it? Removing it from the body kills it. If left in the body and unmolested it will continue to develop until it's born. Then it will continue to develop for several more years.

 

[richard_daily]

Why would I counter it? Removing it from the body kills it. If left in the body and unmolested it will continue to develop until it's born. Then it will continue to develop for several more years.

Exactly... removing it from the body kills it. You just proved my point for me, but you missed it yourself.

It cannot survive without it's mother's body. Therefore, it doesn't have any individual rights until it can survive on it's own.

 

[Aliea]

Exactly... removing it from the body kills it. You just proved my point for me, but you missed it yourself.

It cannot survive without it's mother's body. Therefore, it doesn't have any individual rights until it can survive on it's own.

Future response: But a baby can't survive without a parent either! They can't fend for themselves and would die without their parent. So it can't survive on it's own, does that mean babies have no individual rights either?


It writes itself, really.

 

[busybody..]

DICK DAILY,

great job pretending Im on IGGY!

 

[Slowlane]

Exactly... removing it from the body kills it. You just proved my point for me, but you missed it yourself.

It cannot survive without it's mother's body. Therefore, it doesn't have any individual rights until it can survive on it's own.

You didn't have a point and you certainly don't have one here either. That issue (if it is one) has been covered more than enough that even you should be able to understand it by now.

 

[richard_daily]

You didn't have a point and you certainly don't have one here either. That issue (if it is one) has been covered more than enough that even you should be able to understand it by now.

So you're admitting defeat then... since you can't or won't defend against it.

I don't blame you for bowing out. I'll even let you even have the last word, so as to keep your dignity.