[QUOTE=theman93;14431021]It’s the exact same thing actually. This is basic biology.
[url]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetus[/url][/QUOTE]
Nope.
Her body her choice.
Why do conservatards love to infringe on women's rights?
Printable View
[QUOTE=theman93;14431021]It’s the exact same thing actually. This is basic biology.
[url]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetus[/url][/QUOTE]
Nope.
Her body her choice.
Why do conservatards love to infringe on women's rights?
[QUOTE=Mr. Woke;14431239]Nope.
Her body her choice.
Why do conservatards love to infringe on women's rights?[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Not her body, not her choice to murder.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431022]It’s not 3/4 of her DNA, it’s 1/2 of her DNA and 1/2 of the father’s DNA.
Also, it’s not her body. The baby is it’s own biologically distinct human.[/QUOTE]
100% of her dna, and 50% of the blobs dna, comes from her.
I notice you did not answer my question.
and no, until birth, it is her body.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431246]100% of her dna, and 50% of the blobs dna, comes from her.
I notice you did not answer my question.
and no, until birth, it is her body.[/QUOTE]
False.
Half of the child’s forty-six chromosomes come from the biological father, while the other half comes from the mother. This information is readily available in any basic biology textbook.
After conception it is not her body. It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn baby possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems.
If one body is inside another, but each has its own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people.
Your argument isn't even used anymore by those at the top of this debate as biology so clearly shows that there are two biologically distinct individuals present.
And to answer your question, women have the right to tell men not to murder babies.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431265]False.
Half of the child’s forty-six chromosomes come from the biological father, while the other half comes from the mother. This information is readily available in any basic biology textbook.
After conception it is not her body. It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn baby possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems.
If one body is inside another, but each has its own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people.
Your argument isn't even used anymore by those at the top of this debate as biology so clearly shows that there are two biologically distinct individuals present.
And to answer your question, women have the right to tell men not to murder babies.[/QUOTE]
You just restated what I wrote, that half of the blobs dna comes from her.
and no, until birth it is within her body and a product of her body.
Again, when she is responsible for 3/4th of the affected dna, why is your opinion more important than hers?
and you danced around the question yet again.
[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/ca78116a8dd3437107fc3c01ca6a33b3/tenor.gif[/IMG]
Republican Men to Women: Come, let Republican men guide your mind, body and worth.
Women: Go F#ck yourself.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431299]You just restated what I wrote, that half of the blobs dna comes from her.
and no, until birth it is within her body and a product of her body.
Again, when she is responsible for 3/4th of the affected dna, why is your opinion more important than hers?
and you danced around the question yet again.
[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/ca78116a8dd3437107fc3c01ca6a33b3/tenor.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You calling a fully formed baby inside the womb a "blob" proves how ridiculously stupid you are.
God help you people.
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14431326]You calling a fully formed baby inside the womb a "blob" proves how ridiculously stupid you are.
God help you people.[/QUOTE]
You frequently talk about nuking regions you dislike, stop pretending you care about human life.
[QUOTE=RRR3;14431327]You frequently talk about nuking regions you dislike, stop pretending you care about human life.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because nuking regions I don't like is realistic. Happens every day....:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14431328]Yes, because nuking regions I don't like is realistic. Happens every day....:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
The fact that you’d be willing to do it suggests you don’t value life much. As do your tweets about George Floyd and other victims of police brutality.
“Conservatives want live babies so they can have dead soldiers”-George Carlin
That’s you.
[QUOTE=Blob]You calling a fully formed baby inside the womb a "blob" proves how ridiculously stupid you are.
god help you people.[/QUOTE]
K
which god?
[QUOTE=RRR3;14431331]The fact that you’d be willing to do it suggests you don’t value life much. As do your tweets about George Floyd and other victims of police brutality.
“Conservatives want live babies so they can have dead soldiers”-George Carlin
That’s you.[/QUOTE]
And how does one nuke a region?? If I was willing to do it. :oldlol:
Meanwhile, you live in a world where men can get pregnant, but you're worried that somehow, one day, I'll be able to nuke a region. :roll:
Do you understand now why we make fun of you??
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14431533]And how does one nuke a region?? If I was willing to do it. :oldlol:
Meanwhile, you [B]live in a world where men can get pregnant[/B], but you're worried that somehow, one day, I'll be able to nuke a region. :roll:
Do you understand now why we make fun of you??[/QUOTE]
:roll:
What an amazing law. I am glad i live in Texas!!! Next they need to go even farther by making the act of performing an abortion a crime akin to murder. Roe vs. Wade was written in a way to make abortion legal because it is a matter of privacy what a woman discusses with her doctor. Making performing an abortion illegal in no way changes anything in R vs. W. A woman can discuss abortion with her doctor in private all she wants but if the doctor were to actually perform an abortion he will be charged with murder. This law is a good first step but it needs to go farther.
Now it is time for this great state to pass gender laws making a law that a person's gender will be recognized by the sex they are assigned at birth.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431299]You just restated what I wrote, that half of the blobs dna comes from her.
and no, [B]until birth it is within her body and a product of her body.[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, but the baby is still not the mother’s body because it is inside of her or dependent on her. It is a completely separate being. To say otherwise is to argue against an established fact.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431299]Again, when she is responsible for 3/4th of the affected dna, why is your opinion more important than hers?[/QUOTE]
Your argument is blatantly false not sure what else to tell you. Your trying to use the baby being dependent on the mother as a reason for being responsible for an additional 1/4 of the baby’s DNA. That’s not how it works at all. The baby’s DNA is written at conception with 1/2 coming from the father and 1/2 coming from the mother. Period the end.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431299] and you danced around the question yet again.
[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/ca78116a8dd3437107fc3c01ca6a33b3/tenor.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
No I didn’t. Use your brain and think about it again.
No freedom in Cali. No freedom in Texas. I just want some freedom.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431596]
Your argument is blatantly false not sure what else to tell you. Your trying to use the baby being dependent on the mother as a reason for being responsible for an additional 1/4 of the baby’s DNA. That’s not how it works at all. The baby’s DNA is written at conception with 1/2 coming from the father and 1/2 coming from the mother. Period the end.[/quote]
You are being obtuse and denying that the decision is about both the mother, and the fetus. It most certainly is.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431596]
No I didn’t. Use your brain and think about it again.[/QUOTE]
keep dancing.
What religion are you?
Can we pass a law saying that circumcision can only be decided on by the legal adult that it affects?
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431649]You are being obtuse and denying that the decision is about both the mother, and the fetus. It most certainly is.[/QUOTE]
No I didn't. You're attacking a straw man. Why do you use the word fetus? By definition that just means baby. Why not just call it for what it is?
Of course the decision affects both, but when we get down to what's ultimate, it's a decision of life or death for the baby.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431649]keep dancing.
What religion are you?
Can we pass a law saying that circumcision can only be decided on by the legal adult that it affects?[/QUOTE]
This is a poor argument.
Abortion ends the life of the child. Circumcision has a clear track record of health benefits and is recommended by experts for the good of the child. I would argue parents have the right to decide what's in the best interest of their child's well-being. Do you disagree?
Where my libertarians at?
Check off Texas as an anti-freedom state just like California. What would you rather have Guns? Or free sex and weed?
[QUOTE=theman93;14431683]
Circumcision has a clear track record of health benefits and is recommended by experts for the good of the child.[/QUOTE]
You sound just like a vax pushing libtard right here.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431683]No I didn't. You're attacking a straw man. Why do you use the word fetus? By definition that just means baby. Why not just call it for what it is?
Of course the decision affects both, but when we get down to what's ultimate, it's a decision of life or death for the baby.
This is a poor argument.
Abortion ends the life of the child. Circumcision has a clear track record of health benefits and is recommended by experts for the good of the child. I would argue parents have the right to decide what's in the best interest of their child's well-being. Do you disagree?[/QUOTE]
Because fetus is the correct term for an unborn mammal, after it stops being an embryo.
The health benefits of circumcision are primarily touted by the religious. There is no real medical justification for it. The fact is, the same benefits can be achieved with soap and water. The reality is that much of Europe does not circumcise, and despite their questionable hygiene, genitalia are not falling off left and right.
Why do you not want to be in your god’s own image?
Based on your logic, we should cut off our lips because it would allow greater access to our teeth and have clear health benefits.
There is also the reality that there is a documented, long term history of botched circumcisions that lead to infection, mutilation, and occasionally death. Clearly not a health benefit.
The American Pediatric Association does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn males
Why are you against leaving it to the legal adult, when it is clearly both elective, and unnecessary?
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431729]You sound just like a vax pushing libtard right here.[/QUOTE]
Nope. The people you describe believe getting the vaccine should be a law. I don't believe it should be a law to circumcise your child even though it's a health benefit. Parents have the right to do what they want with their child except when it comes to abuse and murder.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431733]Nope. The people you describe believe getting the vaccine should be a law. I don't believe it should be a law to circumcise your child even though it's a health benefit. Parents have the right to do what they want with their child except when it comes to abuse and murder.[/QUOTE]
But you do believe parents should have the right to mutilate the genitalia of children. Because freedom. So by that logic a bitch can do what she wants with a fetus.
You are either for freedom or not.
I always thought Texas was a staple of freedom. Rugged individualism. I guess I was wrong, they just as authoritarian as Cali.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431733]Nope. The people you describe believe getting the vaccine should be a law. I don't believe it should be a law to circumcise your child even though it's a health benefit. Parents have the right to do what they want with their child except when it comes to abuse and murder.[/QUOTE]
Mutilating a child’s genitalia without consent isn’t abuse? Lol.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431730]Because fetus is the correct term for an unborn mammal, after it stops being an embryo.[/QUOTE]
Good so we've gone from calling it a blob to the correct term, fetus, which just means baby. We are making progress.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431730]The health benefits of circumcision are primarily touted by the religious. [B]There is no real medical justification for it.[/B] The fact is, the same benefits can be achieved with soap and water. The reality is that much of Europe does not circumcise, and despite their questionable hygiene, genitalia are not falling off left and right.[/QUOTE]
A lot wrong with this statement, but let's just focus on the bolded. There are many clear medical justifications for it. The 4 main ones are the following:
[QUOTE]1. Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer. A recent large study published in BJU International found that circumcision had a protective effect against prostate cancer risk, especially among black men who are at high risk.
The study found that men who were circumcised when they were older than 35 years of age decreased their prostate cancer risk by 45 percent. For men circumcised within 1 year of birth, prostate cancer risk was decreased by 14 percent. This finding is important, especially for populations that are at high risk for prostate cancer.
2. Lower Risk of Contracting HIV. Three studies found that circumcision had a protective effect against HIV. The studies conducted in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda revealed that circumcision lowers a man’s risk of becoming infected with HIV as much as 60 percent.
3. Fewer Medical Conditions. A new study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin over their lifetime. The study said the benefits of circumcision outweighed the risks of the procedure 100 to 1.
4. Lower Risk of Infection. Several studies have found that uncircumcised boys are more likely to contract urinary tract infections than circumcised boys. According to a 2012 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the risk of infection was about 88 percent lower in circumcised boys. [/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/health-benefits-of-circumcision/[/url]
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431730]Why do you not want to be in god’s own image?
Based on your logic, we should cut off our lips because it would allow greater access to our teeth and have clear health benefits.[/QUOTE]
That's not my logic at all, but good try. Explain the clear health benefits of cutting off one's lips.
[QUOTE=Chick Stern;14431730]There is also the reality that there is a documented, long term history of botched circumcisions that lead to mutilation, and occasionally death. Clearly not a health benefit.
Why are you against leaving it to the legal adult, when it is clearly both elective, and unnecessary?[/QUOTE]
Those are real things but the health benefits outweigh the risks so I have no problem with the parent deciding it's the best thing for their child's health - as they will do many times during their child's life.
[QUOTE]The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has a very similar policy statement to the AUA. This governing body found that the health benefits of elective newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. Although the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision, they “are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns.”[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390792/[/url]
This dude believes “health experts” when it comes mutilating a kids genitalia. You should go to jail sicko.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431742]Mutilating a child’s genitalia without consent isn’t abuse? Lol.[/QUOTE]
Circumcision =/= mutilation.
[QUOTE=theman93;14431752]Circumcision =/= mutilation.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Lol. And you believe it’s okay to disfigure mutilate and abuse children.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431753]Yes it is. Lol. And you believe it’s okay to disfigure mutilate and abuse children.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Mutilation means you are destroying a part of the body. Circumcision doesn't destroy the *****, sorry to break it to you.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431750]This dude believes “health experts” when it comes mutilating a kids genitalia. You should go to jail sicko.[/QUOTE]
Mutilating? Do you know what that word means?
[QUOTE=theman93;14431757]Nope. Mutilation means you are destroying a part of the body. Circumcision doesn't destroy the *****, sorry to break it to you.[/QUOTE]
Keep trying to justify the abuse by using mainstream bullshit health experts, the same ones who sold you this covid crap. You’re just as freaking stupid as these people getting vaxxed.
Yeah let’s deform are children in the name a medical science. Sounds just like some libatard shit to me.
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14431759]Mutilating? Do you know what that word means?[/QUOTE]
**Spoiler Alert**
No he doesn't :roll:
And y’all don’t know what murder is either.
Or abuse also.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431761]Keep trying to justify the abuse by using mainstream bullshit health experts, the same ones who sold you this civid crap. You’re just as freaking stupid as these people getting vaxxed.
Yeah let’s deform are children in the name a medical science. Sounds just like some libatard shit to me.[/QUOTE]
By your logic, parents electing to get their child's wisdom teeth removed is also mutilation even though there are clear health benefits to getting the procedure done. How dare parents mutilate their childrens mouth!
[QUOTE=theman93;14431765]By your logic, parents electing to get their child's wisdom teeth removed is also mutilation even though there are clear health benefits to getting the procedure done. How dare parents mutilate their childrens mouth![/QUOTE]
Yo pulling wisdom teeth is some backwards ass shit. You just keep following along with mainstream narratives like a libtard fool.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431763]And y’all don’t know what murder is either.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying abortion isn't murder?
I’m implying I’m for freedom. And I always thought Texas was a free state. I’m disappointed they are just as tyrannical as California if not more.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14431771]I’m implying I’m for freedom. And I always thought Texas was a free state. I’m disappointed they are just as tyrannical as California if not more.[/QUOTE]
Should I be free to murder my 1 year old?