[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?
Printable View
[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.