"In states, tide turning against abortion rights"

[Adam A. Wanderer]

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turni
ng-

a

gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled.

Not settled, W.T.S., you stupid lying shitbag.

You don't think so???

Guaranteed, stupid shitbag.

Remember, abortion is good, a baby is bad!!!

No, W.T.S, you dumb mackerel cunt.
You didn't really think you'd get away with the stupid nymshift, did
you, W.T.S., you stupid mackerel cunt?
You really are about to get a shovel in your face, bitch.

Go ahead, try it.
In the meantime, I have a young teen to drive to New York to
have her fetus filth removed. It's a long drive, but worth
it to get her out of a "christian" state to a normal, decent
state where they understand how important abortion is to the
future of all women.
I'll buy her ice cream afterwards. What flavor ice cream
goes best for a post abortion experience?

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ni ng-

a

gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled.

Not settled, W.T.S., you stupid lying shitbag.

You don't think so???

Guaranteed, stupid shitbag.

Remember, abortion is good, a baby is bad!!!

No, W.T.S, you dumb mackerel cunt.
You didn't really think you'd get away with the stupid nymshift, did
you, W.T.S., you stupid mackerel cunt?
You really are about to get a shovel in your face, bitch.

Go ahead, try it.

Look for it, bitch.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
In the meantime, I have a young teen to drive to New York to
have her fetus filth removed.

Bullshit. You're doing no such thing.
Thanks for the confirmation of your identity.

Oh, yes I am! I've done it in the past, I enjoyed it, and I
continue to do it every chance I get.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim
it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it
isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person
that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turn
ing -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind,
and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was
as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about
the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They
claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They
claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of
person that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

A fetus is just tissue, much like a hangnail that needs to be trimmed.
It is good to abort, and sick and degenerate to give birth.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

[Ted]

If the choices are NOT between the life of the child or the life of the
woman, NOT incest or rape, then add me to the list of charging her and
her medical practioner with her first-degree murder.

Wow. But then why would incest or rape make a difference?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turn
ing -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind,
and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was
as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about
the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They
claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They
claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of
person that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

A fetus is just tissue

It isn't. It's a living developing human being - a person. A person
could never develop from just any cell.

There is no person prior to live birth.

Wrong. I have instructed you on this many times. There is a live human
being - and thus *necessarily* a person - at conception. There can be
no other time. "Live birth" is nothing but a change of venue, and that
cannot possibly change the moral status of the living organism.

The human zygote, and all succeeding stages of development, comprise a
person. This is settled.

[Rudy Canoza]

alt.abortion with message-id

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turn
ing -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind,
and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was
as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about
the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They
claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They
claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of
person that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

A fetus is just tissue

It isn't. It's a living developing human being - a person. A person
could never develop from just any cell.

There is no person prior to live birth.

A completely illogical position given what science now knows.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Not just illogical, but scientifically wrong. It's
scientifically wrong because the human zygote is a human being - not in
scientific dispute. It's also morally wrong because all living human
beings are persons, and persons have rights.

[Rudy Canoza]

{snip}

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
A fetus is just tissue

It isn't. It's a living developing human being - a person. A person
could never develop from just any cell.

There is no person prior to live birth.

A completely illogical position given what science now knows.

If the fetus is a person, then a woman who has an abortion must be sent
to prison as a first-degree murderer.

You've tried this, and it failed. You can't use what you, in your
sophomoric opinion, view as an unreasonable punishment in order to
attack the idea that the fetus is a person.

The fetus is a person - settled. Now let the consequences of that be
what they will, regardless of your childish emotional reaction to them.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Can you explain why you believe rape and incest should be an exception?

Can you explain why you think a baby 10 seconds before birth isn't a
person but a baby 10 seconds outside of the womb is? No, of course you
can't.

Because prior to birth, it's just filth.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it,
I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about
the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They
claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They
claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition
of person that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

Lies are the weapons of choice for forced birthers:

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it,
I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about
the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They
claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They
claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition
of person that would exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

Yes I know. Both sides lie.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
ur ning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

Yes I know. Both sides lie.

No!!! Forced-birthers lie! Pro-choicers tell the pure truth!!!

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t ur ning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

Yes I know. Both sides lie.

No!!! Forced-birthers lie, pro-choicers only tell the truth.

Very true, but what did you expect?
Pro-abortionists are always truthful.

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4

This link gives you pure truth!!!

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4

This link gives you pure truth.

I know!

This is a good site to learn the wholesomeness of abortion:

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully
competent adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no
mental ability whatever during the time they are in that state, and by
no means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.

All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some
arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates
a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally
from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved
that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully
competent adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no
mental ability whatever during the time they are in that state, and
by no means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

Start here, life can only begin at birth:

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>

<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>

<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>

<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>

<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>

<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>

<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://www.prochoice.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>

<http://www.mariestopes.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>

<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates
a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally
from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved
that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully
competent adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no
mental ability whatever during the time they are in that state, and
by no means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm eager
to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is new?
Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start here:

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is new?
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is new?
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

This is bullshit. Lots of women *are* sorry, including the late Norma
McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade.

There is always an element of desperation in these "I'm not sorry"
bullshit claims - the women *clearly* are trying to convince themselves,
and it's not working.

Post by Ted
Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-t
ide -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until
I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot
give a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't
what creates a person - the just-born baby is no different
physically or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds
before birth. We have proved that mental ability cannot be what
makes for a person, because fully competent adult humans who are
in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever
during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage
of development and regardless of their mental or emotional or
moral ability at any given moment. There is no way around it,
except by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

This is bullshit. Lots of women *are* sorry, including the late Norma
McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade.
There is always an element of desperation in these "I'm not sorry"
bullshit claims - the women *clearly* are trying to convince
themselves, and it's not working.

Post by Ted
Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No woman is ever sorry for an abortion. All women who give birth are
truly sorry they gave birth!!! All praise abortion.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

W.T.S. is a fascist, of course.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

W.T.S. is a fascist, of course.

LOL. She's pretty damn extreme, that's for certain.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-state
s-ti de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like
us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It
changed my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate
counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in favor of
abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to
others, about the moral and physical status of the entity
they wish to kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a"
human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't a person,
but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that
would exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is
contrived, and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth
certainly isn't what creates a person - the just-born baby is
no different physically or mentally from the baby a minute or
a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas
or under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during
the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their
stage of development and regardless of their mental or
emotional or moral ability at any given moment. There is no
way around it, except by some arbitrary and capricious
declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has
a solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it
fails. I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else
is new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground.
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

W.T.S. is a fascist, of course.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>

<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>

<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>

<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>

<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>

<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>

<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://www.prochoice.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>

<http://www.mariestopes.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>

<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

W.T.S. is a fascist, of course.

LOL. She's pretty damn extreme, that's for certain.

Once again, she's a keyboard warrior. It's easy to be as extreme as she
is, or as that fuckwit Mark Wieber is, when there are no consequences
for it.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

Wow, kewl.

W.T.S. is a fascist, of course.

LOL. She's pretty damn extreme, that's for certain.

Once again, she's a keyboard warrior. It's easy to be as extreme as she
is, or as that fuckwit Mark Wieber is, when there are no consequences for it.

True. And she didn't have an answer to your argument when pressed, which
didn't bother her at all.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-
ti de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us
to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until
I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to
others, about the moral and physical status of the entity
they wish to kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a"
human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but
they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't
what creates a person - the just-born baby is no different
physically or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds
before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas
or under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the
time they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them
not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage
of development and regardless of their mental or emotional or
moral ability at any given moment. There is no way around it,
except by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther, pro-liar. What else is
new? Rudy doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. Start
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

Do you consider yourself pro-choice?

No. All women should abort, like it or not.

You should be strangled.

Why? For telling the truth? For performing public services.
Abortion is good, decent and wholesome. Childbirth is the
very sickest form of perversion!!!

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.
*Rudy also pointed out the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice".

So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther

No. I am pro-choice, where choice is morally permitted. You are not
morally permitted to "choose" to murder someone.
The left are entirely anti-choice.

Abortion is never, ever "murder". It's a public service that will
someday be manditory, like in China. We won't even understand why
it wasn't manditory. Remember, abortion is beautiful!

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Abortion is never, ever "murder".

It is, of course, *ALWAYS* murder, because the developing human being -
a person - is *deliberately* killed other than in self defense. That is
the definition of murder.

: Main Entry: 1mur·der

I know what the definition is. Only by a grotesque perversion of all
norms of justice is abortion not considered murder.

You're really very immature.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
So Rudy is an anti-choice, forced-birther

No. I am pro-choice, where choice is morally permitted.

Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".

Wrong.

I have instructed you thoroughly on this stupid lie, too. You need new
writers, stupid fuckwitted hack. Your material is stale bullshit.

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates
a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally
from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved
that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully
competent adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no
mental ability whatever during the time they are in that state, and
by no means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm eager
to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<crickets>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>

<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>

<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>

<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>

<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>

<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>

<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://www.prochoice.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>

<http://www.mariestopes.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>

<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-t
id e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until
I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot
give a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't
what creates a person - the just-born baby is no different
physically or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds
before birth. We have proved that mental ability cannot be what
makes for a person, because fully competent adult humans who are
in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever
during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage
of development and regardless of their mental or emotional or
moral ability at any given moment. There is no way around it,
except by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-contro
l>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Tru
th- About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

Here's my words: Abortion is good, decent, and wholesome. Anyone who
opposes abortion for any reason is pure shit filth. Life begins at
birth, never at conception. The only opposition to abortion is based
on religious crap, and no normal, decent human wants religious crap
imposed on them against their will. All praise abortion!!!

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-t
id e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us
to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until
I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot
give a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't
what creates a person - the just-born baby is no different
physically or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds
before birth. We have proved that mental ability cannot be what
makes for a person, because fully competent adult humans who are
in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever
during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage
of development and regardless of their mental or emotional or
moral ability at any given moment. There is no way around it,
except by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-contro
l>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Tru
th- About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

Here's my words: Abortion is good, decent, and wholesome. Anyone who
opposes abortion for any reason is pure shit filth.

Shall I cite that as part of your argument?

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Life begins at
birth, never at conception.

That's simply false. Even non-human organisms are alive.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
The only opposition to abortion is based
on religious crap, and no normal, decent human wants religious crap
imposed on them against their will.

Rudy's a non-believer, possibly even an atheist, and his argument against
abortion has nothing to do with religion.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
All praise abortion!!!

Do you want to amend your argument, or should I take this as final? If you
don't answer, I'll assume the latter.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states
-t id e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us
to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It
changed my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter.
Up until I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as
you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to
others, about the moral and physical status of the entity
they wish to kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a"
human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but
they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't
what creates a person - the just-born baby is no different
physically or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds
before birth. We have proved that mental ability cannot be
what makes for a person, because fully competent adult humans
who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no
means do we declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage
of development and regardless of their mental or emotional or
moral ability at any given moment. There is no way around it,
except by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails.
I'm eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood
-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-cont
ro l>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-T
ru th- About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

Here's my words: Abortion is good, decent, and wholesome. Anyone
who opposes abortion for any reason is pure shit filth.

Shall I cite that as part of your argument?

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Life begins at
birth, never at conception.

That's simply false. Even non-human organisms are alive.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
The only opposition to abortion is based
on religious crap, and no normal, decent human wants religious crap
imposed on them against their will.

Rudy's a non-believer, possibly even an atheist, and his argument
against abortion has nothing to do with religion.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
All praise abortion!!!

Do you want to amend your argument, or should I take this as final? If
you don't answer, I'll assume the latter.

All glory to abortion!!!!!!!!

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
[snip tedious repetitive lies]

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

It's completely obvious by now that she can't. W.T.S., the mackerel
cunt, is stupid and inarticulate.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

No. Now that you've read Rudy's argument, tell us where it fails. I'm
eager to be re-converted to "pro-choice"*.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
[snip tedious repetitive lies]

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

It's completely obvious by now that she can't. W.T.S., the mackerel
cunt, is stupid and inarticulate.

She lacks the ability to reason, i.e., yes, she's stupid.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

Pure bullshit. You can't even define "life", being a murderer.

Abortion is never "murder", it's a public service that should be
compulsive. All praise to abortion!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-ti
de -t urning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived,
and incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except
by some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is
intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

Pure bullshit. You can't even define "life", being a murderer.

Abortion is never "murder"

It is *always* murder, by the very definition of murder. It is the
deliberate killing of another human being other than in self defense,
and that is murder - always.

Horse shit!!! Abortion is beautiful and wonderful!!! All priase to
abortion!!!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Abortion is never "murder"

It is *always* murder, by the very definition of murder. It is the
deliberate killing of another human being other than in self defense,
and that is murder - always.

: Main Entry: 1mur·der

<yawn> Dictionaries are only invoked by the weak and stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember,
this is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person
is an entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is,
a person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember, this
is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person is an
entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is, a
person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember, this
is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person is an
entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is, a
person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against hedonism /per se/. That's
why I'm opposed to all laws criminalizing drugs and prostitution.
Hedonism is perfectly fine, provided the pleasure one obtains - and the
consequences of that pleasure - doesn't involve the infringement of the
rights of others. If you want to fuck for the sheer pleasure of
fucking, rather than for procreation or as an expression of intimacy
with a mutually committed partner, go for it. However, if a new human
being results from it, one does not have the moral right to kill it
because having the baby would be inconvenient. That, of course, is the
crux of the matter: the mere convenience of the people involved in the
hedonism is impaired, and being emotional children, they don't like it
and just want the impairment to be removed, no matter what the cost to
other *persons*.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-turning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give
a coherent definition of person that would exclude the
developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically
or mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.
We have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a
person, because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or
under anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time
they are in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to
be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions.
If they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence
at conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the
living growing developing organism is transformed into a person.
Remember, this is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical
one. A person is an entity to whom other persons *owe* moral
consideration - that is, a person has rights the impose restrictions
on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about
things like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are
willing to any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way
of their childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against hedonism /per se/. That's
why I'm opposed to all laws criminalizing drugs and prostitution.
Hedonism is perfectly fine, provided the pleasure one obtains - and
the consequences of that pleasure - doesn't involve the infringement
of the rights of others. If you want to fuck for the sheer pleasure
of fucking, rather than for procreation or as an expression of
intimacy with a mutually committed partner, go for it. However, if a
new human being results from it, one does not have the moral right to
kill it because having the baby would be inconvenient. That, of
course, is the crux of the matter: the mere convenience of the people
involved in the hedonism is impaired, and being emotional children,
they don't like it and just want the impairment to be removed, no
matter what the cost to other *persons*.

Fetus filth is no "person", it's just tissue that needs to be trimmed
and flushed down the toilet like a hangnail.

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

There is nothing arbitrary about the fact that at least one of the "persons" you are talking about lives inside another person. That other person is the one who has say so over the other one. Unless you can figure out a way to not violate the rights of the woman who is carrying the other "person" then the woman's rights prevail. We are not going to be a country that forces women to give birth any more than we are a country that forces women to have abortions, (with certain very specific exceptions).

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted
Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

See above.

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember, this
is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person is an
entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is, a
person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against hedonism /per se/. That's
why I'm opposed to all laws criminalizing drugs and prostitution.
Hedonism is perfectly fine, provided the pleasure one obtains - and the
consequences of that pleasure - doesn't involve the infringement of the
rights of others. If you want to fuck for the sheer pleasure of
fucking, rather than for procreation or as an expression of intimacy
with a mutually committed partner, go for it. However, if a new human
being results from it, one does not have the moral right to kill it
because having the baby would be inconvenient. That, of course, is the
crux of the matter: the mere convenience of the people involved in the
hedonism is impaired, and being emotional children, they don't like it
and just want the impairment to be removed, no matter what the cost to
other *persons*.

The only person that is important in all of this is the woman. If a woman WANTS to have a child nobody should be able to stop here. If she does not wish to, FOR ANY REASON it is her right as owner of her body to be able to say no.

[Ted]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

There is nothing arbitrary about the fact that at least one of the
"persons" you are talking about lives inside another person. That other
person is the one who has say so over the other one. Unless you can
figure out a way to not violate the rights of the woman who is carrying
the other "person" then the woman's rights prevail. We are not going to
be a country that forces women to give birth any more than we are a
country that forces women to have abortions, (with certain very specific exceptions).

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted
Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

See above.

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember, this
is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person is an
entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is, a
person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against hedonism /per se/. That's
why I'm opposed to all laws criminalizing drugs and prostitution.
Hedonism is perfectly fine, provided the pleasure one obtains - and the
consequences of that pleasure - doesn't involve the infringement of the
rights of others. If you want to fuck for the sheer pleasure of
fucking, rather than for procreation or as an expression of intimacy
with a mutually committed partner, go for it. However, if a new human
being results from it, one does not have the moral right to kill it
because having the baby would be inconvenient. That, of course, is the
crux of the matter: the mere convenience of the people involved in the
hedonism is impaired, and being emotional children, they don't like it
and just want the impairment to be removed, no matter what the cost to
other *persons*.

The only person that is important in all of this is the woman. If a
woman WANTS to have a child nobody should be able to stop here. If she
does not wish to, FOR ANY REASON it is her right as owner of her body to be able to say no.

If Rudy didn't see your response, it's because you still use the
piece-of-shit Google Groups.

[Ted]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We have proved that
mental ability cannot be what makes for a person, because fully competent
adult humans who are in comas or under anesthesia have no mental ability
whatever during the time they are in that state, and by no means do we
declare them not to be persons - they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

There is nothing arbitrary about the fact that at least one of the
"persons" you are talking about lives inside another person. That other
person is the one who has say so over the other one. Unless you can
figure out a way to not violate the rights of the woman who is carrying
the other "person" then the woman's rights prevail. We are not going to
be a country that forces women to give birth any more than we are a
country that forces women to have abortions, (with certain very specific exceptions).

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted
Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

See above.

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions. If
they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember, this
is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person is an
entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that is, a
person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Apparently so.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against hedonism /per se/. That's
why I'm opposed to all laws criminalizing drugs and prostitution.
Hedonism is perfectly fine, provided the pleasure one obtains - and the
consequences of that pleasure - doesn't involve the infringement of the
rights of others. If you want to fuck for the sheer pleasure of
fucking, rather than for procreation or as an expression of intimacy
with a mutually committed partner, go for it. However, if a new human
being results from it, one does not have the moral right to kill it
because having the baby would be inconvenient. That, of course, is the
crux of the matter: the mere convenience of the people involved in the
hedonism is impaired, and being emotional children, they don't like it
and just want the impairment to be removed, no matter what the cost to
other *persons*.

The only person that is important in all of this is the woman. If a
woman WANTS to have a child nobody should be able to stop here. If she
does not wish to, FOR ANY REASON it is her right as owner of her body to be able to say no.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-turning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a
solid counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions.
If they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence
at conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the
living growing developing organism is transformed into a person.
Remember, this is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical
one. A person is an entity to whom other persons *owe* moral
consideration - that is, a person has rights the impose restrictions
on the behavior of others.

Yes. As I said, I've yet to read a valid counter-argument.

Post by Rudy Canoza
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about
things like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are
willing to any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way
of their childish pursuit of pleasure.

Pleasure is more important than any fetus filth.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-
turning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions.
If they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember,
this is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person
is an entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that
is, a person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of
others.
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Any reason for an abortion is a good reason. Any reason for childbirth
is a bad reason. All praise to abortion!!!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-

tide-

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

turning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others,
about the moral and physical status of the entity they wish to
kill. They claim it isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it
clearly is. They claim it isn't a person, but they cannot give a
coherent definition of person that would exclude the developing
unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what
creates a person - the just-born baby is no different physically or
mentally from the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth. We
have proved that mental ability cannot be what makes for a person,
because fully competent adult humans who are in comas or under
anesthesia have no mental ability whatever during the time they are
in that state, and by no means do we declare them not to be persons
- they are persons.
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral
ability at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by
some arbitrary and capricious declaration that is intellectually
indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

All you'll get is unsupported assertions and arbitrary definitions.
If they don't think a human being and a person comes into existence at
conception, they have to say not just when, but also *how* the living
growing developing organism is transformed into a person. Remember,
this is not a legal term, but a moral and philosophical one. A person
is an entity to whom other persons *owe* moral consideration - that
is, a person has rights the impose restrictions on the behavior of
others.
The left-wing pro-abortion filth just don't want to think about things
like that. It gets in the way of their hedonism. They are willing to
any sense of moral reasoning aside if it gets in the way of their
childish pursuit of pleasure.

Any reason for an abortion is a good reason.

No reason is valid.

All reason are valid for abortion!!!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Any reason for an abortion is a good reason.

No reason is valid.

Under the freedom of choice

There can be no moral "choice" to kill another human being other than in
self defense.

Forget your lame stale bullshit - a mere uninformed opinion - about what
moral reasoning is about. I'll just instruct you over it again, and you
won't like it. I'm very patient.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

[Ted]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you. I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to come to
a conclusion.

[Ted]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to come to a conclusion.

Got no smart pills to share?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer

{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then
not X}

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to come to a conclusion.

Got no smart pills to share?

[Ted]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then not X}

Thanks for summarizing it like that Josh. Yes, that's what we were talking
about. Y is surprising, but not absurd. As you recognize, it's a necessary
consequence of X. Rudy gave us the argument If "A and B, then X". Get rid
of either A or B. Otherwise Y is unavoidable.

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then not X}

Thanks for summarizing it like that Josh. Yes, that's what we were talking
about. Y is surprising, but not absurd. As you recognize, it's a necessary
consequence of X. Rudy gave us the argument If "A and B, then X". Get rid
of either A or B. Otherwise Y is unavoidable.

Rewrite for greater clarity and precision:

Y is surprising and uncomfortable, but not logically absurd. Rudy gave us
"If A and B, then X". Refute either A or B, or alternatively, prove his
implication invalid. Otherwise we're forced to accept X and consequently Y.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then not X}

Thanks for summarizing it like that Josh. Yes, that's what we were talking
about. Y is surprising, but not absurd. As you recognize, it's a necessary
consequence of X. Rudy gave us the argument If "A and B, then X". Get rid
of either A or B. Otherwise Y is unavoidable.

Y is surprising and uncomfortable, but not logically absurd. Rudy gave us
"If A and B, then X". Refute either A or B, or alternatively, prove his
implication invalid. Otherwise we're forced to accept X and consequently Y.

No, we are not forced to accept Y if we believe it is absurd (and that
is a belief - and opinion - not a logical absurdity). But the big point
is if you believe a zygote is a person, you must own the belief that a
woman has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer.

During the campaign, Trump said the woman should be punished, but had to
walk those comments back. The federal partial-birth abortion plan
explicitly exempts the woman from *any* punishment. Why do you think so
many pro-lifers will not call for punishing the woman?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then not X}

Thanks for summarizing it like that Josh. Yes, that's what we were talking
about. Y is surprising, but not absurd.

I think it is absurd. It appears you don't, but that is the crux of the
debate. So if you are now agreeing with Rudy, you have to call for
treating a woman who has an abortion as a first-degree murderer. Shall
I add you to that list?

Post by Ted
As you recognize, it's a necessary
consequence of X. Rudy gave us the argument If "A and B, then X". Get rid
of either A or B. Otherwise Y is unavoidable.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.
X is therefore false ---- {if X then Y} is equivalent to {if not Y then not X}

Thanks for summarizing it like that Josh. Yes, that's what we were talking
about. Y is surprising, but not absurd.

I think it is absurd.

For purely emotional and especially political reasons. However, given
that you can't state when or by what process personhood is acquired,
except for the patently absurd "live birth", then you're just fucked,
and you can't refute the premise that the zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn
baby is a person. You can't identify where along that continuum it
acquires personhood, and clearly "live birth" - a mere change of venue -
doesn't demarcate it.

You're just fucked.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you raised a probably relevant objection to his conclusion, but you
didn't point out which step of his argument was the problem. Logic
supersedes emotion here. I don't want to consider a unicellular zygote to
be legally 100% a person either, but unless I can see where his argument
fails, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

X = A unicellular zygote is a person
Y = A woman who has an abortion must be treated as a first-degree murderer
{If X then Y} is true.
Y is absurd, and therefore false.

No, Y is *not* logically absurd, little sophist. You find it absurd,
but only for purely emotional and especially political reasons.

You pro-abortion mob believe that "live birth" magically creates a
person. You believe that because the developing baby isn't a person
until "live birth", it can be killed with impunity at *any* time prior
to live birth, including when the woman has gone into labor and is about
to deliver a baby.

You therefore have the burden of showing what is the difference in the
unborn baby one minute - or one second - before birth, and the baby once
born. There is, of course, *no* morally meaningful difference. You're
just fucked, little sophist - you can't say what creates a person.

"Clump of cells" is politically and legally convenient for you, little
sophist, but it's logically and morally untenable...and you *know* it,
little sophist shitstain.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Rudy Canoza
You pro-abortion mob believe that "live birth" magically creates a
person. You believe that because the developing baby isn't a person
until "live birth", it can be killed with impunity at *any* time prior
to live birth, including when the woman has gone into labor and is about
to deliver a baby.

I don't believe it is moral to kill a fetus seconds before live birth.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you didn't. You didn't at all, little sophomore. What you did was
to try to attack a premise - the fetus is a person - by expressing your
childish unhappiness with an implication of the truth of the premise.
Your unhappiness with the implication, of course, in no way challenges
the truth of the premise. You didn't attack the truth of the premise at
all, little sophomore.

The premise is incontestably true: the fetus is a person.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you didn't. You didn't at all, little sophomore. What you did was
to try to attack a premise - the fetus is a person - by expressing your
childish unhappiness with an implication of the truth of the premise.
Your unhappiness with the implication, of course, in no way challenges the
truth of the premise. You didn't attack the truth of the premise at all, little sophomore.
The premise is incontestably true: the fetus is a person.

Exactly. He appealed to emotion over logic. That doesn't work. He needs to
come up with an objection to at least one of your steps.

Meanwhile, Cloud Hobbit mentioned another aspect, that the fetus is living
inside the mother, but you might not have noticed because Google Groups
won't let him cross-post.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza
All living human beings are persons, regardless of their stage of
development and regardless of their mental or emotional or moral ability
at any given moment. There is no way around it, except by some arbitrary
and capricious declaration that is intellectually indefensible.

Nail hit head. That's the convincing argument. If anybody has a solid
counter, I'd like to read it.

If Rudy is correct, then a woman who has an abortion must be punished as
a first-degree murderer. I think that result is absurd. If you do to,
then you must conclude that a fetus is not a person.

I recall when I tried to follow the argument before and concluded then that
I'm just not bright enough to come to a conclusion. But Rudy does make a
very good case. Where does it fail?

I just told you.

No, you didn't. You didn't at all, little sophomore. What you did was
to try to attack a premise - the fetus is a person - by expressing your
childish unhappiness with an implication of the truth of the premise.
Your unhappiness with the implication, of course, in no way challenges the
truth of the premise. You didn't attack the truth of the premise at all, little sophomore.
The premise is incontestably true: the fetus is a person.

Exactly. He appealed to emotion over logic. That doesn't work.

He's a sophist. Sophists always think they can make sophistry work.

Post by Ted
He needs to come up with an objection to at least one of your steps.
Meanwhile, Cloud Hobbit mentioned another aspect, that the fetus is living
inside the mother, but you might not have noticed because Google Groups
won't let him cross-post.

What group was it in? To whom was he replying? Sometimes I look for
those in Google, other times I temporarily subscribe to a group to find
a message not found in a group to which I subscribe.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tu
rning -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>

<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>

<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>

<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>

<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>

<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>

<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://www.prochoice.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>

<http://www.mariestopes.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>

<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.

Of course it is. The brain isn't completely turned on a few seconds before birth.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:50:16 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob have to lie to themselves, and to others, about the
moral and physical status of the entity they wish to kill. They claim it
isn't human, or isn't "a" human, but it clearly is. They claim it isn't
a person, but they cannot give a coherent definition of person that would
exclude the developing unborn human being.

Exactly.

The key point is that their definition of person is contrived, and
incoherent. The mere fact of live birth certainly isn't what creates a
person - the just-born baby is no different physically or mentally from
the baby a minute or a few seconds before birth.

Of course it is. The brain isn't completely turned on a few seconds before birth.

These liars pretend that all abortions are late term, Nobody wants to
abort a fetus a minute before birth.

Somewhere into the third trimester, it becomes viable outside the
womb.

But because you can't point to a particular time, for the same reason
you can't determine when green becomes blue in the spectrum, they play
safe and prohibit it during the third trimester.

During the second, they are not viable for the same reason yellow
isn't blue.

Yet.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob

There's no such thing.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:48:44 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

Nothing to do with "the left", liar who attributes everything he
doesn't like to "the left" as if it was one homogeneous group that
always thought the same way on everything.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

Where did anybody say that, liar who puts words into other people's
mouths it knows were neither said nor meant?

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

The Liars For God have eliminated the different words for the various
stages, and replaced them all with "baby", and they ignore anything
using the original words - eg a batboys isn't a baby, but they call it
one to generate a mental picture of something warm and cuddly that you
burp.

And when they don't have the word, they don't even have the concept,
So when you talk about it the different stages along a spectrum, it's
just so much meaningless noise to them.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted
Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob

Liar.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
There's no such thing.

These loonies post their unsolicited nonsense where it is neither
wanted nor needed, insist that falsehoods are fact, and don't even try
to defend it.

Everything they do obstructs the "discussion" they start, because of
their intransigence and refusal to try and achieve common ground - not
even commonality of position but the commonality of language with
which to communicate.

They come here, spam us with unsolicited nonsense and bullshit,
insisting taking no notice of the fact that we don't accept the
Orwellian redefinitions that Christian Central has used to control
their minds, and they haven't the intelligence to revert to the
original ones outside their own circle.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:48:44 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turning
-a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind, and
I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was as much in
favor of abortion as you are.

The pro-abortion mob

There's no such thing.

When they lie like this, they shouldn't whine when they reap what they
sow - and they shouldn't follow it up with "all you ever do is call
people liars over differences of opinion".

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turni
ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind,
and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was
as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit? Try these links and perhaps they
can clean out some of Rudy's nonsense:

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

Oh, heck, that's just two out of dozens, but if you want the rest, let me
know.

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-turni
ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution and
basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my mind,
and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it, I was
as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be legal
at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to lie about it.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it,
I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be
legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to lie
about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense. Here's the true
argument:

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-improvi
ng-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43>

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it,
I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be
legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to lie
about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be
legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to
lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing, he's
lying.

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be
legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to
lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing, he's
lying.

Oh good, then it'll be easy. When Rudy said "mental ability cannot be what
makes for a person" that's a lie and nonsense, right?

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-t
ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to be
legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately to
lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing, he's
lying.

Oh good, then it'll be easy. When Rudy said "mental ability cannot be what
makes for a person" that's a lie and nonsense, right?

<crickets>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to
be legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going
deliberately to lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing, he's
lying.

Oh good, then it'll be easy. When Rudy said "mental ability cannot be
what makes for a person" that's a lie and nonsense, right?

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>

<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>

<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>

<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>

<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>

<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>

<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>

<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

<http://www.prochoice.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>

<http://www.mariestopes.org>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>

<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

[Ted]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tid
e-t ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I
read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to
be legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going
deliberately to lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing, he's
lying.

Oh good, then it'll be easy. When Rudy said "mental ability cannot be
what makes for a person" that's a lie and nonsense, right?

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Truth-
About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-t
id e-t ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen
many abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed
my mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until
I read it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion
to be legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going
deliberately to lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them, if Rudy's lips are moving or his fingers typeing,
he's lying.

Oh good, then it'll be easy. When Rudy said "mental ability cannot
be what makes for a person" that's a lie and nonsense, right?

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>
<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>
<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43
<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-contro
l>
<http://tinyurl.com/hv52cog>
<http://tinyurl.com/p78s6nl>
<http://tinyurl.com/q8ufgvj>
<http://tinyurl.com/nppjsbe>
<http://tinyurl.com/257n5k6>
<http://tinyurl.com/ovqrxv6>
<http://rhrealitycheck.org/>
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org>
<http://www.imnotsorry.net>
<http://www.prochoice.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement>
<http://www.mariestopes.org>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes_International>
<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412371/-New-England-
Journal-Of-Medicine-Will-Spin-GOP-Anti-Choice-Heads-And-Expose-The-Tru
th- About-PP?detail=emailclassic>
<http://tinyurl.com/q45xwfv>

Are you unable to tell us in your own words, Adam?

Abortion, good. Baby, bad. All praise abortion. We must all make a
clean break with procreation. No baby is involved in any abortion.
Life begins at birth, and not a microsecond befor that. If you don't
like abortion, don't have one. Any reason for an abortion is a good
reason. All women must abort!!! All must praise abortion!!!!!!!!!
A fetus is just tissue, much like a hangnail. Trim it off and stomp
it into the dirt, where it belongs!!!!!!!!! Take all the aborted
fetuses, put them in a canon, and fire them over the Vatican walls!!!
Make the damned Pope clean them up with a cotten swab!!!!! Never
allow fetus filth to become child filth!!!!

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide
-t ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill
children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to
be legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately
to lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them

None of them, of course.
To debate “personhood” is a spiritual, moral, or philosophical
argument. While “personhood” is an abstract argument, “life” is
not. Undisputed science, from a host of sources, states that life
begins at conception.
It's a developing baby - a developing *human* baby. This is not in
rational dispute.

Oh, yes, it is. It's a proven, scientific fact, a fetus is just a fetus,
tissue that needs trimming, much like a hangnail.

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

news:1317221604514000665.892276Sam.M.Tedesco-

Post by Ted

news:1913163960513997088.315482Sam.M.Tedesco-

Post by Ted

news:807796706513993914.750663Sam.M.Tedesco-

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-

tide

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

-t ur ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the
Constitution and basic human rights and decency, but by
technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read
it, I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

Read his argument and get back to me. I'd prefer for abortion to
be legal at any stage of pregnancy. But I'm not going deliberately
to lie about it.

His arguments are all lying bull shit and nonsense.

Which parts are lies and nonsense?

All of them

None of them, of course.
To debate “personhood” is a spiritual, moral, or philosophical
argument. While “personhood” is an abstract argument, “life” is
not. Undisputed science, from a host of sources, states that life
begins at conception.
It's a developing baby - a developing *human* baby. This is not in
rational dispute.

Oh, yes, it is.

No, it isn't. You're disputing it, but you have been proved to be
irrational and a mental defective.

A fetus is just filth, that's a scientific fact!!! All praise to
abortion!!!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

Post by Ted

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ni ng -a gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to think.

It's settled. Not only is it settled by law, the Constitution
and basic human rights and decency, but by technology.

So human rights and decency make it acceptable to kill children?

No child is involved in any abortion. I know, I've seen many
abortions.

Rudy makes a very good argument against abortion. It changed my
mind, and I've not yet read an adequate counter. Up until I read it,
I was as much in favor of abortion as you are.

And you fell for his lying bull shit?

There were no lies in it.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Try these links

Those are the lies.

Says a pro-liar.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Remember always, Rudy Canoza, we must all make a clean break
with procreation.

So procreation is bad?

Yes!

[Ted]

Remember always, Rudy Canoza, we must all make a clean break
with procreation.

So procreation is bad?

Yes!

I agree, sorta. Having kids is a dumb idea. But our DNA strongly disagrees
with us.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Remember always, Rudy Canoza, we must all make a clean break
with procreation.

So procreation is bad?

Yes!

You came into this world through procreation, if you believe procreation
to be bad, it would follow that your very presence on earth is a bad
thing. From there it seems reasonable to conclude that yo must
immediately take your own life. The fact that you have no done so marks
you as a hypocrite of the first order.
You believe that life for others is bad, but that life for you is good.

<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

<http://wonkette.com/605773/texas-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-
improving-womens-health-by-killing-them>

<http://tinyurl.com/hymyr43

<http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12709638/teen-pregnancy-birth-control>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4>

That is the pure truth!!!! All women feel this way.

<http://skepchick.org/2015/07/more-women-regret-having-kids-than-aborting
-them/>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://tinyurl.com/nrd33o4

It's pure truth. Abortion is good. Childbirth is a sick, degenerate,
abomination against all humanity!

<http://www.imnotsorry.net>

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tur
ni ng-

a

gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled.

Not settled, W.T.S., you stupid lying shitbag.

You don't think so???

Guaranteed, stupid shitbag.

Remember, abortion is good, a baby is bad!!!

No, W.T.S, you dumb mackerel cunt.
You didn't really think you'd get away with the stupid nymshift, did
you, W.T.S., you stupid mackerel cunt?
You really are about to get a shovel in your face, bitch.

Go ahead, try it.

Look for it.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Remember always, Rudy Canoza, we must all make a clean break
with procreation.

It's too bad your parents didn't refrain from it. I know they wished
they had. You've made the world a worse place for your entire
existence.

Well, I'm here, and I've made sure plenty of fetus filth never became
child filth.

[Adam A. Wanderer]

Post by Adam A. Wanderer

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20170415/in-states-tide-tu
rni ng-

a

gainst
So abortion is "settled" law?
Perhaps it isn't as "settled" as the left would like us to
think.

It's settled.

Not settled, W.T.S., you stupid lying shitbag.

You don't think so???

Guaranteed, stupid shitbag.

Remember, abortion is good, a baby is bad!!!

No, W.T.S, you dumb mackerel cunt.
You didn't really think you'd get away with the stupid nymshift,
did you, W.T.S., you stupid mackerel cunt?
You really are about to get a shovel in your face, bitch.

Go ahead, try it.

Look for it.

Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Remember always, Rudy Canoza, we must all make a clean break
with procreation.

It's too bad your parents didn't refrain from it. I know they wished
they had.

LOL.

You've made the world a worse place for your entire existence.

Sorta like the Beavis and Butthead Christmas special "It's a miserable
life".

I like to read this web site: <http://www.npg.org/>