Video: AOC supporter suggests canibilism to fight climate change

...it's more theirs than yours or anyone else's.
No person "belongs" to another human being to decide if s/he should live or die. You may have a responsibility to care for that person (we call that state being a "parent"... among others), but that does not confer on you the right to kill him/her, even when inside you.
 
So, we're eating babies, or what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
a first term pregnancy isn't a child.

Doesn't matter what name you want to call it, when conception has occurred there is a human being in there.

Development doesn't have anything to do with the type of life at stake. Plant life is acknowledged to be plant life along all the stages of life cycle development, same goes for animal life. Human life isn't any different just because you want your imagination to let you off the hook.

You're trying to logically dehumanize the unborn child to justify killing it.

That's a human life being taken, and no terminology riddles or mental gymnastics will ever change that.
 
Doesn't matter what name you want to call it, when conception has occurred there is a human being in there.

Development doesn't have anything to do with the type of life at stake. Plant life is acknowledged to be plant life along all the stages of life cycle development, same goes for animal life. Human life isn't any different just because you want your imagination to let you off the hook.

You're trying to logically dehumanize the unborn child to justify killing it.

That's a human life being taken, and no terminology riddles or mental gymnastics will ever change that.

well, that's just like your opinion, man.
 
The baby butchers say, "we don't know if it's life or not, so you can't restrict abortion". But if you don't know, then how can you go forward? If I said there might be a person working on the equipment in an electrical substation, and turning on the power would kill him, would you power up until you did know? Of course not, only a sociopath would do that. But when it comes to abortion, we're told to forge ahead. And with every medical breakthrough that confirms that it is a person, we're told once again that it's inconclusive. It's getting harder to hold the view that it's not a person when there are so many 25-week premie success stories walking around.
 
since these "arguments" for abortion are invariably and inevitably recycling the same old platitudes, embryological nonsense, and logic so shallow a fairly bright garden snail could spot the problems, let me say firmly that this is NOT a matter of "difference of opinions." If it were about "opinions" then "opinions" could be swayed by bringing previously unobserved facts onto the scene. This is about something else altogether, which is 1) the assertion that man is sovereign and accountable to no one and 2) the unwillingness to face true moral guilt and thus an insistence to the right to make up our own fantasy world and live in it. When the bible calls someone a "fool" for rejecting reality and common sense, it is not name calling. It is in fact describing our willingness to abandon logic, science, reason and everything else that characterizes sane people for the purpose of doing what we feel we should have the right to do.

This is why reasoning has zero impact in discusssions like this, because the choices are not based on reason, but rather in the face of all reason.

REASON says that, for example, if I pick up a hitchiker in February in Fargo, and drive across the Dakotas in a blizzard, I MAY NOT INSIST ON MY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FORCE HIM OUT OF MY CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. Even though he is in my car without my permission... I must get him to a spot where he can reasonably expect to live. Moreover, EVEN IF I START OUT ON MY TRIP AND DISCOVER HIM AS A STOWAWAY, if I force him out in a deserted area, I can be charged with a homicide.

So it is with abortion. I have a moral (and what used to be a legal) obligation to attempt to allow this intruder (and an unwelcome child IS an intruder) to exit my property (your body is your property... of all the dumbass assertion by the pro death crowd, they at least got this part right) I must allow the person to exit my property in a way that will reasonably expect their survival. I cannot kill them because I object to them being in the back seat. Nor can I expel them when this means they will almost certainly die. Property rights are high on my list of reasons the gov would exist in the first place, but right to life trumps property rights.

Pro aborts are simply confused, but they are willingly so, preferring to believe illogical and self contradictory nonsense rather than face where logic and reason would naturally take them.
 
It's also fact, but I certainly agree that it's my opinion as well. Don't let my facts get in the way of your feelings though...
This is funny. A pro Lifer accusing a Pro Choice person of the feelz.

Just sayin' If men had to carry babies there wouldn't be a debate.
 
I can see why men though are definitely of that persuasion. It makes a woman like a rental car. Use her. Vacuum her out. Use her again. Easy.... and so convenient
 
This is funny. A pro Lifer accusing a Pro Choice person of the feelz.

Just sayin' If men had to carry babies there wouldn't be a debate.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'd get even more satisfaction out of an attempt to contradict me in a substantive manner, but that would be asking too much.
 
11Kk2lLl.png
 
So when is a baby considered human? Heartbeat? Brain activity? Cell growth? Bake to live without assistance?
 
So when is a baby considered human? Heartbeat? Brain activity? Cell growth? Bake to live without assistance?
We are kind of past that as an argument. I've read enough op-ed pieces with women accepting it a human at conception who still don't care, and believe it is their right to kill.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Doesn't a lot of the aborted babies find use as a stem cell provider? If so, anything for a profit fits the American lifestyle.
 
You're trying to logically dehumanize the unborn child to justify killing it.

Exactly.

This is how we survive encountering the enemy in war...we reduce the enemy down to something sub-human, starting with what we call the enemy.

In the end, the enemy is still human, and it is humans who are killed by other humans in war.

Referring to an unborn child as a "parasite", "undifferentiated clump of cells", or just plain "not human" is doing EXACTLY the same thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom