Mike Pence for President.

Just toddle down to your local abortion clinic and bring back one of these aborted humans and display it's human characteristics for me.

The golfer only has lies but as a redneck that's all you need. 

BTW what is your claim?

How is your dehumanizing of muslims going? Tell me all about muslims

They certainly restrict use though. Like when you can't buy it. 

You continue to run away from the discussion taking place, that discussion concerns a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I don't care how misogynistic you are you have no right to deny her that right. Stick to the subject.

What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?

What is the unborn spoken of? 

Is it a human being?

Is it alive?

Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? 

Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date. 

How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.

Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.

Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.

Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development? 

Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute

What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?

This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance. 

The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick. 

What is the unborn spoken of? 

Is it a human being?

Is it alive?

Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? 

Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date. 

How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.

Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.

The unborn is simply the various developmental phases of H. Sapien. Is it a human being? Depends on the developmental phase. For example, there is a vast difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a foetus that is just about to be born. The criteria of which I outlined in my previous post.

Is it alive? Depends on the developmental phase again. 

Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? Yes

Or to put it succinctly, certain developmental phases of H. Sapien, while members of the H. Sapien species, are not human beings. Therefore there is nothing to downgrade.

Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.

I mean.. it's not really a question of science. It's a question of philosophy and definition. What do you mean by human? Are all human beings humans? Are all homo sapiens human beings?

For example, in the dystopian scenario I gave out before, how would you describe such individuals? They are quite clearly homo sapiens. But are they humans? Human beings? What level of rights would you give to such beings?

Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development? 

To be clear, we aren't killing a human being. We are extinguishing an early developmental phase of H. Sapiens. I say extinguishing, because killing implies the taking of a life. And again, the sum of experiences is where I think a reasonable line can and should be drawn.

Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute

That *is* what we base our lives on right? What is useful to us and what isn't useful to us? But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. I make no argument for killing human beings, and you equating it so does not make it true.

#2560-- have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.

#262 Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?

PGA2 is likened to energy black hole as they keep sucking in energy and give nothing back of any significant relevance.

The fetus/baby is not and "other". It is an organism of the mother and untill PGA2 can accept this truth - fact he will keep sucking energy out of others using the same lack of rational, logical common sense.

1} Other = independent/individual offspring that is viable and,

2}  NOT inside  a woman where it is  reciving all nutirents from directly from womans body.

PGA2 is basically a immature adult acting like a two year that keeps saying no to rational, logical common sense.

A two year cannot make a distinction between this and/or that because they lack the emotion and intellectual experience.

A two year old is likened to a infant and they are all ego, its all about me, and all else is excluded including rational, logical common sense.

PGA2 is all about ego based mind-games the suck energy from people not give energy to people.

A person on anesthesia is not viable as well.  Is it justified to kill someone who is in a vegetative state if you know they are going to recover?  Your characteristics are:

A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily. It doesn't mean that they are not able to survive independently

A homeless person hasn't achieved anything worthy to society, experienced much when they were asleep, and contributed anything of value to society.  They are a net drain on society for possibly their whole life.  Does this justify killing homeless people, or does this make killing a homeless person significantly less bad then killing a typical white collar worker?  

For example, if I were to get a girl pregnant (I don't want to), I wouldn't have to go far, my mom said she is willing to take care of the child.  However, if the answer to any of the 5 questions is yes, then you don't have to set the kid up for adoption since someone else can take care of the child.  The reason why foster places exist is because people often resort to foster care places instead of the 5 filter policy.

Lets say for the sake of argument that kids get absolutely messed up without their biological parents(they don't.  I met 2 foster people and they aren't messed up).  Isn't it better to be messed up then dead?  Many people would say that I'm messed up by having autism, but it's better to be autistic then dead.  Can you define being messed up?

They probably will have some job.  Only 3.7% of America is unemployed.  They probably are a little less likely to be employed, but if they get parents, then they'll probably be employed by the time they are adults.

As the population increases, the urbanization increases, the technological development rate increases, and society becomes richer.  The quality of life for the individual person goes up exponentially as % of population becoming urban goes up (https://paulromer.net/old-blog/urbanization-versus-gdp-per-capita/index.html).  This is why the world's GDP is increasing as the population increases.  More people means more money per person.

A person on anesthesia has just been knocked out temporarily.

Moreover my threshold is quite simple. Have that sum be over 0.

For example, were a fire to break out in a hospital ward and only one person between a little girl and an old man in a coma were able to be saved, While all life is sacred, some lives are just implicitly more so, even if not explicitly said. 

Such decision processes are already inherently integrated.

How is that not emotional blackmail? Forcing someone to make a choice which results in either abandoning an innocent child of a loved one, or heavily degrading their own lives and the childs regardless

It's not a question of being dead. It's question of existing at all.

is defined by memories and experiences

"if" they get parents. What happens if they don't?

In terms of averages, they make less of economic impact than their non-disadvantaged peers

Quality of person should be factor. If you flood a country with a million degenerates, the gdp is not going up

Are these people contributing sufficiently in proportion to how much assistance they require?

What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?

You can't even mention the fetus unless you have denied the woman her bodily autonomy, that's what makes you a misogynist, your insistence that women are inferior to you. All women are inferior to you. You have no right to even know what is happening in her body so just fuck off out of it.

This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance. 

It's not a ploy it's the whole discussion, your furphies regarding unborn humans is just some new nonsense to replace your earlier unsuccessful arguments about what your pretend friend wants.

BTW how do you justify the 60% of abortions performed by your invisible friend?

The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick. 

Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period. 

Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.

Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization. 

Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact. 

You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it. 

Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being. 

Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn). 

#2560-- have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.

Yes,

1} your religious extremmist and a Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee,

2} you have yet to use any rational, logical common sense,

3} especially when try to use analogy of a pregnant womans bodily business only, to,

...3a} ....."So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?"...

....3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

.....3c} you lack even  the most basic rational, logical common sense argument.

4} Do you understand any of the above? No? I didnt think because you emotional and intellectual level is not on par with any mature adults on Earth.

5} religous extremism and Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanizm blocks you from truth - facts and rational logical common sense processing Sad :--( 

So once again, please take a hike from me until you become a mature adult who can even the beginnings of access to rational, logical, common sense.

#262 Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?

PGA2 is likened to energy black hole as they keep sucking in energy and give nothing back of any significant relevance.

The fetus/baby is not and "other". It is an organism of the mother and untill PGA2 can accept this truth - fact he will keep sucking energy out of others using the same lack of rational, logical common sense.

1} Other = independent/individual offspring that is viable and,

2}  NOT inside  a woman where it is  reciving all nutirents from directly from womans body.

PGA2 is basically a immature adult acting like a two year that keeps saying no to rational, logical common sense.

A two year cannot make a distinction between this and/or that because they lack the emotion and intellectual experience.

A two year old is likened to a infant and they are all ego, its all about me, and all else is excluded including rational, logical common sense.

PGA2 is all about ego based mind-games the suck energy from people not give energy to people.

Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period. 

Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.

Who's making assertions now?

I think I've made a reasonable case as to why certain prenatal stages are not/should not be considered human beings. Meanwhile, you keep asserting that what immediately comes from fertilization is immediately a human being. Is this something you can actually justify?

To be clear, I don't have an issue calling what comes from fertilization a developmental stage of Homo Sapien. I have an issue calling it a human being. Do you understand the distinction I've made here and previously?

How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?

Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings. 

Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).

You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so. 

I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking. 

Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human. 

You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling. 

"Developing stage?" 

What is developing? It is a human being that is developing. 

All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?

Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human. 

There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being. 

If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words. 

What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being. 

In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization. 

It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute. 

IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.

You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you. 

Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores. 

You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless. 

When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being.

Proven false billions of times a day.