[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The STAGE of the chicken[/quote]
of course it is , Holy POO we agree:)
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
More than one sperm and an egg are needed to qualify as a person.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]
[/quote]
Holy POO we agree again
So now you agree that a chicken is a chicken from the moment of conception, good to know.
How are humans any different?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The STAGE of the chicken[/quote]
of course it is , Holy POO we agree:)[/quote]
GOOD to know you can agree with certain logic.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
More than one sperm and an egg are needed to qualify as a person.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote][/quote]
Holy POO we agree again[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]
It’s funny that because you can’t get the point you think it will end in failure…
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. [/quote]
Horse shit.
Prolife is up 10% in 20 years. You’re making up nonsense. [/quote]
If that’s all the info you got from the inconclusive graph, you are a perfect example of confirmation bias.
- Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far
- Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years
- And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?[/quote]
Tells me I have confirmation bias, ignores the parts of the graph that don’t suit his narrative. lmao.
Good luck with that shit homie.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far[/quote]
Okay? You’re claim, that is still very wrong was “if anything its arguably more accepted these days.” Funny you ignore the parts of the graph that clearly point out you’re wrong, and project your “confirmation bias” on me.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years[/quote]
20 year trend > 4 year trend. But you know, keep on projecting.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
- And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?[/quote]
And most importantly, you claimed “if anything its arguably more accepted these days.” Nothing in the above quote supports that. It’s completely irrelevant.
Fuck. If a single one of you pro-aborts could graduate from Pitttbull’s Dipshit Elementary school that would be great. [/quote]
If more years is better how about that 0% gain in the last 18 years? I gave 3 examples that show pro life isn’t gaining popularity. That is “arguably” more than your 1 example. Here are some more
- In the last 40 years, 8% gain in “legal in all circumstances”
- More people today say abortion is morally acceptable than ANY previous year
- On every year of the survey less than 30% said they want stricter abortion laws
- On every year over 60% say abortion should be legal in the first trimester
So you tell me, why do 44% of people identify as pro life yet less than 30% want stricter abortion laws and more than 60% are OK with it legal in the first trimester? I guess if you only agree with abortion in the first trimester you don’t support it 2/3 of the time, rounding up that’s pro life, right?
Some forms of birth control (i.e., the ones that are insulated from user error) have a very strong reductive effect on abortion:
Which brings us back around to the enormous stupidity of kneedragger, an anti-abortion crusader if ever there was one, hawking one of the riskiest possible birth control methods. If you don’t want people to terminate pregnancies, what kind of fatuous contortionism pits you against birth control methods with near-zero failure rates? Ah, that’s right.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If more years is better how about that 0% gain in the last 18 years? [/quote]
lol. 18 isn’t “more” than 20, and it’s irrelevant, it still doesn’t support your bullshit claim.
No you didn’t. You used a completely different graph to try and project your own bias on me. You admit as much in the end of this very post.
This is the only point you’ve had the entire time that actually supports your incorrect assertion. Unfortunately, 11%>8% therefore your claim that it is “more acceptable” today is still the utter nonsense it was when you first posted it.
Holy shit… That is actually two points you’ve made that even relevant. Too bad it’s hogwash. A hundred and sixty years ago people said the same thing about slavery. Shit Biz in this very thread is STILL trying to argue the utter tripe that “it’s legal therefore moral”. I notice you don’t mention the amount this went up by… I wonder if it’s because it’s less than 11%?
[quote]- On every year of the survey less than 30% said they want stricter abortion laws
- On every year over 60% say abortion should be legal in the first trimester[/quote]
These are irrelevant appeals to popularity. There was a point in time not long ago people like you would be using the very same statistics to ignore science and logic and push to own black people. Coincidently you’d vote democrat then just as now too.
Considering we live in a world where not that long ago owning people was considered moral, doctors didn’t figure out they need to wash there hands until about 160 years ago, and the vast majority of people thought the world was flat… I’m not big on appeals to popularity as any sort of gage of anything relevant.
I don’t know, let me count the possibilities:
Wording of the questions in the poll effecting answers.
People being okay with the current restrictions in place.
Conditioning that anyone who dare understand science and logic is now anti-woman from mass media and pro-aborts.
Because people were brainwashed by their parents into thinking the whole sale slaughter of innocent human beings is cool.
Because people like to deny science.
People understanding it isn’t a legal issue as much as a social one, and changing laws doesn’t solve the problem.
People are willing to dance with the devil and compromise.
[quote] I guess if you only agree with abortion in the first trimester you don’t support it 2/3 of the time, rounding up that’s pro life, right?
[/quote]
Yeah, that must be it.
Maybe I’m blessed because I’ve grown up and become a rational adult when it comes to abortion. I have become honest about what it is, and understand basic 101 biology and logic. Because I understand what it’s like to be pro-abortion, to pretend away all the realty of the situation, to feel brow beaten by society unless you’re on the winning team. I understand the rationalizations, I did it too.
But it is beyond clear that the vast majority of pro-aborts have never actually sat down and thought about what abortion truly is. They have never taken the time to understand the science, or work out the logic. And if they have, they are too much of a coward to not be on the “popular” team when I comes to society. Or too scared to admit what they support. The whole sale slaughter of innocent humans for convenience.
How on earth a rational person can continue to argue that a 17% swing towards prolife doesn’t destroy the false assertion of “if anything it’s more accepted today” is fucking beyond me.
How that person can project their confirmation bias on me is also a mystery.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The STAGE of the chicken[/quote]
of course it is , Holy POO we agree:)
[/quote]
Who gives a shit about a chicken?
Beans
“This is the only point you’ve had the entire time that actually supports your incorrect assertion. Unfortunately, 11%>8% therefore your claim that it is “more acceptable” today is still the utter nonsense it was when you first posted it.”
So let me get this straight, a 11% change in 20 years is more significant than 8% change in 40 years? So if I could find 1 example of a 12+% change on any time period then it would counter your example?
"These are irrelevant appeals to popularity. There was a point in time not long ago people like you would be using the very same statistics to ignore science and logic and push to own black people. Coincidently you’d vote democrat then just as now too. "
My original bullshit claim was in regards to popularity, I know they are irrelevant as much as you do yet you keep trying to prove it wrong. I know the science and logic but I’m only speaking about public opinion for the moment, since when does public opinion follow science or logic?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ratios are not important. Raw numbers are. Would the holocaust be any less horrible if there were more Jews in the Germany at the time, but the same number murdered?
[/quote]
It would be less horrible but that is a bad example since there was so many to begin with and it was a one time event vs a disease which is more of a constant rate we can measure the rate of year by year for a long period of time.
[quote]pat wrote:
Second of all. All the charts and graphs failed to show that the any decline in abortion was due to the availability of birth control. That was the point. Not reductions in abortions, reductions in abortion due to the availability and use of birth control. This was not demonstrated.
Perhaps the reduction was due to increased conscience and awareness that the reality of abortion is murder and people no longer want to be a part of this silent holocaust.
[/quote]
Bismark answered this one already
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. Did you hear about that shout your abortion thing recently on social media?[/quote]
Shout your abortion? Are you proud of it? Did you shout yours?[/quote]
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23shoutyourabortion[/quote]
I don’t have twitter. But let’s look at your claim. Your claim is, that because some vile people are proud to have killed their children, that makes it okay to kill children?
You’re desperate.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Attempts to affect the supply side of abortion are doomed to end in abject failure.[/quote]
It’s funny that because you can’t get the point you think it will end in failure…
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Abortion acceptance has not really changed either, if anything its arguably more accepted these days. [/quote]
Horse shit.
Prolife is up 10% in 20 years. You’re making up nonsense. [/quote]
If that’s all the info you got from the inconclusive graph, you are a perfect example of confirmation bias.
- Pro choice has been higher a majority of the time, by far
- Pro life is down 6% in just 4 years
- And most importantly, in any of the last 30 years about 80% support abortion in at least some cases, maybe they aren’t so pro life after all?[/quote]
How did you get 80% when none of the polls indicated show that?
What we also do not know is what the question ‘% legal under certain circumstances’ covers. If it covers protecting the life of the mother, that’s a very different thing then say if it covers up to a certain point in the pregnancy. So at best the actual data displayed is vague and it does not support your contention.
You’re making up numbers out of thin-ass air, Beans is presenting actual data.
Actual data wins over made-up data every time.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fuck. If a single one of you pro-aborts could graduate from Pitttbull’s Dipshit Elementary school that would be great.
[/quote]
Like semen is a human life?
I like how desperately he hangs on to that one. He acts like that is going to actually convince us that because semen is part of the reproductive process, that it’s a human life.
Maybe if we lived in the same trailer park as he does, we would also be convinced??
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
My original bullshit claim was in regards to popularity, [/quote]
Right.
And there has been a 17 point swing in the direction of pro-life. Yes being pro-life is still the “red headed stepchild” of social taboos, but end of the day, the appeal to popularity is irrelevant. Because being an abolitionist was also once a red head stepchild.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Every single abortion slaughters an innocent child, in their first home. Abortion is not just a social issue but an ethical one as well. The full impact of the atrocious actions will not be seen until much later, very similar to the holocaust of the Jews, the genocides of history and slavery.
I refuse to sit idly by and watch people openly killing of faultless children.
You misunderstand. I was replying to pats comment about Polio and trying to help him understand why ratios are important. Then you come along talking about genocide and slavery.[/quote]
Here ya go, stats:
Show me where in the stats where birth control is mentioned as a contributing factor in the reduction of abortions?
Go on. Because what I said is that there is no correlation between the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control and the abortion rate. There are stats that indicate a slight decline in abortion, but no where does it say that it is due to the increase in acceptance and affordability of birth control.
It’s amazing that you can use charts and graphs and government data and still manage to talk out of your ass.[/quote]
The lead author of a Guttmacher Institute study on abortion rates in the United States notes that “the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD.”
[/quote]
And where did you obtain this info? I will accept it if you provide the link. It’s rather unusual that you did not in this case.
The attached fact sheet does not mention the above quote.
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Further, IUD is a controversial contraception as it’s method of action is that of an abortifacient. It does not prevent fertilization, it prevents implantation. [/quote]
You’re patently incorrect. IUD aren’t abortifacient. They primarily prevent fertilization.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]
Wow, for a smart person, which you are, you sure like to hang around in pittbull level idiocy when it comes to this topic.
You project like a mother too. [/quote]
An unfertilized chicken egg is no more of a chicken than an unfertilized human egg is a human.
Project? In what manner? Are you implying unscrupulous behavior on my part?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Two humans at the egg and sperm stage, or a human egg and a human sperm?[/quote]
Wow, for a smart person, which you are, you sure like to hang around in pittbull level idiocy when it comes to this topic.
You project like a mother too. [/quote]
An unfertilized chicken egg is no more of a chicken than an unfertilized human egg is a human.
Project? In what manner? Are you implying unscrupulous behavior on my part?[/quote]
I’m going to be 100% honest here. I have no idea where I was going with that post, which happens from time to time. However, today, I don’t have the energy to go back and figure this one out.
Assume I read you wrong, skimmed it, missed your point or am wrong. I dont’ care, but I can’t answer your questions because I don’t remember where the fuck I was going with that attack, and don’t want to figure it out, lol.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Some forms of birth control (i.e., the ones that are insulated from user error) have a very strong reductive effect on abortion:
Which brings us back around to the enormous stupidity of kneedragger, an anti-abortion crusader if ever there was one, hawking one of the riskiest possible birth control methods. If you don’t want people to terminate pregnancies, what kind of fatuous contortionism pits you against birth control methods with near-zero failure rates? Ah, that’s right.[/quote]
This is what I attempted to convey in an earlier post. Why attempt to usurp Roe v. Wade’s decision that the right to choose abortion (before the third trimester of pregnancy) is “fundamental” in lieu of nipping abortion in the bud by advocating for improved sexual education and subsidized contraception?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property.
The personhood thing is not as simple as many think.
If a zygote/early embryo is a person, it is a person who cannot legally die.
All fifty states consider two general, measurable phenomena in determining the death of a person: irreversible cessation of heart activity, and irreversible cessation of brain activity.
The silence of fetal heart and brain function is, of course, reversible: under normal circumstances, both will be measurable at a particular gestational stage. However, until something has begun, it cannot cease. A zygote/early embryo does not have, and has not since its earliest moment of existence had, either heart or brain activity, which is to say that it is logically impossible for a zygote/early embryo to undergo cessation of heart/brain activity – and, thus, to legally die. A thing that cannot be said to have died cannot be said to have been killed, in which case the earliest abortions kill no people, in which case they ought to be legal.