Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

HR 586 Sancity of Human Life Act

Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:50:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:08:42 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:24:34 AM, Death23 wrote:
Should zygotes have the right to vote?

there's a minimum age to vote, google it.

Durr durr I didn't know that ! Wow!
illegalcombat
Posts: 1,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:08:42 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:24:34 AM, Death23 wrote:
Should zygotes have the right to vote?

there's a minimum age to vote, google it.

Lol, maybe we should move it up 9 months
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:39:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:06:55 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:08:42 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:24:34 AM, Death23 wrote:
Should zygotes have the right to vote?

there's a minimum age to vote, google it.

Lol, maybe we should move it up 9 months

Or 18 years??? Then, like Logan's run or In Tume or Gattica, we are 'returned to the soil' at 35.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.
illegalcombat
Posts: 1,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

It's not too simplistic, have all the sancity of life bullsh*t you want, you ain't going to be able to justify forcing women to use their bodies to save early human organisms, while post birth, thinking , self aware humans are dying all around you, and you can't even get a welfare safety to save them cause you know socialism.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.

Yeah, CPT 59812 has pretty much always been Status indicator E under OPPS and PFFS.

But I'm not a proponent of media driven healthcare. What do I know. Lol
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 2:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.

I've left drops next to the vajayjay before...
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 3:03:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 2:55:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.

I've left drops next to the vajayjay before...

rofl, freedom of choice should also include freedom to be financially responsible for the procedure too. This farce of a claim that it isn't paid by tax payer money is perpetuated by the ignorant who doesn't understand that you increase the LOC add in other dx codes to pad the bill. While it may not directly get covered there are loop holes (love me some loop holes) It's pretty simple, don't allow the procedure to be bundled with anything else and make it cash only, then have all the freedom you like.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 3:03:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:55:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.

I've left drops next to the vajayjay before...

rofl, freedom of choice should also include freedom to be financially responsible for the procedure too. This farce of a claim that it isn't paid by tax payer money is perpetuated by the ignorant who doesn't understand that you increase the LOC add in other dx codes to pad the bill. While it may not directly get covered there are loop holes (love me some loop holes) It's pretty simple, don't allow the procedure to be bundled with anything else and make it cash only, then have all the freedom you like.

I can't wait till later today when I check this about the lectures received from the wisdom of 20 year olds. The enlightenment will be profound... one of my favorite words when I'd do lsd with hippy chicks (90s) and listen to them drivel on just to... leave drops next to the va-j-j.

Even better are the second year law students. I really get a kick from them. I even saw my name in one of the 'sigs'. I was flattered.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 3:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 3:09:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 3:03:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:55:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:48:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:35:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 2:14:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:59:23 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:55:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:43:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 2/16/2017 10:39:27 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

There is an interpretation issue. What exactly is the "right to life" within the context of using another persons body against their will.

HR 587 Protection against forced continuation pregnancy act

A pregnant woman is a person who does not lose bodily rights/autonomy just because she is pregnant. Add to wit, the early human organism, which can neither think, feel, or is self aware, even granting a "right to life" has no right to the womans body, as such the woman can terminate said pregnancy if she so chooses in such a scenario.

Ps: Anti choicers can go get f*ck.

All those in favor say yay

I always find these arguments interesting, it has nothing to do with self aware, feel, or think otherwise animals wouldn't have any "rights" and we could treat them however we wish. Your argument is a bit too simplistic. It's ONLY about a woman's body, otherwise people who are brain dead or born with only a brain stem could be killed and any whim because they would fit your criteria.

Oh brain stems ... they are only good for stem cells. Meh... brain seems, who needs them? They are just overly ripe zygotes.

pretty much, if you don't have use for something kill it, problem solved.

We had this 84 year old fetus once, cancerous too. Thank god we had 12 14 year olds, sexually active, to get a bunch of RU-486... took care of that waste of resource all right! Using our blood for transplants and organs. My convenience, my choice.

It's the new status symbol, they probably get a tattoo for everyone they have, who ever has the most wins! YAY TEAM

I got 6, last year. Tear drops 3 under each eye.

It's called doin' dirt playa

they get the tear drops near the vajayjay, though I do remember this woman who said Medicare (yes medicare, she was a paraplegic) wouldn't pay for any more abortions, guess 10 is the limit.

I've left drops next to the vajayjay before...

rofl, freedom of choice should also include freedom to be financially responsible for the procedure too. This farce of a claim that it isn't paid by tax payer money is perpetuated by the ignorant who doesn't understand that you increase the LOC add in other dx codes to pad the bill. While it may not directly get covered there are loop holes (love me some loop holes) It's pretty simple, don't allow the procedure to be bundled with anything else and make it cash only, then have all the freedom you like.

I can't wait till later today when I check this about the lectures received from the wisdom of 20 year olds. The enlightenment will be profound... one of my favorite words when I'd do lsd with hippy chicks (90s) and listen to them drivel on just to... leave drops next to the va-j-j.

Even better are the second year law students. I really get a kick from them. I even saw my name in one of the 'sigs'. I was flattered.

rofl, with some many know everythings how come they haven't cured all the world's ills? Their pure genius just isn't recognized for what it is, perhaps it actually is.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2017 3:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2017 1:04:17 AM, Stupidape wrote:
What do you think of HR 586, are you for or against?

"Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives."


https://www.congress.gov...

I think though it makes sense this has, at this time, starkly contrasting cultural implications. To be clear, this is the ONLY pro-life stance one can hold, that is giving a fetus human rights, and letting the legal battles ensue to find where equilibrium sets in. Its the last great frontier for progressives, the last of the Americans who don't have a slew of formal rights.

Anything else and you are just....I don't know, screwing with peoples lives.

While the mentality is propagating still, the actual perspective, the heart of the culture from the time before Plan B, C, and D if fading, you know back when folks just had to step up to this kind of stuff, cuz sex means babies. Within the next 20 years or so, we will have entire generations of mothers and fathers who grew up thinking of sex as fun and adventure, exploration of your sexuality....all that, with the off chance that you have to go to the doctor. The church is gonna raise hell while it can.

Sex isn't attached to responsibility anymore. No one thinks about it in terms of, oh, I might create another person and have to marry this girl because that person is my son.

A) Single Moms are a legit thing now - Marriage is not so intertwined with sex anymore
B) CONTRACEPTION - Sex is no longer a direct perception - Its merely associated with babies.
C) Back up plan - You pay some money - The sex was worth it.

Its virtually risk free to fvck bitches these days if you wear a condom, and people have condoms. Sex becomes something with far lighter weight in ones mind, and has been dissociated from the established cultural norms that were built around it. All that stands in its way at this point is the source of all human rights, religions, and people love sex. I don't mean Christianity when I say religions. I mean we think about rights in a religious sense, no matter who you are.

Kids right now talk about pregnancy like its a medical condition that just happens to them, and its easy to see how that irrationality is percieved. After all, sex is okay now, and usually it doesn't result in a baby. Usually if you shoot a gun in the air it won't put a bullet in someones chest, and from your end it might not look like there is anything in front of you. Then you get from that, the idea that a fetus is just a medical symptom, something that happened, something to be dealt with, something that is inflicting upon the mother, rather than the old mentality of something that the parents created. Sex in the latest generations is talked about like mountain biking, part of life, and in no way connected with responsibility for ones actions, but you might have to see the doctor if there is an accident. That, is a pretty big contradiction in our society right now, between places where the internet reigns as supreme cultural influence with its prevalent message being sexual freedom, and places that change slower, and still view the subject in terms of the child.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.