A Rebellious People

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What's a 'chomo'?

The Intertubz defines that word as short for 'child molester'.  Dude has a lot of info on some pretty foul things.

That’s what I get for suggesting this guy find some professional help. In return for my concern for his mental well-being, I get called a kiddie fucker. *sigh*

Boru

[arewethereyet]

The Intertubz defines that word as short for 'child molester'.  Dude has a lot of info on some pretty foul things.

That’s what I get for suggesting this guy find some professional help. In return for my concern for his mental well-being, I get called a kiddie fucker. *sigh*

Boru

Considering some of the crap he has spewed on this thread, I don't think his opinion means much to anyone other than himself.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s what I get for suggesting this guy find some professional help. In return for my concern for his mental well-being, I get called a kiddie fucker. *sigh*

Boru

Considering some of the crap he has spewed on this thread, I don't think his opinion means much to anyone other than himself.

'I think a modicum of gratitude would not be outta line here.' - Vincent LaGuardia Gambini

Boru

[Authari]

To damn bad son, 

Yes too bad for you that nothing grants it the right to live in her body. 

that infant is in its natural environment where nature intended it to be, 

Nope,  it's got to be there only if the mother wills it. Otherwise, she has every right to kick it out. Nothing in nature grants entitles it to live there. 

the womb evolved to be such to contain life within it, when you say it has no right you are railing against billions of years of evolution saying that baby has every right to be where it naturally should be,

Whether the womb evolved for a certain function in no way grants it the right to stay there and in no way denies the woman the right to remove it from her body. 

 its sad truly that the moment humanity had the ability to cut life from the womb, 

Nope, it's wonderful women have bodily rights and are not enslaved to their biology as you seem to want it. 

it did so to avoid their shame, not because 'it didn't have the right' RIGHTS mind you which nature so graciously endowed them with otherwise if nature felt it didn't have the right to be in the womb it would never have evolved the womb to begin with.

There is nothing about the evolution of the womb that endows it with the right to be there and denies the women the right to remove it. And it has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with dignity and choice. 

Just because you say 'it doesn't have the right' seems to make you think invalidates all the points I brought up, just like when Christians say 'its in the Bible!' and you rail against them for saying that, 'it doesn't have the right' is your bible something which is ONLY TRUE because YOU SAID SO. That sir is circular logic, which proves you lost the argument.

Actually, it does invalidate all your points and to date, you have not provided a single relevant counter aside from assertions and nothing I have said is circular in the slightest so this is a false comparison. So no you have lost the argument in every way you could. Its ontological state does not grant it the right to live inside someone else this is not a circular claim and you have yet to even come close to countering it. 

And FYI 98% of women invited that life into their womb willingly, those are the consequences of sex, you sir are a man who wants to be free of consequences so you got a vasectomy, (free of sexual consequences) and became an atheist (free of moral consequences) you ditched the idea of Sin altogether yet tell me sir, how is it not a SIN for a mother to kill her child? Yes it is in the womb, but that is STILL HER CHILD. What you advocate is the destruction of the bonds between a mother and her children, how is that not sinful?

No one invited that life anywhere and even if they did they have every right to change their mind. But sex is not an invitation to be pregnant nor is there any reason they should remain so if they don't want to. And no I got a vasectomy because my family has a disposition toward a certain inheritable illness and I didn't think it was right to have children because I would pass it on. I became an atheist because I didn't find religious claims convincing and I more than believe in moral consequences just not to imaginary wizards in the sky. And it's not a sin (because sins are imaginary) to choose not to remain pregnant and it's her womb and she has every right to remove it from her womb. The only thing I advocate for is choice. Nothing more and nothing less.

When a Rapist holds down a woman to force himself unto because the act of violating a woman and forcing her to live with what they inflicted on her because the thought of them remembering what they did to them turns them on. How is that not a Sin?

I never said that wasn't bad. I have no idea what your point is here. My point was killing rapists will just back them into a corner and make them more violent. 

You let Sin into your heart and you are a Lost Soul. I'll be praying that one day you will not PROFANE LOVE. THANK YOU.

You let irrationality into your brain and are a lost soul. I'll think for you and one day you might not profane the rights of women ...

 Ah sweet victory, so this is what it is like to relish in the utter defeat of my enemies. Glorious.

[no one]

Does oxygen get you high?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes too bad for you that nothing grants it the right to live in her body. 



Nope,  it's got to be there only if the mother wills it. Otherwise, she has every right to kick it out. Nothing in nature grants entitles it to live there. 



Whether the womb evolved for a certain function in no way grants it the right to stay there and in no way denies the woman the right to remove it from her body. 



Nope, it's wonderful women have bodily rights and are not enslaved to their biology as you seem to want it. 



There is nothing about the evolution of the womb that endows it with the right to be there and denies the women the right to remove it. And it has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with dignity and choice. 



Actually, it does invalidate all your points and to date, you have not provided a single relevant counter aside from assertions and nothing I have said is circular in the slightest so this is a false comparison. So no you have lost the argument in every way you could. Its ontological state does not grant it the right to live inside someone else this is not a circular claim and you have yet to even come close to countering it. 



No one invited that life anywhere and even if they did they have every right to change their mind. But sex is not an invitation to be pregnant nor is there any reason they should remain so if they don't want to. And no I got a vasectomy because my family has a disposition toward a certain inheritable illness and I didn't think it was right to have children because I would pass it on. I became an atheist because I didn't find religious claims convincing and I more than believe in moral consequences just not to imaginary wizards in the sky. And it's not a sin (because sins are imaginary) to choose not to remain pregnant and it's her womb and she has every right to remove it from her womb. The only thing I advocate for is choice. Nothing more and nothing less.


I never said that wasn't bad. I have no idea what your point is here. My point was killing rapists will just back them into a corner and make them more violent. 



You let irrationality into your brain and are a lost soul. I'll think for you and one day you might not profane the rights of women ...

 Ah sweet victory, so this is what it is like to relish in the utter defeat of my enemies. Glorious.

Nope, you're the only one here who has suffered utter defeat I'm afraid. My banner flies high over the burning ruins of your non points. And you in those ruins you sit so broken by the utter humiliation you have suffered that you have become delirious and are imagining things that have not occurred as to not have to face the shame of your complete annihilation by my hands. Absolutely fabulous this TOTAL VICTORY of mine !!!



I dedicate MY unchallenged and absolute victory over you to the glorious nation of Canada 


By contrast here is your flag of surrender

A flag that truly suits you  

[arewethereyet]

Yes too bad for you that nothing grants it the right to live in her body. 



Nope,  it's got to be there only if the mother wills it. Otherwise, she has every right to kick it out. Nothing in nature grants entitles it to live there. 



Whether the womb evolved for a certain function in no way grants it the right to stay there and in no way denies the woman the right to remove it from her body. 



Nope, it's wonderful women have bodily rights and are not enslaved to their biology as you seem to want it. 



There is nothing about the evolution of the womb that endows it with the right to be there and denies the women the right to remove it. And it has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with dignity and choice. 



Actually, it does invalidate all your points and to date, you have not provided a single relevant counter aside from assertions and nothing I have said is circular in the slightest so this is a false comparison. So no you have lost the argument in every way you could. Its ontological state does not grant it the right to live inside someone else this is not a circular claim and you have yet to even come close to countering it. 



No one invited that life anywhere and even if they did they have every right to change their mind. But sex is not an invitation to be pregnant nor is there any reason they should remain so if they don't want to. And no I got a vasectomy because my family has a disposition toward a certain inheritable illness and I didn't think it was right to have children because I would pass it on. I became an atheist because I didn't find religious claims convincing and I more than believe in moral consequences just not to imaginary wizards in the sky. And it's not a sin (because sins are imaginary) to choose not to remain pregnant and it's her womb and she has every right to remove it from her womb. The only thing I advocate for is choice. Nothing more and nothing less.


I never said that wasn't bad. I have no idea what your point is here. My point was killing rapists will just back them into a corner and make them more violent. 



You let irrationality into your brain and are a lost soul. I'll think for you and one day you might not profane the rights of women ...

 Ah sweet victory, so this is what it is like to relish in the utter defeat of my enemies. Glorious.

So now you can leave?     Toodles.

[Authari]

 Ah sweet victory, so this is what it is like to relish in the utter defeat of my enemies. Glorious.

Nope, you're the only one here who has suffered utter defeat I'm afraid. My banner flies high over the burning ruins of your non points. And you in those ruins you sit so broken by the utter humiliation you have suffered that you have become delirious and are imagining things that have not occurred as to not have to face the shame of your complete annihilation by my hands. Absolutely fabulous this TOTAL VICTORY of mine !!!



I dedicate MY unchallenged and absolute victory over you to the glorious nation of Canada 


By contrast here is your flag of surrender

A flag that truly suits you  

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir, I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision. Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Authari

Ah sweet victory, so this is what it is like to relish in the utter defeat of my enemies. Glorious.

Mate, you couldn’t get a victory if you were standing in the middle of a crowd of victories at the height of the victory mating season doing the victory mating dance and covered in victory musk.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir

And they do not there is nothing you have appealed to thus far that would grant them such an intrusive right.

 I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision.

Because the fetus exists in her body and the state of pregnancy is a function of her body as well as the act of sex. No one has the right to curtail her sexual freedoms nor any right to keep her in a state of pregnancy against her will. And nothing you have presented thus far can give such a prescription that it does.

 Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. 

Prove to me that it does. Give the prescription that gives it the right to live in someone else's body against will. You can't because it doesn't exist. Appealing to DNA won't do it. Appealing to anatomy won't do it. It's fiction.

And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

The fetus's ability to think is irrelevant to the fact it's living in her body and she has the right to expel it and no fact you can't point to says she doesn't.


Now keep waving your surrender flag



Meanwhile


The glorious Maple Leaf flies proudly!!!